Look Yourself in the Mirror

When you think of Pittsburgh, what do you think of? You think of steel mills. You think of a town with a blue-collar attitude. You think of the Steelers, the Terrible Towel, the Rooney family, and Troy Polamalu's hair. You think of Sidney Crosby (deservedly so or not). You think of PNC Park (but not necessarily the team that plays there). And if you've ever been there, you think of Primanti Brothers. You know what you don't necessarily think of? College football.

That's not a knock on the Pitt Panthers' program, because they've been more than respectable over the years. What it is, is an indictment of those who essentially ushered head coach Dave Wannstedt out the door this week. It's not that I'm a huge fan of Wannstedt (or "Wannstache," as the popular nickname goes), although as defensive coordinator with Dallas he presided over the best defense of the first half of the '90s. He was also the one who, during the 1992 NFC Championship Game, noted the 49ers' defensive backs were slipping in the middle of the field and urged Norv Turner to try to take advantage of it (skip to the 1:00 mark) at a key moment, resulting in the play that singlehandedly put the game to bed. My problem lies with college football programs that have an inflated sense of self-worth.

Wannstedt had a 42-31 record in six seasons at Pitt, including a 26-12 mark in the past 3 years. Not bad, right? Right. And when you consider it was the best 3-year run that Pitt has had since Dan Marino led them to three straight 11-1 records from 1979-81, it's certainly not too shabby. I know they play in the perennially weak Big East and failing to grab that chip-shot of a BCS berth is a slight disappointment, but come on. Have a sense of perspective. Understand that your program has not been successful enough over the years to have the right to thumb your noses at 26-12. If you're Oklahoma, Alabama, or Texas, then 26-12 might not cut it. At a place like Pitt, it should be considered a nice step forward. Yes it's a double standard, but it's nonetheless true.

Remember Jaff Jagodzinski? Sure you do. He was the head football coach at Boston College two years ago when he got fired for interviewing with the Jets for their then-vacant head coaching position. I went nuts about this when it happened and it still riles me up. Who the hell is BC to be offended if their coach pursues a chance with an NFL team? You do realize that these guys start out as grad assistants working for peanuts in hopes that one day they can sit down in a room with an NFL owner and GM for a few hours, just to have that chance, right? Boston College, which is on a similar level as Pitt - a competent program in a weak conference that has produced a fair share of NFL stars - does not have a leg to stand on when it comes to this stuff. Once again, if you're a school like LSU, Michigan, Florida, Ohio State, then ok, your head coaching job is almost as big as an NFL job would be. But no one grows up saying their dream is to be the head coach at Boston College. It just isn't the way things go. Probably about 85% of FBS coaches are working right now to try to make a big score on their next job. No one likes being a stepping stone, but if your coach wins for you and does things the right way while he's at your school, you have nothing else to really ask for.

The other thing is, college programs rarely can justify firing a successful coach on the grounds of a lack of a championship. It's just not the same deal as it is in the pros, especially considering the rate at which you have to constantly replenish your team's talent. If you win consistently and keep your program visible for the right reasons, you're doing your job. Remember, the underlying purpose of college sports as a whole is to bring positive attention to the academic institution itself. Of course it's big business, but not as big a business as the professional ranks are (at least in theory - I'm sure if you looked at the NBA's books they'd suggest otherwise).

Like the title says, Pitt needs to look itself in the mirror. OK, you're a respectable program. But you play in the Northeast, where college football is not nearly as big a priority as it is in other parts of the country. You play your home games at the Big Ketchup Bottle and don't exactly fill it. The athletic department's meal ticket, for the most part, is still basketball. Who do you think you're going to get to replace Dave Wannstedt that is really going to be any better than he was? To paraphrase Rick Pitino - Bob Stoops is not walking through that door. Mack Brown is not walking through that door. Nick Saban, Les Miles, Mike Gundy, Chip Kelly, Jim Harbaugh - none of them are walking through that door. I do know a guy who'd come through that door, but you may have to widen it first. And he might not be actually "walking" through that door, he may be cruising in on a little motorized shopping cart.

The Trite Utterances of Subpar Sports "Fans," Revisited

By now you know about Braylon Edwards' DWI this past Monday night, in which he blew a .16 BAC. Nearly as bad as the act itself is the common man's reaction where he moans and groans about "oh, he gets to play on Sunday but I'd be fired if it happened at my job," or "who are my kids supposed to look up to?" Let's make it clear. There is no comparing your job to that of a professional athlete. None. They are in two different universes so let's keep them there. We've covered this before so no need to dive back in.

What annoys me is the whole "role model" thing, and don't worry, I'm not going to go Charles Barkley on you. I have a slightly different spin on the matter. If you ask "who are the kids supposed to look up to?" the obvious answer is their parents, but let's keep that aside for the moment. As kids, we all looked up to rock stars, actors, athletes, etc. in addition to our parents - you can't not want to be like the famous people you root for and see on TV or in movies. So let it be a given that kids are going to look up to other people in addition to their family.

The American without perspective says he can't in good conscience have his kids look up to pro athletes because of people like Braylon Edwards. And that's not incorrect, but I offer this counterpoint. What walk of life, what certain occupation, is totally clean of unsavory people? Police? Um, next. How about doctors and/or nurses? Maybe not. Elected politicians and statesmen? You already know where that one's going. How about the seemingly highest of all callings, the priesthood? Not exactly.

So are pro sports really that especially bad? Every certain sample of people is going to have its share of good and bad, a proportionate number of saints and dirtbags. If you say that you can't let 8 year old Timmy root for the Jets anymore since Braylon Edwards got a DWI, and you wonder who he can ever look up to, then by your logic, there is no one to look up to. And please don't say it's a pro athlete's responsibility to be a role model because of all the exposure and money. If anything, the Braylon Edwards fiasco this week provided an opportunity for parents to talk to their kids about how stupid he was to get behind the wheel, and discuss the hundreds of better ways to have handled the situation. Am I wrong?

The Justifications of Bad Bettors

Football season is here, and, more importantly to some, so are the 5 most active months in terms of sports betting. It's no secret that football is king when it comes to sports gambling in this country, and because of that, everyone wants to get after a piece or two of the action. What's interesting is that with the wealth of information we have at our disposal today when it comes to handicapping games (weather reports, injury reports, team blogs updated round the clock, statistics out the wazoo, etc.), the harder it ultimately becomes to make a good bet, because there's simply too much information out there. Your mind can become clouded quite easily.

That being said, there is no secret formula, and if there were, it would have been discovered by now. All you can ask of yourself is to make an informed decision on which team you want to back, because, hey, it's called gambling for a reason. But what cracks me up is when people think they have everything figured out, when all they're really doing is throwing money around with nothing but hollow reasoning. Bad bettors come in all shapes and sizes, but their justifications seem to fit a select few molds.

-"They were due!" Really? Were they due? You hear this a lot when someone bets on a team thinking they're going to snap a losing streak. Chances are, they're not "due," they just stink. It works the other way too - people try to bet on a hot team to lose simply because they're "due." How many people got crushed on that thinking with the 2008 Lions or 2007 Patriots - it's like a guy who's lost 5 straight $20 dollar blackjack hands and tries throwing $100 on the next hand because his luck has eventually got to change. Obviously, streaks come and go, but if you're throwing money out there with only the logic that a team is "due" and nothing else, you might as well go play roulette. (An exception would be when a team is blatantly underperforming or overperforming its talent level, i.e. last year when the Broncos started 6-0 and the Titans started 0-6. It was clear the Broncos were not that good and the Titans were not that bad. But tread that line carefully.)

-Basing this week's game too heavily on last week's game. How many times do you hear "they're mad after getting blown out last week," or "they had an emotional win last week and this will be the letdown" from dimwits that you work with or hear on the radio. People who say this have never played real football before. It's one thing to be extra motivated for a game, but let's make something clear: you always have to be "mad" when you step on a football field. If you're not in some sort of altered mental state, you're going to the hospital. The team that's supposedly "mad" in a game after a 35-point loss was probably just as "mad" when they took the field before that very 35-point loss. I find it hilarious when uninformed people try to all of a sudden enter the psyche of a group of coaches and athletes they've never met personally. One exception is a blatantly disadvantageous travel scenario or short week, especially if team turmoil is somehow involved (i.e. 2008 Thanksgiving, the Cardinals had zero chance coming East to Philly on about two days' rest from their game that past Sunday).

-Finding asinine stats to back up whatever conclusion you want to believe in. Stats are there to allow you to draw a conclusion, not the other way around, because there are so many numbers at our hands that you can hand pick and manipulate almost any stat that supposedly supports your thinking. Covers.com, the website I like to go to for spreads and other information, has on each matchup page a sometimes-useful "trends" section and lists the ten prior meetings between the teams in question (which does you zero good if you have interconference opponents who meet every four years - yeah, those times when Miami and Minnesota met in 2006 and 2002 are really going to help me find an edge for Week 2 in 2010). Some people put so much stock in this stuff, it's amusing. I'd like to meet the guy who reads a stat like "Tampa is 6-1-1 against the spread in its last 8 daytime home games when getting 1.5 points or more" and takes something so obscure as reason enough to plunk money down on the Bucs. That guy is out there somewhere. Hell, that guy is everywhere.

-Blind faith in your own team/blind hatred for your team's rivals. Fandom and betting are a tough mix. I'm not saying you have to ever bet against your favorite team or bet for your most hated team, but money tends to stay in the pockets of those who are objective. Don't allow your biases (and we ALL have biases) to distort your vision. For instance, Dallas has opened between an 8- and 9-point favorite at home against Chicago this coming week. Does the fan in me think they can beat the Bears by double digits? Yes. But the observer in me knows the team is poorly coached, lacks discipline, and most of the time does not do the little things right. I wouldn't even bet on them this week with someone else's money. Show me a guy who bets with his heart instead of his eyes and ears, and I'll show you a guy who helped build Vegas.

In conclusion, all you can ever want is to be above .500. And yes, sometimes lucky is better than good. We're all guilty of this stuff from time to time (you're talking to a guy who once lost $50 in Vegas two years ago because he thought he had a feeling about Boof f*ing Bonser and the Twins in a late May game against the Tigers. The Twinkies only lost that game for me by about 16 runs). But, until next time, remember that there is a difference between a losing bet and a stupid bet.

It's a League Game, Smokey

As we go further and further into the chasm of adulthood, many of us will try to find any way that we can to give ourselves a taste of being a kid. One of those ways to rekindle the good old days is signing up for recreational sports leagues, either an interoffice league at work or a weekend league with friends. When you get down to it, we're all there to try to recapture the time when our little league games where the highlights of the week, when being the guy who batted third or played shortstop was the most important thing in the world. Of course, nowadays it's just beer-league type stuff, a diversion from the routine, a few hours out of the week to scale back the hastiness of everyday life. And while above all else the name of the game (no matter what game you're playing) is having fun, that does not make it OK to blatantly suck and bear no regard for winning.

There's a few people like this on every team, whether it's softball, basketball, volleyball, you name it. They are there "just to have fun" and will remind everyone of that fact with a goofy smile and a shrug of the shoulders every time a botched play draws their teammates' glare. I'm sorry, but "just wanting to have fun" is not a blanket excuse for habitually poor play and/or disregard for fundamentals and strategy. You don't hear people say "wow, look at that, Joe out there has misplayed 3 fly balls this inning and somehow managed to strike out in slow pitch, but he's just here to have fun so it's OK." No, it's not OK. If you put the uniform on and step onto the field/court/rink, your job is to help your team. Fun is a by-product. You know what's fun? Playing well is fun. Winning is fun. Watching your team lose because a mongo wearing the same uniform as you forgot how many outs there were? That, my friends, is not fun.

I'm not saying to treat winning or losing like life or death, because that extreme is even worse than not caring. But just have a clue and take things somewhat seriously. If you fail to do that, you're wasting the time of others who actually care. You're probably the same guy who plays blackjack and doesn't hit a 14 when the dealer is showing a face card. Not to mention, playing on a company team can be politic city, so you can even be damaging your career. I think that's what grinds my gears the most about this matter - why do you sign up for something where you are, in essence, voluntarily embarrassing yourself in front of people whose opinions may matter? On the scale of office unpopularity, being that guy who everyone hopes isn't up to bat next or doesn't get the ball hit to him is only slightly better than being the smelly guy. That's right, the smelly guy. (this is where you nod your head and chuckle in agreement)

Bottom line? If it were just about fun we wouldn't keep score or standings. I'm not saying you have to be an A+ athlete to be on the field, because honestly if any of us were all that good we wouldn't be playing in a simple rec league. What I am saying is to know your limitations - I played intramural basketball in college and my only real value to the team was giving breathers to the guys who were actually good. So when it was a tight situation late in a game, I took myself out. If we lost, at least it wasn't going to be because I traveled. So if you are admittedly not that great a player (and being able to admit it is 90% of the battle), don't trot yourself out to left field in a tie game in the 7th inning, because the ball is going to find you, and odds are, you are not going to catch it.

Fan Foul: Wearing Neutral-Team Attire to a Game

So I'm watching the Yankees/Angels game yesterday afternoon, and something peculiar catches my eye. A ball was popped foul into the stands just off first base, and I spotted a guy sitting in the 2nd or 3rd row, decked out in authentic Padres attire, hat and jersey both. I guess he took a wrong turn on the way to San Diego, wound up in Anaheim, and figured he might as well still go to a ballgame. That's got to be the only explanation, right?

Unfortunately, no. There's an inordinate number of people out there who, when attending a sporting event, find it OK to rock the gear of a team who isn't even involved in the game. If it's just a hat, that's no big deal, since a hat is everyday attire that you can pretty much wear anyplace. I'm talking about being fully garbed - hat, jacket, jersey, etc.- in team apparel, wearing your undying support for a team other than the two that are playing right in front of you. I see, I get it, we are all now aware that you are a fan of Team X even though you've somehow procured tickets to witness a game between Team Y and Team Z. On the scale of annoying fan habits, this is very high, right above kids who wear their Little League uniform to a game, and right below anyone who tries to start a wave.

I remember being at a Cowboys/Eagles game back in '94 or so and standing in the bathroom line next to some whiskey tango-looking dude decked out in Steelers gear from head to toe, and that includes those "so terrible they were awesome" Zubaz pants that were all the rage 20 years ago. The thought that immediately crossed my mind was "if this guy is such a huge Steelers fan that he feels it necessary to dress like this, then why is he here for Cowboys/Eagles at the Vet when he could be watching his own team play as we speak?" And remember, this was way before you could follow an out of town game on your phone, the only way you could find out what was going on around the league was the score updates in the Jumbotron during timeouts and between quarters. I think that's what gets me the most - wearing a neutral team's apparel has an undertone of "this isn't the place I really want to be right now."

Can someone please explain to me why people do this? Is it some form of quiet protest to the fact that you're watching teams besides your own? Is it a way to disassociate yourself from the fans that you sit among? Is it some feeling of pressing obligation to wear fan apparel whenever setting foot in a stadium or arena, like it's some exclusive club that won't let you in if you don't fit the dress code? (By the way, if you answered "yes" to that last one, then you probably wore your NFL team's jersey last Thursday night for the first round of the draft, didn't you?)

It just looks stupid, like you're trying to force your allegiances on an indifferent group of people, or you're clamoring for attention because you're being different. Oh, so you're from St. Louis, taking a summer ballpark tour up the Eastern seaboard? That's great, hope you have fun, but that doesn't entitle you to wear a Pujols jersey to a Phillies/Braves game or an Ozzie Smith throwback to a Yankees/Royals game. No one cares that you're not from around here or that you're a Cardinals fan. They didn't buy tickets in hopes of meeting a Midwesterner, they came here to see a sporting event. I know you may feel a bit left out if your team isn't one of the two in the building, but it won't kill you to just wear normal clothes.

The Trite Utterances of Subpar Sports "Fans," Volume Three

You're allowed to hate the Yankees. It's a free country. Go ahead. But just have some legit reasons for it. If you want to hate them because of A-Rod or Roger Clemens or the Steinbrenners, that's fine. If you say you hate them because you got real tired of seeing Paul O'Neill throw fits after third strikes back in the day, or because you don't like how Derek Jeter has more hot female celebrities' numbers in his phone than Ari Gold, I won't jump all over you for it. If you even want to say you hate them because of how they treated Joe Torre at the end of his run, I may even agree with you on that. But do the sports-watching world a favor and cease with the "They buy their championships!" shit. I know it's going to hurt for a minute to draw some fact-based conclusions and not just regurgitate everything you hear on ESPN or Comcast Sportsnet or Philadelphia talk radio, but bear with me. Take Advil for any headaches, Midol for any cramps.

My whole thing starts with this. People say the Yankees try to "buy" a championship every year as if they're Montgomery Burns putting together the Springfield Nuclear Power Plant company softball team. Well, doesn't building a contending team entail putting together a roster of good players? And last time I checked, guys that can actually hit the ball squarely on a consistent basis or throw the ball over the plate with regularity don't generally play for the league minimum. Quality players cost money, and you need to spend in order to win. In the 2000s, the only World Series champion with a payroll in the lower half of all major league teams was the 2003 Marlins, an exception that I'll get to in a minute. If you want to blame something, blame Major League Baseball and its lack of a salary cap. Don't blame the teams that spend as much money as they can, because if you ain't buying, you ain't trying.

You can try to catch lightning in a bottle like the Marlins did or the Rays did in 2008, but that will eventually catch up to you. The Marlins won titles in 1997 and 2003 and had to fire-sale after each one because the talent they had stockpiled was due to make a ton of money. Look at the salaries that a few of the 2003 Marlins would eventually make with other teams (scroll down to the bottom of the linked pages for salary figures):

Josh Beckett - $11.167 million with Boston
Brad Penny - $9.25 million with Los Angeles
Derrek Lee - $13.25 million with the Chicago Cubs
Miguel Cabrera - $14.38 million with Detroit
Ivan Rodriguez - $12.38 million with Detroit
Mike Lowell - $12.5 million with Boston
Juan Pierre - $10 million with Los Angeles

And this is leaving out players such as A.J. Burnett (he was injured that whole year), Luis Castillo and Dontrelle Willis (generally accepted as bad contracts), Carl Pavano (because I don't feel like puking), and Ugueth Urbina (because we don't promote guys who attack servants with a machete and threaten to torch them with gasoline). My point is, you can only get away with paying players below their worth for a short period of time. If you are out to be perennial contender, it gets expensive. The 2008 Rays benefited from several years' worth of high draft picks all reaching the majors within a short time of each other (Evan Longoria, B.J. Upton, James Shields) as well as players obtained via astute trading (Scott Kazmir, Dioner Navarro, Matt Garza) to produce a low-cost AL champion. But even now they've already traded one of those players away (Kazmir) for eventual contract purposes and may have to do the same with Carl Crawford, arguably the best player in team history.

I know what you're saying - "wait, isn't this guy disproving his own argument right now?" In a way, yes, because I've reaffirmed the economic imbalances that create something of a caste system in baseball. But what I want to point out off of that is there is a lot more to building a winning team than throwing money at free agents - just take a look at some of the recent Mets and Cubs teams, or the Dodgers and Orioles of the late '90s-early 2000s. What separates the Yankees is that they have been able to retain their homegrown talent even as they became worthy of top-dollar contracts - Derek Jeter, Mariano Rivera, Jorge Posada, Andy Pettitte (excluding his 3-year stay in Houston where he played for less money to be closer to home), and eventually Robinson Cano, Joba Chamberlain, and Phil Hughes. No one can say that the Yankees never develop players and just wait until everyone else's players become free agents. You want numbers? The Yankees had 11 homegrown players in the 2009 World Series, while the Phillies had 8.

Also, I don't see where making trades qualifies as "buying a roster." I'll use the guy with the biggest bull's eye on his back as my example. Commoners forget that the Yankees did not simply sign Alex Rodriguez back in 2004 - they traded Alfonso Soriano (a 28-year-old, five-tool player at the time) to the Rangers to get him. In fact, Texas even paid about $9.5 million of Rodriguez's $25.2 million salary for his first four years in New York because they were that bogged down by the contract. It's certainly not the Yankees' fault that Texas gave A-Rod a bigger contract than it could ultimately handle, is it?

Listen, I know that no other team can afford to spend the way the Yankees do, and that no other team has as much margin for error to whiff on a bad contract, but let's stop acting like they're the only ones spending money out there. I don't recall such a big stink when Boston won two World Series in four years with baseball's second highest payroll, dished out to players like Manny Ramirez ($20 million+ per year free agent deal), Johnny Damon (free agent signed from an Oakland team with zero chance of retaining him), Pedro Martinez (traded to Boston from Montréal when it became evident they wouldn't be able to afford him), and Curt Schilling (traded from Arizona when they could no longer keep both him and Randy Johnson). I guess since they were darling Boston and they had players with long hair and dreadlocks and chin straps that they just had to be a bunch of lovable lugs, right?

By the logic that most people use, if the Yankees "bought their championships," then didn't Boston too? And didn't Arizona in 2001? Hell, that D-Backs team went into so much debt by deferring salaries that within 3 years they were a 111-loss shell of their former selves. I get how you can gripe if you're a Kansas City or Pittsburgh fan, but still don't most of the complaints belong at the feet of your own front offices that trade away talent, spend nothing, pocket all the revenue-sharing money, and essentially make their city's interest in baseball dissolve by about June 1 every year? Or, if you insist on churning out the "buying championships" line, then you're going to have to apply it not just to the Yankees, but to everyone who wins with anything other than a team of David Ecksteins.

The Trite Utterances of Subpar Sports "Fans," Volume Two

(Before reading this, take a gander down at our Bracket below and provide some input, as much or as little as you want. And remember it's all in good fun and that you can't have a blog in March without having some sort of tournament bracket.)

I would have included this in the "Saturated" post from a few weeks back, but today's issue has grown to warrant its own space. For years we've been hearing the "professional athletes are overpaid, blah blah blah blah blah" refrain, and I don't know about anyone else, but this garbage makes my ears bleed. It's a major go-to phrase for those who make a pastime out of complaining about things they are never going to be able to change. It's a major go-to phrase for those who wish to treat all levels of sports like they are tee-ball and refuse to accept the fact that pro sports are businesses - hence the use of the word "professional."

Of course, that's not to say that there aren't individual athletes who are overpaid. I'd be stupid to try to say that. But you can find people who underperform their compensation at any workplace. I'm talking in general terms, not of individual athletes but of the overall salary scales of pro sports. The vast majority of these guys really do earn their money. Even a dream job is a job. There are levels of pressure and expectations that you or I do not see at our offices. Too often we watch a game for 3 hours out of the day and think that's all there is to it. We forget about the hours spent practicing and training just to get to this point, and how the work only gets harder once you're there. We've all had bad days at our jobs, but I doubt we ever got booed by 50,000 people or had scathing articles written in the paper about us the next day as a result.

Simple business thinking dictates that employees are paid based on the value of the efforts and services they provide. Why did Peyton Manning get paid $14 million this year for his endorsements alone? Because up on a high-floor office somewhere at the headquarters of Mastercard/Sprint/Gatorade/DirecTV, groups of people sat in a room and agreed on the projection that paying Peyton Manning $x to do commercials for their products would ultimately generate $x + $y in additional revenue, with "y" representing a worthwhile profit margin. It's just like how a film studio chooses to throw $20 million at Tom Cruise for a movie on the thought that his name and performance will put at least another $20 million worth of asses in the movie theater seats to go see it. Remember, whether you are a master at throwing a football or bringing a written character to life on screen, it's all entertainment. All in the game, right?

On the same note, a teacher making $45k a year is paid such an amount of money because the numbers dictate that his or her teaching services are worth in the neighborhood of $45k a year to the town and school district. That number is found essentially in terms of the town's basis of tax revenue, as well as the intangible "good name" asset for a school district that a well-performing teaching force creates. You become known as a town with very good schools, and guess what - more families want to live there, thus generating more tax dollars, and allowing the township to charge higher tax rates in the future and being able then to pay its teachers, police, firefighters more. That sound you hear is supply shaking hands with demand.

What I'm really tired of is when people give the old "(insert athlete name here) makes more money in a week than a teacher or patrol officer do in a year!" argument. Listen, no one is saying that teachers, firefighters, police, etc. don't perform a much nobler task than pro athletes do. It's the replaceability factor, technically known as opportunity cost. If I decide to leave my job, it is not going to break the company's back to hire and train a replacement. Same goes for a bus driver, construction worker, or stevedore. It's not that the hard-working everyday Joe is of little worth and easily dispensable, it's just that, when it comes to our own individual lines of work, none of us possess skills to nearly as a high a level as professional athletes do.

Think about it. These athletes are among the several hundred best in the world at their craft. What do you think the world's few hundred best lawyers make in a year? Or the few hundred best investment bankers? It's got to be on par with the few hundred best baseball players or football players. So let's not treat athletes as if they're the only ones out there making tons of money. What it comes down to is, enough people place sufficient value on the display of athletic excellence and top-level competition that they decide to part with considerable money in order to spectate.

You personally may think ticket prices are too high, but no one's holding a gun to your head and making you order season tickets. Because if you don't want to pay those prices, I'm sorry, but there are droves of people standing behind you in line who will, provided the product is good. That's how Major League Baseball last year achieved the fourth-highest regular season attendance level in its history despite poor economic conditions. At least with sports there are low cost viewing alternatives like TV and radio, unlike Broadway, where the only way to see it is live so if you don't want to pony up half your next paycheck for tickets, you're S.O.L.

So before this gets too long (as you can see I'm not into the whole brevity thing lately), I leave you with this: find something to complain about other than professional sports. These salary amounts didn't come from nowhere, but not one dime has to come from your pocket if you don't want it to. But before you get to saying, "why don't we pay our teachers $2 million a year?" just remember that if we ever chose to, then get ready for a tax bill so big it wouldn't be able to fit in your mailbox. Just throwing that overlooked nugget out there.

The Trite Utterances of Subpar Sports "Fans", Volume One

The word "fan" is short for "fanatic." Thus, there is no such thing as a "casual fan." Casual fanatic? That's an oxymoron, it doesn't work. Casual follower, casual supporter, casual observer? Fine, fine, and fine. Should you dub yourself an actual fan, then you need to back it up. You need to know your team's players (I'm talking uniform numbers, ages, college attended if applicable, other organizations played for if any, and what their typical statistical seasons look like), coaching staff, front office figures, history (can't stress that enough), strengths, and weaknesses. You also must know virtually as much about your team's rivals - like they say, keep your friends close and enemies closer. Immerse yourself in the daily goings-on of the seasons. The more time and energy you invest, the more you get out of it on the good days, and the more right you have to be critical on the bad days. But even fandom has a limit. I'm talking about drawing a line in the sand. Across this line, you do not - you DO NOT refer to your team as "We."

The notion of "we" struck a chord with me when I was 12 years old and read this Rick Reilly column in SI about the Chicago Bulls dynasty. Reilly waxes poetic here:
"Most of all, I'm sick of Bulls fans. I'm sick of every fat, balding dry cleaner from Rockford wearing a number 23 jersey, screaming, 'Yeah, baby. We did it!' No, sir, you did not do it. They did it. You ingested nine Stroh's and three brats and sat in your Barcalounger screaming things nobody could hear, including your wife, who left in March."

With few exceptions, "we" is something said by a follower of sports who ultimately does not get it. It is a term used by bandwagon jumpers and by all others who lack perspective in one way or another. It is something said by people who own a green alternate t-shirt or jersey of their team even when the team has no green in its color scheme, just so they can wear it on St. Patrick's Day. It's for people who buy the authentic hat but never take the stickers off of it or wear it enough to break it in. It's for people who go to a bar clad in their team's gear yet have their backs turned to the TV on which their team is currently playing. It's for chowderheads up in Boston to say things like "we gat Lestah stahtin' tonight, and we gat Pahhpullbahhnn too!"

Let's make it clear. Unless you are on the roster or work for the team in a capacity larger than taping ankles or scanning ticket stubs, there is no "we." Stop trying to put yourself on the level of the most skilled athletes in the world, because, (brace yourself for this) that's not what you are. I am the biggest Cowboys and Yankees fan you will meet, but I understand that when either one of my teams win, it's because of a catch Jason Witten made in traffic and a big fumble forced by DeMarcus Ware, or because of a 2-out knock by Derek Jeter and a Houdini act pulled in the 6th by Andy Pettitte. It's not because of anything I did (my superstitious habits notwithstanding), it's all because of things they did. And interestingly enough, how often do you ever hear people say "we" in regards to their team after a bad game or bad season? It seems that "we" becomes a "they" pretty quickly when the other team has a bigger number on the scoreboard.

There are exceptions, like I said before. I don't mind someone saying "we" if they are related to someone on the team, or if they are a retired iconic figure for a certain team (i.e. if Bill Russell wants to refer to the Celtics as "we," it's not a problem). If you root for a college team and are currently enrolled at that school, then say "we" all you want. After you graduate, you have a few year grace period to say "we" as long as there are still guys playing on the team who were there when you were in school. After that, your alma mater's teams cease being a "we" or "us."

And finally, if you are a member of the media, saying "we" is forbidden - even if you work for a local network, even if you work for a local network as devoid of professionalism as those in the Philadelphia market. Mitch Williams makes himself sound like the biggest moron homer in the world when he refers to the Phillies as "we" while working as television analyst. There's no place for that on the radio, on television, or in print media (remember what that is?). Can't have it, no matter the forum.

All I ask is that you listen to yourself when you speak. When you do so, not only will you sound more articulate, but it will also give you a new found outlook on the way people express themselves. Plus it lets you enjoy the pastime of making fun of those who fail to listen to the words that come out of their very own mouths. A dual-serving purpose if I've ever seen one.

$250 Million Sure Doesn't Buy What it Used To

I had another topic or two in the works for today, but those plans changed once I caught wind of this Oprah debacle where she thought Drew Brees' birthmark was lipstick on his face. If we really wanted to, NotAsGoodAsYouThink could write litanies for about a month straight regarding Oprah and why she sucks. But since I thought this was a fairly universal belief among those with a Y chromosome, I figured I'd hold back on making fun of Oprah and let the talking be done by the likes of Dave Chappelle and Jimmy Kimmel. Until now.

This was too good (or bad) to pass up. Not only does it tie in with my disdain for the Super Bowl crossing over into mainstream media , it lets me take a few shots at a howling windbag while going to bat for one of the most likable guys in the NFL and maybe in all of professional sports. So Oprah, you decide to have the Super Bowl MVP as a guest on your show. OK, that's understandable, since he was probably the biggest name in the news last week thanks to an historic 32-of-39 performance and the ensuing "awwwwwwwwww" moment during the celebration. You're telling me that you have not bothered to take a look at a picture of the guy, or do a little background research on his life? Brees' birthmark has been a well-documented piece of information for about a decade now, ever since he entered the spotlight while at Purdue. Maybe if you had spent 8-10 fewer minutes eating Twinkies and done just a little bit more preparation, you could have saved yourself that tidbit of embarrassment, Ms. Winfrey.

Maybe one day someone can sit me down and explain why so many people fawn over Oprah and make pilgrimages to see live tapings (oxymoron?) of her show. All I know is that she is the face of the mind-numbing entertainment that we like to call daytime television. I can't go three weeks without seeing her on the cover of some women's magazine in the checkout aisle of the food store, usually alternating between story lines of "Oprah: I'm Thin Again!" and "Oprah: I Can't Believe I Got Fat Again!" Now I'm sure she's produced plenty of quality programming in her day (mostly tear-jerking stories aimed at those with marginal control over their emotions, those times when she gives everyone in the studio a car, and Brownie of the Month Club meetings). But everyone's got to go at some point. So please Oprah, pack it in. Just think of all the extra free time you'd have to go restaurant-hopping with Kirstie Alley.

Pillars of Meaningful Conversation

Have you ever been stuck in a conversation with someone (co-worker, relative, significant other, stranger you just met at a bar and now regret walking over to, etc.) and been so disinterested that you'd consider trading places with this guy just to get to hell out of there? I feel like I have been on the receiving end of entirely too many of these exchanges in recent years. Here are a few pitfalls that can make people sound like a cross between a vacuum cleaner and a yipping 9-lb terrier dog.

1. Understand if you are not interesting -- There is nothing wrong with being on the plain or boring side when it comes to personality. There really isn't. But if you can not recognize that you will not exactly be having Dos Equis commercials made about you anytime soon, then you are now committing a punishable social offense. There are a few interesting things about myself, and otherwise I'm not that exciting of a person. I can live with that. But does it get much worse than people who feel obligated to tell you, without being asked, about their trip to Florida last week, or how they cooked the crab legs they had for dinner the other night, or what time they get up in the morning? Oh wow, so you went on vacation to Florida and it was really warm, huh? You had martinis while lounging under a palm tree? Phenomenal! That is so great you brought that up, because 24 years of life and 16 years spent in school somehow earned me the ability to infer that it's warm in Florida and that makes for an enjoyable time more often than not. Now, if you met Jack Nicholson while you were on vacation, or you swam with dolphins, that is actually interesting. What you had for breakfast, however, is not interesting. Please learn that difference.

2. Talking about people you don't know -- You get this a lot with relatives telling you about their grandkids, who are your 5th cousins or whatever, and in that case you just have to feign interest and deal with it. Oh, so my 2nd cousin once removed whom I've met once and who lives 2000 miles away got a B in high school chemistry? Oh wow, I wonder what the going rates are for billboards, I gotta announce that shit to the world. This happens a lot on holidays and whatnot and usually there's some beer around and something on tv, so you can get through it.

When non-relatives do this, it is 20 times worse. You get this a lot with the self-important career types. I've never met your boss or these 9 co-workers you are talking about, so what significance does this rambling hold for me, your audience? Am I just supposed to be impressed because you had a conference call this morning with these faceless names about cc'ing people on emails? I have an ex-girlfriend (and if you're reading this, which I doubt, well, I don't care anyway) that once cornered John I for half an hour on this rant about how her parents loved her sister more than they loved her, blah blah blah blah blah, while John (who did not know any of the people she was bitching about) and I were trying to watch a baseball game. It got so bad I had to apologize to John afterward for subjecting him to such drivel. Even if he had known any of the people she were talking about, what could he possibly do about the situation? There was no meaning behind that 30 minutes' worth of hot air other than casting a lure for sympathy.

3. Complaining about everyday things -- We all have to deal with traffic. We all have to deal with the cold in the winter. When it rains, it rains on all of us. We all pay more than we'd like to for gas. None of us particularly like getting up for work in the morning or working long hours. We've all waited in a long airport line or had a train get delayed. SUCK IT UP. There are few larger turnoffs than a person who acts as if any sort of transgression or inconvenience that goes against them is the biggest catastrophe in the world. Just because the traffic light turned red on you does not mean that the transit authority has a vendetta against you. On the other hand, maybe they do, if they've ever heard you talk.

4. Overuse of superlatives -- I did not major in English, nor would I consider myself anything resembling a linguist. But what I do know is that the words in our language have stand-alone meanings intended for the efficiency of communication. For example, ever hear someone, often times a newscaster or other dim-wit, exclaim they are "absolutely amazed!" The word "amaze" and all its forms are superlatives - they stand alone. There are no separate levels or degrees of amazement, there is just amazement itself. Saying another word in front of it is a waste of time and of breath. There are other examples - "that was a very key play in this game," "I was totally shocked," "this pizza is so awesome!" "what an incredibly perfect throw!". Those who overuse superlatives or try to further pump up powerful words are often compensating for and/or navigating attention away from the fact that the rest of what they have to say is garbage.

So, until next time, just remember that just because something happened to YOU, does not necessarily make it engaging subject matter for other people.

License and Registration, Please - Part Three

The theme of this series of posts involves the uninformed and oblivious screwing with the time and money of the informed and focused. Thus far, we've looked at ineptitude in the gym and on the golf course, which directly screws with a man's time and indirectly screws with a man's money. In this final installment, we go where the action is, directly to the money - the casino floor.

A great thing about living in South Jersey is the proximity of Atlantic City, our own (very) miniature Las Vegas. While those from North Jersey, New York, Washington, Baltimore, etc. may have a trek of 2-3 hours or more to AC, many a South Jerseyan can make it to the bright lights within 50 minutes of backing out of the driveway. For a lot of us from this area, AC stands as the crown jewel of the 21-and-over life, something we drool over as 18-19-20 year olds like a dog staring at a steak. What beckons to us is not necessarily the bars and club scene, because once you hit college the party life becomes habit. No, I'm talking about gambling.

There's a reason that the gambling age is 21, and whether you believe it should be lowered to 18 is another issue. I don't have a problem with it being 21, because I want the population of gamblers on the floor at any given time to be as SMART as possible. I don't mean book smarts, I mean knowing a.) what their limits are, b.) what their surroundings are, and c.) WHAT THE HELL THEY ARE DOING. Towns like Atlantic City were built on the losses of those with clouded judgment. The casinos welcome you with open arms in anticipation of feeding you drinks and blinding you with visions of jackpot grandeur until your pockets are empty. Understand that going in.

Foremost, if you do not know the game you are playing, you are not only being reckless with your own money, you are being reckless with the money of others much of the time, and that can get you into trouble (or at the very least it will yield you the scorn of everyone around you). The first time I ever played in a casino was in Montréal at age 20 (legal age is 18 there), and I only played roulette (I know, soft) because I knew at least I'd be essentially playing a game independent of those at the same table as me. I was honest enough to admit I didn't know blackjack or craps well enough to deserve a spot at one of those tables. And to this day, I still don't know craps that well, so I have never put one red cent on a crap table. Part of that stems from seeing two acquainted friends nearly come to blows in Vegas over how to bet during a crap game.

But what I have come to know is blackjack, and blackjack possibly above all others is a team game. Everyone sitting at that table is playing against the dealer. And since every decision you make alters the card progression for the rest of the shoe, it is overwhelmingly imperative to know what the hell you are doing. It's not that hard. Spend an hour on hitorstand.net or read the Wikipedia article on blackjack and you'll know enough. There is a right way to play and a wrong way to play, and both are outlined pretty clearly.

John I and I recently won about $600 between us in just one shoe, largely because everyone was playing right. Playing right means hitting a 15 when the dealer shows an 8, even though you know you're probably busting. Even if you do bust, you have to take one for the team, not only because what goes around comes around, but because it perpetuates a mathematically proven winning strategy all the way around the table. For instance, if you chicken out on that 15, maybe the next card is a 10 or face and you do get to live a bit longer when hitting would have busted you. But now the guy next to you rightly hits his 14, gets the 10 you would have gotten, and he's busted. Then the guy next to him with the 10, he doubles down and gets a dog-crap 6. While you cross your fingers for the dealer to bust, she flips over a 10 on her 8 to give her an 18, and now everyone at the table has lost the hand, including you, and now both dudes to your left are giving you the Manning Face. Had you hit your 15 and busted, the guy next to you gets the 6 to give him 20 and the doubled-down guy after him is still in good shape with the next card coming. One decision takes the table from 0-3 to a likely 2-1 on the hand. I've seen it way too many times.

Obviously this case is hypothetical and could easily go the other way, but the two underlying themes are these: 1. karma comes back to you - play right and the cards will fall the way you want over a long enough time period; 2. not playing right screws with other people's money as well as your own. If you don't care so much about your money, that's your business, but I damn well care about mine, even if it's the money that I've deemed expendable enough to cash in for casino chips for an hour or two.

License and Registration, Please - Part Two

Yesterday we looked at my rudimentary solution to the "crowded gym full of January piss-ants that are either 20 lbs overweight or 20 lbs underweight and don't know what the hell they're doing in any regard" issue. Today we'll apply the same principle to golf. I totally respect why certain upscale courses won't let players above a certain handicap play. Of course that's totally unfair to do everywhere, but some form of education/licensing system would be very beneficial. It wouldn't have to be rocket science, just play a few pitch and putt rounds (with either a knowledgeable friend or family member as your "sponsor" or with a golf equivalent of a personal trainer), learn the nuts and bolts, pass the short written test, and you've got another shiny little card for your wallet.

I'm lucky to have been taught the game at a very early age (6) by my father, and I will say right away that most people are not in that boat - they teach themselves, or pick the game up as a teenager just for shits, or get mildly into it as an adult partially because a lot of their friends play.

However, once you pull into the parking lot of an honest-to-God golf course, the question of where/when/how you began playing is moot. If you do not adhere to the game's written rules of etiquette and do not engage in "Ready Golf" (outlined impeccably by John I here), then you, yes YOU, are harming those who plunked down decent money and chose to invest 3-4 of the precious non-working, non-sleeping hours out of the week on the condition that the game will be played correctly and respectfully.

Since John I explained "Ready Golf" from atop Mt. Sinai already, I need not go too much further into its detail. And since standard golf etiquette can be Google'd (or better, Wikipedia'd), I need not delve extensively into that. But I must point out specific, common-sense type issues that will trim valuable time off of your round, get you into a better rhythm (spelled it right on the first try!), and maybe, just maybe lower your scores.

--The first player in the group to sink the ball on a hole is responsible for replacing the flag stick after all others are done. Grab it quietly after your putt and hold it, waiting for the others to hole out.
--ALWAYS have a spare ball on you. The group behind you will scorn your whole family if they see you searching fruitlessly for a ball in the weeds or trees, and then run 50 yards back to your cart to grab another ball so you can take your drop. Cardinal sin.
--Practice is for between rounds, not during rounds. If you need to take a practice stroke or two on a delicate pitch shot or an awkward putt, fine. But otherwise, no practice swings. I mean it. Try not taking practice swings the next time you play - I guarantee you that you will not throw up a horrid number and that the world will not end either. But you will shave incredible time off your round and may even find it a more effective habit. Too often, people waste their good swings on practice strokes, only to top that 6-iron into the drink anyway. See ball, align with target, center yourself, deep breath, swing. That's it. I know the pros on TV take practice swings, but they also post 67s on championship courses like you or I break wind. Until you're THAT good, no practice swings. At least pretend to be an athlete and have some muscle memory.
--Always be looking behind you. This especially applies on weekends and other busy days. If you shank your tee shot into a brush while a foursome is standing with their arms folded at the tee box behind you, have another ball on you (remember?) and look for your original for about 30 seconds before just taking a drop and moving on. Penalty stroke or no penalty stroke depending on whether or not you would have had to punch back out into the fairway if you ever did find your tee shot.
--On the green, always ask a person with more than a 10 foot putt if they want you to tend the flag. I still remember a guy who once pulled the stick on a par-3 when I was 50 feet out and instead of asking if I wanted it tended, just dropped it on the fringe and ambled over to his own ball. Yeah don't worry pal, this 50-foot snake job just might as well be a gimme anyway. I now have a voodoo doll of this asshat.
--Head on a swivel when about to hit the gas on the cart. You don't want to be gunning it in the golf cart right in the middle of someone else's backswing or putt. If necessary, wait a moment before going if someone within 100 feet or so is about to play a shot.
--Understand that walking renders you a second-class citizen. Most places will only allow walking during off-peak hours anyway, but if you don't want to have to constantly be letting people play through, then pony up the extra cash for a cart.
--And, for the last time, TURN THE DAMN CELL PHONE ON SILENT AND DON'T TAKE IT OUT OF THE BAG. If a call is that important that you need to take it (or worse, make it) on the course, then you shouldn't be playing golf today anyway. It's good to have in case of an emergency and that is it.

That's all for today without making this segment unbearably long. Remember, the less time on the course usually means the better round you've had. You don't have to be a scratch player to get 18 holes in under 4 hours. My old man and I have had plenty of 2.5-3 hour rounds in which neither of us broke 90. And if you need any further motivation, playing smarter gets you to the 19th-hole beers in less time as well.

Tomorrow, we take a look at casino gambling in the final part of the series.

License and Registration, Please - Part One

First off, this is not intended to sound like I'm pining for the ways of the world to change just so they can fit the very way that I see things. If you want to listen to liberal high-minds who think they know "the way everything should be" that would produce undisputed utopic results, then there are plenty of other forums out there. I'm not here to complain, but to observe.

There are certain activities in life, driving a car being the ultimate example, that require education, testing, and licensing in order to partake. This is done for the ultimate safety and well-being of society. What if such a testing and licensing system were made a prerequisite for several other leisure activities? I'll use the examples of working out, golf, and casino gambling, exploring one per day.

Working Out - If you are a longtime gym-goer, you dread the month of January for the influx of New Years' Resolution people. I can't blame the gym itself for offering membership deals to out-of-shape newcomers after the holidays because that's simple market capitalization. But it burns me to the core that these new dickwads come in and by their very presence take away from the experience of the paying customers that are there 4, 5, or 6 days a week all year, every year. Why do they take away from my experience? It's not because they create a crowd, because a crowded gym is still an operable gym if it has the right layout. It's because they are uninformed, oblivious to etiquette, and just don't know the ins and outs yet. I understand everyone has to start somewhere (although I'd prefer that somewhere to not be in the same room as me), but if you are walking around with your iPod on so loud that it renders you unable to communicate with others, or you count your reps out loud so that it throws off all the red-blooded Americans in there that manage to count to themselves, or you walk too close to someone while they're in the middle of a set, then you are creating an unsavory and even unsafe environment for everyone.

-----The solution: If you join a gym, you need to pass a simple, 20-question multiple choice test in order to be able to hop right in and work out at will. The test would consist of questions about etiquette and generally accepted best practices (i.e. putting the heavier plates at the bottom of the rack, putting dumbbells back in the spot that you got them from). If you don't get an 80% or more, you have to spend four gym sessions with a trainer that will show you the ropes and point things out to you, like a remedial week. If you pass that, then you now have your exercise license and are steadily on your way to being a worthwhile member. Making someone work even just a little bit for something creates a greater appreciation for the task.