Roger Goodell

Roger Goodell-The Cost of a Bad Decision

The calls to remove Roger Goodell as NFL Commissioner are understandable, his handling of the Ray Rice situation is a classic example of how not to handle a crisis. What makes this troubling was prior to this situation his handling at least in the area of player personnel conduct had been spot-on. The players are being shown that their actions had consequences which means playing football is a privilege not a right and a privilege which can be taken away. Regardless if Goodell stays or goes the two problems that are at the heart of what caused this crisis will remain-money and the star system.

The pro sports franchise business model might be the most unique of any business model. Usually one person is responsible for paying all the expenses of running the team. The person does this from their personal account and without the help from a corporation, board, or a financial institution. The owner probably got their money from owning a successful business which they probably are still running or are involved in some executive capacity. This is where it gets tricky. The reason the business is probably a success is because the owner is very involved yet for a pro sports team to be successful the owner can't be too involved. If he is than you have the Jerry Jones situation in Dallas. Instead he has to find someone in a front office capacity who is familiar with how the sport is run and turn the day to day operations over to that person. That person then has to find a coach that a has philosophy that front office agrees with. From there the front office person drafts and acquires players that fit the coaches' philosophy. If the front person finds the right players and coach is up to his job of getting the most out of the players than the team enjoys success. If not than the team has to start over. This gets expense which why you have to a billionaire for this model to work. The best way to ensure to that the team is a success at least financially is by having a star so even team isn't a success if the team's star is than people will pay to see the star.

Stars in football are often found early like in high school or college. When a star is found early like this he gets to enjoy privileges that most people will never enjoy. If he gets trouble there's a good chance he'll be let off with the lightest sentence possible so the star can continue to produce which leads to money for him and his team. This causes the player to have so power than he can often get what he wants. This applies to the pros-if the star  player doesn't like a coach or front office man than the owner will probably back the player. This spills over to the fans of the team. If a player holds out for more money or threatens to leave as a free agent or force a trade than the fans get onto the team to resolve the matter so the player will stay. If the player does leave and he is key reason why the team was successful and the team quits being successful than the owner loses money.

The solution? Probably what Goodell had been so well prior to the Ray Rice incident which was suspending players when they did things that were unlawful. By doing this he is costing the players money which is making them more likely to follow the laws. This in turn is causing the owners to lose money which is causing them to make the players follow the law so they too can make money. If Goodell had issued a stiffer suspension for Ray Rice than he and league wouldn't be in the situation they find themselves. Hopeful from this point forward the league will remember this and they can avoid situation like this.

Ray Rice

Ray Rice-Getting Right but.. 

 

 

Its good that the NFL & the Baltimore Ravens finally got it right with the Ray Rice situation. This is what they each should have done much earlier. I guess justice delayed is better than justice denied. That being said it's a shame it took an entity like TMZ to get the correct outcome.

 Like most people I find it hard to believe that an entity like the NFL with its FBI connections and an organization like the Baltimore Ravens which is owned by someone whose one of Forbes Top 500 Richest People hadn't seen the this video before TMZ released it. As they say in the South "That dog don't hunt." What's more troubling is way the Ravens were so quick to defend to Ray Rice. Teams in the NFL are constantly releasing players for lesser reasons and here was an opportunity for the Ravens to show that they cared and they blew it. You would think that for the sake of avoiding the public relations nightmare they would have released or suspended  Ray Rice. The team didn't need NFL's permission to do that. I remember years ago when the Denver Broncos suspended a really good Tight End named Clarence Kay for 4 games because he admitted he had used cocaine. The league was never consulted. and the punishment stood. The team acted in the best interest of the team and the player. Furthermore its not like Ray Rice last season was any good, he rushed for less than a 1,000 yards (660) for the first time in 4 years. He had just signed a big contract the year before and that was how he rewarded the team for giving him the big contract. He also plays a devalued position-running back. The last two years no running back has been drafted in the 1st round. Teams can find someone who can be productive at the position in any round. Alfred Morris has rushed for a thousand yards the last 2 seasons and he was 6th round pick.    

It also troubling that the NFL which has been pushing the agenda that player's personal conduct is important handed out such slight initial punishment 2 games. When a player can be suspended 4 games for getting caught smoking marijuana or can be suspended for the same amount of games for being accused but not convicted or pleading guilty to rape/sexual battery (Ben Roethlisberger), 2 games is a joke. You would think the NFL would have erred on the side of caution and suspended Ray Rice at least half a season (8 games) to a full season so they too could have avoided the public relations nightmare. What will probably happen from here is that Ray Rice will not play this season. Don't be surprised if he plays for some team next year. The NFL is a production oriented league and Rice has been productive. As outrageous as that seems remember Michael Vick do something equally if not more reprehensible and he's still in the NFL. What might work against Ray Rice is that devolved nature of his position. If he is picked up  the team that does will probably use the following spin-"America is a land of second chances and doesn't Ray Rice deserve one. He's paid a big price for his bad decision." The team will then announce that his contract is incentive laden and for one year. If he's productive than will be signed to longer term deal. This where being a running back continues to work against him, productive running backs start being less productive at the age of 30 which is about what age Ray Rice will be if that scenario happens.

It  says a lot about the justice system in America that the NFL & teams' punishment is more severe than the one given to him (Ray Rice) than the courts. I know that there are calls for heads to roll in the NFL, the Baltimore Ravens, and the law enforcement that handled the case in New Jersey, but more than likely probably no one in those places will probably lose their jobs. It would be nice if they did. Hopefully this sends the message to athletes at least in America that are a lot more like us normal folks in that there are consequences for your actions. Shame it can't be that way for other people with money who aren't athletes.

Russell Wilson

Russell Wilson-Game Manger?

The Seahawks win last night (9/4/14) and Russell Wilson's not overwhelming stats (19/28, 191 YDS Passing, 2 TD, 7 Rushes, 29 Yards) is helping to continue the debate over the type of quarterback he is. Is he a game manger? If he's not than what is he?
I've given this some thought and here's the answer-he's a cautious playmaker. That's someone who usually makes the correct call during the course of the game or season. You may ask how is he a playmaker since he's never thrown for 30+ Touchdowns Passes or for 4,000 yards? Here's the best stat that proves he is-he's tied for the most Touchdown Passes for a rookie (26). The person he's tied with? Payton Manning. His interceptions went down between his rookie (10) and his 2nd year (9) which shows he's getting smarter with the ball. Why that is nice and good its somewhat irrelevant give the position he plays-quarterback. The most important stat for any starting quarterback is wins, especially a win or wins on the game's Ultimate Stage-The Super Bowl.  Don't believe me? Than how come Joe Namath (173 TDS, 220 INT, 27,663 Yards), Terry Bradshaw (212 TDS, 210 INT, 27,989 Yards) and Troy Aikman (165 TDS, 141 INT, 32,942 Yards) are in the Hall of Fame? As you can see their stats aren't that great, in fact only Namath has an historical stat or record (he was the 1st Quarterback to throw for 4,000 yards in a season) but they won. Namath won  the biggest game in the history of the AFL and possibly the most historic in Pro Football (Super Bowl III), Bradshaw lead the Steelers to 4 Super Bowl Championships (Super Bowl IX, X, XIII, & XIV) in 6 years, the 1st team to win 4 Super Bowls, and Aikman lead the Cowboys to 3 Super Bowls wins (Super Bowl XXVII, XXVIII, XXX) in 4 years, the 1st team to do that. To show how important the stat of wins is among quarterbacks why is it that Fran Tarkenton (342 TDS,266 INT, 47,003 Yards), Dan Fouts (254TDS, 242, INT, 43,040 Yards) and Dan Marino (420TDS, 252 INT, 61,361 Yards) aren't held in as high as a regard as they could be despite really good stats? That's right none of them won a Super Bowl. Fran Tarkenton holds a really dubious distinction-he's the first quarterback to lose 3 Super Bowls (Super Bowl VII, IX, & XI),  Dan Fouts never lead his team to the Super Bowl, and Dan Marino lost his only Super Bowl appearance (Super Bowl XIX).  Russell Wilson has already shown he's a playmaker because he's won on game's important stage-the Super Bowl-something which has eluded players with superior stats.
 

College Football Playoffs

                   

 College Football Playoffs: Will the Smaller Schools be allowed to play?

 

The excitement in college football that there is finally a playoff needs to be tempered. The reason? Will the smaller schools in the FCS (which I hate, wish the NCAA had stuck with Division I-A) be allowed to play in the playoffs?

The argument always offered under the old system (be it pre-BCS or during the BCS) whenever a smaller school(Marshall in the late 90's, early 2000's, Boise State recently) had a good year or were good for a few years was because they played in smaller conference they would lose convincley to a school from bigger conference because the bigger school had better talent. When a smaller school did beat a school from a larger conference especially in a bowl game  (Boise State win over Oklahoma in the Orange Bowl, TCU win Wisconsin in the Rose Bowl) because the margin of victory was small seem to lend credence to this argument. Another argument used against the  smaller school was their strength of schedule wasn't strong enough to warrant an invite to a major bowl. When a smaller school tried to counter this by scheduling a school from a larger conference the larger schools wouldn't accept in case they lost or if a series of games were scheduled if the first game was close or the smaller school won then the larger school would drop the series by paying off the smaller school. Also because football schedule are set up in advance if the smaller school at time the game was to be played was playing better than they had when the game was scheduled than again the larger school would drop the smaller school and pay them off. Now that the playoff is here, this seems like this will be the time for the smaller schools to have the opportunity, but will they get that opportunity? Say that two SEC Schools (like Alabama & Georgia) have 1 loss each or one is unbeaten and the other schools' loss was to the other, wouldn't they be more likely to get the invite over say a Boise State? What if there is a school from a bigger conference like say like Michigan State last year which lost only once to a respected school (Notre Dame) and that was early, but went onto to go undefeated in a power conference (the Big 10), wouldn't they be more likely to an invite over a smaller school that went unbeaten in lesser ranked conference and didn't have the same strength of schedule. I know people are going say that's unfair but think about this-don't you think the reasons the bigger schools agreed to a playoff was because they were pretty sure they could maintain the status quo of them winning the national championship. That I have to even bring this up is sad because in life and especially in sports you often have to fail before you or the team finds out what adjustments needs to be made in order for you or the team to win. Besides if a school from a smaller conference were to win the national championship that doesn't mean an end to the status quo. That has happened before and didn't ruin the system or upset the apple cart. The school was BYU and the year was 1984. Now someone's gonna say that BYU isn't your typical school from a small conference because  this was during the  time period when BYU had a series of  good quarterbacks (Marc Wilson, Jim McMahon, Steve Young, & Ty Detmer). That doesn't change the fact that during this time period they played in the WAC which wasn't then, nor is it now a major conference. Besides the quarterback that season wasn't any of the ones listed, it was Robbie Bosco. The reason most people haven't heard of Robbie Bosco is because he wasn't drafted in the 1st Round like most of the listed quarterbacks (he was drafted in the 3rd round by Green Bay and he only played 2 seasons before his career was ended due to a should injury) and he didn't win the Heisman like Detmer (he finished 3rd in 1984). So if a school from a smaller conference can win the national championship especially during the pre-BCS era and not bring down the system shouldn't smaller schools get the opportunity in this era of fairer play? Let's hope so because the beauty of college sports in the one and done system of play which will be in play during the playoffs is anyone can win on a given day/night.        

Sam Bradford

The St. Louis Rams-The Perils of Betting on the Wrong Quarterback

The St. Louis Rams have stuck to the dogged belief that by surrounding Quarterback Sam Bradford with lots of talent that he could lead them to the same kind of success they enjoyed when Kurt Warner was leading the “Greatest Show on Turf”.  They were wrong. On Sunday the Rams learned that Bradford has suffered a torn ACL, the same ACL he has surgically repaired last year. The Rams should have known better and now they’re paying the price.

Sam Bradford has never been able to stay injury free. When the Rams made him the 1^st Pick in the 2010 NFL Draft he was coming off of shoulder surgery. This didn’t concern the Rams who gave him a six-year contract worth $78 million. The contract had $50 million of guarantees and had a maximum value of $86 million making it the largest contract ever for an NFL rookie. It looked like a good investment because he was the Offensive Rookie Year and the Rams almost made the playoffs that year. They lost a win and in game to the Seattle Seahawks for NFC Western Division title. That’s the closest they have been in the Sam Bradford era. The following season in a harbinger of things to come as Bradford got injured and missed 6 games. The team struggled and finished the year 2-14. As result the Rams had the #2 in that years’ NFL Draft which they traded to the Redskins in the RGIII deal. Again this looked like a good decision when they went 7-8-1 and Bradford threw for 3702 yards to go along with 21 touchdowns vs. 13 interceptions. He was off to good start last year 14 touchdowns vs. 4 interceptions when he torn his ACL. Despite losing Bradford in the 7^th game of last season the Rams managed to finish the year 7-9. The Rams again had the #2 pick in last year draft (thanks to RGIII trade) to go along with their own 1^st round pick. You would think at this point with their starting quarterback only a few years removed from shoulder surgery on his throwing shoulder and having had his ACL surgically repaired the Rams would invest an early round pick (say late 1^st round or  2^nd-4^th round) in a promising rookie quarterback or maybe trade for a young quarterback to groom as a potential starter. You would be wrong. The Rams did neither and the qb who had helped to that decent record (Kellen Davis) was allowed to leave as free agent. They signed Shaun Hill who was older than guy he replaced (he’s 34, Davis is 31) as the back-up, kept Austin Davis who they got as an undrafted free agent, and when they did draft a qb it was in the 6^th round (Garrett Gilbert). Its not as if the Rams have to look very far to see the importance of having a good back-up qb. The reason the Packers made the playoffs last season after losing Aaron Rodgers for the bulk of the season is because of the play of their back-up quarterback (Matt Flynn).  Add to this the Rams play in the most competitive division in the NFL (the NFC West) where all the teams outside of the Rams had a winning record last season. And each of these team has a starting qb who have better credentials than Sam Bradford even if he was healthy. Plus all those teams seem to have noticed the importance of having a good back-up qb. So the Rams who have one of the deepest and talented rosters in the NFL outside of the quarterback will most likely miss the playoffs this season and will have to invest a high round pick (most likely the 1^st round) on a quarterback all because the front office and coaching staffs thought that an injury prone quarterback could lead the team to glory because the team had talent everywhere else.    

Trent Richardson

The Danger of Rushing to Judgment on Trent Richardson

The talk that if Trent Richardson doesn’t have a productive season this year than he is a bust is baffling. How can someone who had a productive rookie season (950 yards rushing, 11 touchdowns, 51 receptions, 367 yards receiving, 1 touchdown) be a bust? NFL history has shown its not wise to give up on a player who has enjoyed this kind of production too early. There are two players both at running back who come to mind that best prove this-Jerome Bettis and Marshall Faulk.
They came into the league at about the same time (Bettis the year before) and both enjoyed immediate success-they were both the offensive rookie of year-Bettis in 1993 and Faulk in 1994. They both dipped in their third year. Its at this point their careers diverge. After his third year Bettis was offered a chance to stay with his current team (St. Louis Rams) or he could agree to a trade. He opted for the trade and that was best thing that could have happened to him. He made an immediate impact with the Steelers and through he didn't get as many individual honors that Faulk did, he still did well making the Pro Bowl 6 times. More importantly he got do something that few productive, loved athletes get to, he got to go out on top. In his last game the Steelers won the Super Bowl and if that wasn't enough it was in his hometown of Detroit.  Faulk as his stats indicate was much more versatile, he was both a threat as a runner and a receiver. He got traded to St. Louis because as he put it over a misunderstanding. The misunderstanding? Money His was vastly different situation than Jerome Bettis with the Steelers, the Rams were terrible before he got there. He proved to be the vital piece in one of the greatest offenses in NFL history-"The Greatest Show on Turf." His contributions were so important to this offense he was the NFL's Offensive Player of the Year 3 years in a row and he was NFL MVP in 2000. What made his MVP year really special was the Rams were without the their starting quarterback-Kurt Warner-for most of the year. He had been the NFL MVP and Super Bowl MVP the year before. Because of Faulk efforts the Rams made the playoffs in 2000. He too got to enjoy a Super Bowl victory in 1999. Unlike Bettis his career ended due to injury. These players show why teams are reluctant to give up on a player who has been productive and they show why fans/sport writers shouldn't.  

Jerome Bettis Stats-

Year	Team	Games	Rushing Attempts	Rushing Yards	Yards per Carry	Longest Carry	Rushing Touchdowns	First Downs	Fumbles	Fumbles Lost
1993	LOS	16	294	1,429	4.9	71	7	79	3	1
1994	LOS	16	319	1,025	3.2	19	3	53	5	3
1995	STL	15	183	637	3.5	41	3	24	4	2
1996	PIT	16	320	1,431	4.5	50	11	76	6	4
1997	PIT	15	375	1,665	4.4	34	7	94	6	6
1998	PIT	15	316	1,185	3.8	42	3	58	2	1
1999	PIT	16	299	1,091	3.6	35	7	64	2	1
2000	PIT	16	355	1,341	3.8	30	8	71	1	0
2001	PIT	11	225	1,072	4.8	48	4	46	3	0
2002	PIT	13	187	666	3.6	41	9	42	1	1
2003	PIT	16	246	811	3.3	21	7	43	4	4
2004	PIT	15	250	941	3.8	29	13	50	1	0
2005	PIT	12	110	368	3.3	39	9	30	0	0
Career		192	3,479	13,662	3.9	71	91	730	38	23

Marshall Faulk's Stats-
Rushing Stats

Year	Team	G	GS	Att	Yards	AVG	LG	TD	20+	FD
1994	Indianapolis Colts	16	16	314	1282	4.1	52	11	12	58
1995	Indianapolis Colts	16	16	289	1078	3.7	40	11	6	68
1996	Indianapolis Colts	13	13	198	587	3.0	43	7	1	41
1997	Indianapolis Colts	16	16	264	1054	4.0	45	7	7	65
1998	Indianapolis Colts	16	15	324	1319	4.1	68	6	5	62
1999	St. Louis Rams	16	16	253	1381	5.5	58	7	9	65
2000	St. Louis Rams	14	14	253	1359	5.4	36	18	6	78
2001	St. Louis Rams	14	14	260	1382	5.3	71	12	8	70
2002	St. Louis Rams	14	10	212	953	4.5	44	8	5	51
2003	St. Louis Rams	11	11	209	818	3.9	52	10	5	49
2004	St. Louis Rams	14	14	195	774	4.0	40	3	2	45
2005	St. Louis Rams	16	1	65	292	4.5	20	0	1	15
2006	St. Louis Rams	0	0	0	0	0.0	0	0	0	0
TOTAL		176	156	2836	12280	4.3	71	100	67	667

Receiving Stats

Year	Team	G	GS	Rec	Yards	AVG	LG	TD	20+	40+	FD
1994	Indianapolis Colts	16	16	52	522	10.0	85	1	3	2	22
1995	Indianapolis Colts	16	16	56	475	8.5	34	3	4	0	118 not 118
1996	Indianapolis Colts	13	13	56	428	7.6	30	0	3	0	18
1997	Indianapolis Colts	16	16	47	471	10.0	58	1	3	2	15
1998	Indianapolis Colts	16	15	86	908	10.6	78	4	12	1	44
1999	St. Louis Rams	16	16	87	1048	12.0	57	5	14	4	40
2000	St. Louis Rams	14	14	81	830	10.2	72	8	6	2	42
2001	St. Louis Rams	14	14	83	765	9.2	65	9	5	1	40
2002	St. Louis Rams	14	10	80	537	6.7	40	2	3	1	23
2003	St. Louis Rams	11	11	45	290	6.4	30	1	3	0	11
2004	St. Louis Rams	14	14	50	310	6.2	25	1	2	0	12
2005	St. Louis Rams	16	1	44	291	6.6	18	1	0	0	18
2006	St. Louis Rams	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
TOTAL		176	156	767	6875	9.0	85	36	58	13	303

Rory

Is Rory Golf’s New King?

Now that Rory McIlroy has won this year’s PGA Championship as well as the British Open Championship there is talk that he is new King of Golf. While that makes sense let’s not be so quick to crown him because there have been other players who have enjoyed similar success who did not go onto become King. Let’s take a look at these players & the reasons why they didn’t go onto become King.


First up is Lee Trevino. He had the most sustained period of success (1968-1984) & won the most majors (6) than the other golfers that will be talked about. What’s really impressive is his first win was a major (1968 US Open). In 1971 he became the first golfer to win the US, Canadian, & British Open(s). The only other golfer to accomplish this is Tiger Woods. What makes this achievement really noteworthy is he did it in the span of 20 days! He would defend his British Open Championship in 1972 & won the PGA Championship in 1974. He won his last major in 1984 (PGA) at the age of 44. Unlike a lot of other golfers he had a great sense of humor & he was unique in that he was a minority (Mexican, this inspired his nicknames-the Merry Mex & Super Mex). The reason he didn’t become the King is Jack Nicklaus was still in his prime & Tom Watson would emerge a few year later.

Up next is Nick Price (you probably thought I was going to write Nick Faldo).  His dominant period was during a really weird period for golf Nicklaus & Watson hadn’t won a major for a while (Nicklaus hadn’t won one since 1986 & Watson hadn’t won one since 1983) and it didn’t appear that a dominant golfer was on the horizon. He won his 1^st major in 1992 (PGA Championship). His best year was 1994 (he won the British Open & PGA Championship sound familiar). The reason he didn’t become the King is a combination of things his age (he was 37 during his best year) and timing as you can see it was only a few years before Tiger would emerge.

 



The final golfer is Padraig Harrington. His dominant period occurred when Tiger was out due to injury. He won his 1^st major in 2007 (the British Open). His best year was 2008 (he won the British Open & the PGA Championship sensing a theme!) He’s unique in that he was the first Irish golf to win the British Open in 60 years and the first from the Republic of Ireland. His PGA Championship win is noteworthy because he was the first European to win in 78 years and he was the first from Ireland. The reason he didn’t become the King is similar to Nick Price (he was 36 in his best year) and a younger player would soon emerge (Rory McIlroy.)
These golfers show that just because a player is somewhat young (Trevino was 28 when he won his first major) and wins multiple majors in a year or many in short period of time doesn’t mean he’ll become the King of Golf.