Hello college football Playoffs - Part two

Hello college football Playoffs - Part two
by Dan Salem and Todd Salem (1-10-14)

[Part one - Goodbye BCS]



DAN:
The BCS rankings are based on numbers, statistics and lots of other substantial information that has its basis in real life. Contrast that to the Coach's poll which is merely the opinion of the coaches or their assistants or brother-in-law. I did not sign up for the loss of these rankings, simply a four team playoff to replace the one game BCS title game.

Using mathematics is usually a good idea and I can't disagree with you on this one. My gripe with the BCS system was that nearly every season the top five teams were basically equal. It felt arbitrary to let the computer rank a one loss team from a stronger conference over an undefeated team from a weaker conference. They should play each other instead! That's what was missing and that's what excites me about this playoff. The top four teams get to play for the title. Great! A group of randomly selected individuals deciding the top four teams instead of the BCS computers... sucky!


TODD:
Well that was almost a prophetic response by you. The first half of the BCS Championship game went exactly as you described. Auburn's defense was holding down FSU and confusing the young quarterback with blitzes and faking pressure...Then they decided to play thirty more minutes. Auburn struggled to produce points and Famous Jameis drove the Seminoles down for all the points they needed, taking the lead on their final drive with just seconds remaining. It was really a great game and fitting end to the BCS.

But enough pleasantries, because discussing the upcoming playoff is anything but pleasant. Yes, the BCS rankings will be done away with. So if you thought it was arbitrary for a computer system to rank a certain team second overall over another, get ready! We will see a panel of humans try to decipher the validity of teams ranked four through ten or so. How many teams this season would have had a claim to that fourth playoff spot? At least three teams: Michigan State, Stanford and Baylor. You could even have talked me into Missouri and South Carolina or Ohio State. The final decisions of the playoff committee are going to be so arbitrary it's ridiculous.

As far as I know, there will be no voting released, just a final four (Or, technically, a final four plus eight I suppose, since they are still playing other "top" bowl games that literally no one is going to care about now). Also, apparently the group will release rankings just a couple times throughout the year, so we may not have a feeling about where they stand from their final ranking all the way to the bowl announcements.

I wouldn't have minded if they left the BCS intact and simply expanded the final from two to four as you said. That would have been ideal. Now, I think we're in store for a shit show. Mythbusters once did an episode on shit hitting the fan; whether it actually splatters and covers EVERYTHING in its wake. The results weren't perfect, but they decided it was a plausible figure of speech. So if the BCS was shit hitting the fan, this new playoff committee is going to be like shit-covered fans being dropped from the sky, into the jet stream of an airplane.


DAN:
I love your poop analogy and I definitely was spot on with my BCS prediction, as far as the first half was concerned. I missed the boat entirely with the whole come back, kick return for a touchdown and then miracle victory thing. Moving on...

There are two very simple things that make the college football regular season easy to follow and fun as hell. The first is the knowledge that these teams are competing for a top tier bowl game, not just any old bowl game since everyone gets that. The second is the weekly top twenty five rankings of the best teams in the nation. We lose our first thing instantly by adding a four team playoff. No one cares about the Rose Bowl game now, they just want to be in the playoff. Before, if you weren't one of the top two teams then you wanted to win your conference to make the nationally televised bowl game. In the case of the Big Ten and Pac-12, its the Rose Bowl. The conference title is now very much diminished, as its highly likely the top team in both the Big Ten and Pac-12 will make the playoff in the upcoming season. Ok, so we have to lose something to gain something else. That's fine.

I was on board with the playoff up until the loss of the weekly BCS rankings. Every college football season begins with a pre-season top twenty five ranking, but the true rankings were never fully realized until the BCS rankings came out. This was when we as fans could look at the teams ranked one to twenty five and feel confident in the order. It was updated every Sunday night on ESPN, debated endlessly on Monday and Tuesday and then updated again week after week after week. The buzz around college football was huge from this. Huge! Now its all gone...

If the "group of super smart college football geniuses who will pick the playoff teams" don't rank the top twenty five every week of the season, then what are we following as fans? Are they hoping we go back to caring about the conference rankings and positioning? That's just stupid. The conferences only mean something to those teams in them. The playoffs will be national.

I don't think your poop covered fans being dropped through airplane turbines analogy was strong enough. I'm picturing a delicious wedding cake with a giant fat guy picking his nose and then grabbing pieces of the cake and eating them. He continues to do this for a good thirty to forty minutes until the cake is destroyed and full of boogers. Then he farts on it and hands his wife a piece. That piece of cake is our college football product.

[If you missed part one - Goodbye BCS]

NCAA College Basketball: League of Children - Part one

NCAA College Basketball: League of Children - Part one
by Dan Salem and Todd Salem (11-11-13)



TODD:
The college basketball season tipped off just a few days ago. Early season games are being played between ranked teams and November records seem to mean more than ever before. In fact, tomorrow #1 Kentucky faces #2 Michigan State and #4 Duke plays #5 Kansas. Not bad for the first week of the season.

But that is not the story for the start of the year. The story is related to this:

1. Andrew Wiggins
2. Julius Randle
3. Dante Exum
4. Jabari Parker
5. Marcus Smart
6. Joel Embiid
7. Aaron Gordon
8. Andrew Harrison
9. James Young
10. Dario Saric
11. Wayne Selden

Those are the projected top eleven picks in the 2014 NBA Draft according to ESPN draft expert Chad Ford. Nevermind the fact that six of them play for either Kansas or Kentucky. That isn't the story either. (...Well, it kind of is.) Of those eleven men, the BEST eleven pro prospects mind you, only one had played a single second of college basketball prior to this week, and that is Marcus Smart (who is a returning sophomore). The other 10 of 11 prospects are either freshmen or from overseas.

Let's let that sink in for a second.

Need more time?

We good? Okay.

So eight of the best eleven prospects in the world (according to ESPN's Chad Ford) are freshmen who had never played any collegiate basketball before. Two come from overseas and one lone man, who plays his basketball at Oklahoma State, is the only elite prospect with any kind of college experience. This is fascinating; it is unbelievable; it is uncanny and, to be honest, rather embarrassing.

Now I realize many have talked about the famed 2014 draft as possibly the best ever. People were looking ahead and realized this potential a year ago. Truth is, this might be the best that some of these guys ever look. It's possible at least a couple flame out as freshmen and their NBA stock drops a bit, or they return to school (HAHA, yeah right!). But taking this early mock draft at face value, the bottom line is this: the landscape of college basketball is kind of a joke.

Take a look again at those games being played on Tuesday. Kentucky is #1 in the country. Arguably their five best players are all freshmen. Kansas is #5, led by a couple freshmen, and even the Duke Blue Devils have a freshman as their best player. (Hell is freezing over, sell all your stock, buy that fancy car you've always wanted.) So not only are nearly all the top NBA guys freshmen, but many of the top teams are littered with players who will be leaving after just one season. This happens every year, but not like THIS.

Putting the specific 2013-2014 freshmen class aside, doesn't something need to change here for the product that is college basketball? Fix it my brother. Fix the sport.


DAN:
I need more time! Thinking.... thinking.... okay I concede. What's happened to college basketball?

Let me get my annoyed ranting out of the way first, because this NCAA season is both stupid and amazing. Personally, I find college basketball to be down right exciting, especially during tournament time. The holiday tournaments are usually top notch and competition for the top 25 is fierce. Yet the best eleven players are freshmen, unknowns, children with ridiculous amounts of talent and little game tape. I'm calling them children, not because of age, but because of their basketball experience. You need time with a top notch coach (collegiate level or higher) and a competition level rivaling your own to gain the intangibles needed for the NBA. Sure, you can compete and score, but you're still a kid until you've put a couple seasons under your belt.

So we now enter this NCAA basketball season full well knowing that Kansas and Kentucky are odds on favorites to be in the Final Four, if not the title game. Why? Because they own six of the top eleven players and everybody knows you only need one transcendent guy to run the table. They are all freshmen. Seriously! How did college basketball get itself in this position? What has cornered the sport into this inescapable situation? The NBA did this. Its popularity growth, especially overseas, has made college basketball inconsequential. Everyone wants to watch the best players, but they want to see them in a Knicks or Suns uniform (teams picked randomly, most people would probably not pick either of those teams). They want to see the best play the best, in the NBA, not the best clobber other inferior players until they run home crying. This is not actually a problem. Let that sink in.

The best thing about NCAA basketball has always been March Madness. That hasn't changed and knowing your team's best player will only compete in the tournament one time makes every game that much more special. Ultimately the one and done, with freshmen dominating the college game year after year, is great for the sport of basketball overall. It hurts the college game slightly, while boosting the NBA in incredible ways. I'm actually excited to see these eleven players play, knowing they will represent the top eleven in the NBA draft next year.

The NBA is becoming more synonymous with college basketball and vice versa. The college game is the proving ground, more so than ever before, with only a single season to show your worth. College sports is about the team name and logo on the front of the jersey, not on the back. So fans of a university will be excited no matter what. What drives a sport is the casual fan, the guys who want to watch for the top tier talent. And college basketball is going to have a ton of that this season. I say win, win.

I'm going out a limb here and saying you disagree. Yell at me some more and I'll give you your 'fix.'

[Part two - Remaking the game] 

Sports Injuries: NFL Upside down & Changing expectations - Part two

Sports Injuries: NFL Upside down & Changing expectations - Part two
by Dan Salem and Todd Salem (11-8-13)

[Part one - When stars fall]



DAN:
I was all ready to call this a coincidence, this rash of high profile NFL injuries in 2013. Then Aaron Rodgers went down on Monday Night Football. Sure, there are a ton of injuries every year in the NFL, but adding Rodgers' name to this season's list has pushed things off a cliff. Wow! Everything is working out for the underdog teams this season. I'm calling it now: Chiefs vs. Jets in the AFC Championship and Lions vs. Panthers in the NFC. Now THAT would be something.

Anyways, on the injury front itself, I think all of the injuries do mean something. But it has little to do with the game being played. There was a time when injuries were glorified, exciting and fun to watch. I'd say as recently as the late nineties when Madden football let you "knock a guy's head off", we as fans loved this stuff. A home plate collision in baseball was wonderful. It was the peak of in game excitement. In the NBA, two men crashing to the court brought cheers to the crowd. None of this is true any more. We don't want our stars, let alone any player, getting injured. No one should ever fall to the court, home plate collisions are feared, and anytime there's a big hit or a quarterback sack in the NFL, we are left holding our breath to see if the man can stand back up under his own free will. Sports fans have changed and now, left with nearly the same sport to watch, we don't enjoy things like we once did. Fantasy sports is just a small part of this change. Our society has moved dramatically away from violence and aggressive behavior being tolerated. We still enjoy it, when we know its fake. But sports are real life and no one wants to see anyone get hurt.

You mentioned putting numbers to the injuries. Can you please do this? If I start a Kickstarter fund to raise 2K bucks, is that enough to fund you over a month's worth of work? I SO want this information. ESPN has been keeping injury reports for some time now, so you can correlate that to team success based upon when stars fall. And then jump to the next season and see what transpired. This would revolutionize sports betting for the upcoming season. You'd know exactly which teams, that presumably sucked like the Red Sox did the year before, were bound to have a great year simply based on lack of injury. I actually see a board game in this information's future as well. You can draft a team of stars and then "injure" players on your opponent's team. Using real life wins and losses, you can reshape history!

Getting a bit further off topic, why are there no fun sports based board games? The closest we ever got were those silly trivia games that are impossible to play with a non sports fan. Fantasy sports is pick up a play. Can't we get a monopoly style game where everyone is an NFL General Manager or something. Come on Matel.


TODD:
I thought you laughed and mocked me for my Carolina Panthers NFC pick back in our 2013 predictions. Now who looks stupid?

You are right about the wussification of the American public though. 'JACKED UP' used to be a weekly segment on NFL studio shows, where commentators gleefully cheered at players receiving concussions. (Not literally but essentially.) There used to be a button in Madden video games called the 'hit stick' which was used to jack people up. I actually cannot confirm whether this still exists, as I have not bought an edition of Madden in a long while, but I feel like it probably does not. And now, every time anyone sees a big hit, you are exactly right, the first reaction is in concern for the decapitated and whether or not the play deserved to be penalized.

Very few, if any hits are ever celebrated nowadays. It seems awkward to do so. So I will patiently await my $2,000 grant to research the injury epidemic and make everyone aware of my findings in the near future. Until then, we will be forced to watch a Monday Night Football game between the legendary Packers and Bears where the starting quarterback battle is between Seneca Wallace and Josh McCown.

Also, this is 2013. What's a board game?


DAN:
I've come around on the Panthers. I always believed Cam Newton had it in him, but Carolina is playing defense and former contenders are dropping like flies. Also, its now 2013 and I'm all about Thursday Night and Sunday Night Football. What's this Monday Night Football you speak of? Kidding, kidding.

Board games are contraptions made of card board, processed trees, that consume hours of your life. They require you to have at least three to five friends or subservient family members and always lead to argument and unnecessary bragging. They are analogous to the play ground in middle school, yet everyone starts on even ground and the smart / lucky person wins. Strength is removed from the equation.

To wrap things up on the sports injury front, there is only one thing I know for certain. All of the major professional sports are getting safer and we are going to still feel, year after year, that there are a TON of injuries to our favorite players. This is the deal. The players make it when they continue to play a sport past their early twenties when their bodies no longer recover the same way. And we the fans make this deal when we decide to devote heart and soul, sweat and tears, to our team's success during the season.

Unless sports become a virtual endeavor with no actual, physical competition, there will be injuries and lots of them. From a fantasy sports perspective, this frickin sucks. Its bad enough to lose a fantasy football matchup by a fraction of a point (I've lost two weeks this year by 0.2 points). But when your star player is injured, or worse, they are playing through a minor injury that simply hampers his or her production, your team is pretty much screwed. They have spray on band aids now. I want spray on bone and ligament healing. Thank you science.

[If you missed Part one - When stars fall]

MLB Fall Classic: Dang those Old folks & Ad Men - Part two

MLB Fall Classic: Dang those Old folks & Ad Men - Part two
by Dan Salem and Todd Salem (10-25-13)

[Part one - Average event in a Golden package]



TODD:
I think the problem is deeper for baseball. This league has stars, lots of them, perhaps more than at any point in our lifetimes. Miguel Cabrera (albeit injured during the ALCS), is the best hitter in the world. That type of player would draw a viewing audience in other sports. And what about Yasiel Puig and Clayton Kershaw in LA? The most exciting young player in the NL and the best pitcher in the world are both on the same team, yet this doesn't tip the needle. I think the problem has more to do with baseball not being a great sport to watch on television. It is slow and deliberate and that cannot change unless you overhaul the fundamental aspects of the game. A team can score waves of runs at any time, but tuning in for action sequences is random and unpredictable. The game was meant for the radio or in-person, where it thrives. But in an increasingly digital and fast-paced society, there may be no room for it. This leads to exactly what you said; people only care about their own team. I believe that sentiment will grow as the years go on.

The juxtaposition is that baseball is actually easier to follow nowadays. While the culture may be moving past the sport in real-time, box scores and stats can be checked immediately after every game has concluded to see how the league is doing. It is much easier to keep up on the sport as a whole without actually tuning into any game play. I...don't know what this means for the future of the sport. Maybe you have some idea.

As for the '13 World Series itself, the Red Sox made an interesting improvement, going from last in their division to first and making the World Series. But last year's team shouldn't have been that bad; it really just came down to injuries. Jonah Keri did a great job of detailing this recently in a piece for Grantland, with stats that --


DAN:
Let me interrupt you right there, because the stats you were about to lay down are mind blowing. Thanks in advance Jonah for making everything about the Red Sox quite clear. We'll talk injuries in early November. Its a big can of worms and I want to do it justice.

So we have baseball as both an inferior TV product and baseball as an incredible real time app update (iPhone, Android etc). Both are true, but I disagree about this being a problem. Baseball has always been an inferior TV product. The games are long and its completely unpredictable. Hence everyone only wanting to watch their home team. However, this technology boom that we are right in the middle of is huge for baseball and MLB. You are spot on, its so damn easy to check the score inning to inning, or go watch the thirty second recap of the entire game within five minutes of it ending. If videos aren't your thing, then you can read the game summary complete with inning by inning scoring plays and statistics. It goes one step further even. Go read the in game Twitter feed that ESPN posts on its Gamecast. Only one word comes to mind. Brilliant! Its so damn entertaining to read the feed from analysts, fans, etc. And I'm not sure if this is universal, but the Yankees' Twitter feed posts photos of the big plays and video of every run scoring play. So awesome. How is this bad for baseball?

The obvious answer is that its not bad at all. Its actually saving the game. I've never been more into regular season baseball for this reason alone. I just go click, click on my phone for thirty seconds and get all the juicy game details. Or I can read how the new young star you mentioned, Yasiel Puig, had yet another monster afternoon and is now batting over .400 in the postseason. Yes, he did that. This is beyond great for baseball. You get this with football as well, but not nearly as much with the NBA. It translates, just not to this level.

So what's baseball's problem, what is holding back MLB from bridging the generation gap and getting fans excited? Its the old folks I tell you. They are holding back the sport with their memories. They are constantly trying to recreate the "good old days" of when baseball was pure (Note to everybody: It never was). And when I say "they" I'm referring to the folks in charge of the league. I think the MLB Network is great and I love the show where it bounces around the entire league and shows you the big moments of all the games taking place. Brilliant! But does anyone actually know about this? Have you seen a single commercial on ESPN advertising this amazing new way to watch baseball? The answer is a resounding No. Its not that they lack good ideas, they lack the ability to tell anyone about them. Its ridiculous. I think this same idea can be applied to the postseason. Put a show together that combines the weirdness of live Twitter and in game analysis, with only the best parts of the actual game. Maybe you have to air this starting in the fifth inning, so that it will catch up with real time by the end of the game. But then you cut out all the boring filler that turns fans off.

Advertise your stars damn it! And embrace the new wave of technology that is making baseball fun to follow. I'm psyched for this World Series matchup, but I don't care to actually watch it. That's a very fixable problem. Better than with the NHL where I don't even care to begin with. Sorry hockey.


TODD:
Your delayed telecast idea is rather brilliant. It will never happen because it would mean television networks lose five innings of advertising, but picking up the game late and having it pick and choose the important parts from the first two thirds of the game to show is perfect for baseball. It is an MLB DVR with a brain.

Oh, someone strikes out the side on only 12 pitches in the third? Okay, we'll show you that whole half inning. But there's one long double and nothing else happens in the fourth? We'll just show you the hit and a good defensive play if it occurs. This is so awesome it actually is upsetting me that I can't watch the World Series games like this.

Again, I know this is a TV rights issue and all that business bullshit, but MLB Network would be perfect for this. Let FOX run the whole World Series, all the innings of all the games. I'd rather tune in to the 'Series Shortener' on the other channel. While the live telecasts start at 8 pm EST, this one could chill out and wait until 930 or 10 and catch us all up before reacclimating with the live feed by the later innings. Alas, our brilliance goes to waste in the current world of advertising and network broadcast rights.

[If you missed Part one - Average event in a Golden package]

NFL 1st Quarter review, the Four game story - Part one

NFL 1st Quarter review, the Four game story - Part one
by Dan Salem and Todd Salem (10-7-13)



After four games of the NFL season we at Seesaw Sports lay down our power rankings and go to town on the posers and the studs. Four games don't tell you everything, but after a quarter of the NFL season everyone knows who's in first and who's in last.



1st Quarter Power Rankings

[Numbers in parentheses equal difference in rank from Todd: i.e (+1) equals one spot higher] 


TODD                                DAN

32. Jacksonville                 Jacksonville (0)
31. Oakland                       Tampa Bay (-6)
30. New York Giants          Arizona (-7)
29. Pittsburgh                    New York Giants (+1)
28. Washington                 Oakland (+3)
27. Philadelphia                Washington (+1)
26. St. Louis                      Philadelphia (+1)
25. Tampa Bay                  St. Louis (+1)
24. Minnesota                   Carolina (-10)
23. Arizona                        Pittsburgh (+6)
22. New York Jets             San Diego (-2)
21. Buffalo Bills                 Buffalo Bills (0)
20. San Diego                   Minnesota (+4)
19. Miami                          New York Jets (+3)
18. Tennessee                  Tennessee (0)
17. Cleveland                    Houston (-1)
16. Houston                       Dallas (-6)
15. Cincinnati                    Cleveland (+2)
14. Carolina                       Baltimore (-2)
13. San Francisco             Atlanta (-4)
12. Baltimore                     Miami (+7)
11. Indianapolis                 Detroit (-6)
10. Dallas                          San Francisco (+3)
9. Atlanta                           Cincinnati (+6)
8. Kansas City                   Kansas City (0)
7. Chicago                         Chicago (0)
6. Green Bay                     Green Bay (0)
5. Detroit                            New England (-3)
4. Seattle                           New Orleans (-1)
3. New Orleans                  Indianapolis (+8)
2. New England                 Seattle (+2)
1. Denver                           Denver (0)


Comments from the rankings:

TODD:
- Oy, I was not expecting this from the Giants. Antrel Rolle thinks the G-Men can run the table and finish 12-4. I am...skeptical. This team cannot block anyone, can't run the ball, can't rush the passer. It's a perfect storm of suckitude. That being said, I still have confidence in Eli and that passing offense if he can get time.

- The Steelers are terrible on offense and cannot force a turnover on defense to save its life (or its season). Roethlisberger has no help and he is no Tom Brady.

- Two struggling teams, Washington and Philadelphia, with offensive issues for very different reasons. I trust Philly on offense a bit more even though I trust their defense a bit less.

- Neither the Bills nor Jets trusts their quarterback fully. I think that Buffalo likes EJ Manuel a tad bit more than New York likes Geno Smith.

- Sorry, I'm not a believer in Miami just yet. Call me old fashioned, but I am patient with my opinions. I like San Diego's offense and Miami's defense. If they could combine those two units, that squad would be in the top 10 easy.

- Tough news for Tennessee on Jake Locker. This team is going to tumble.

- There is something off with the 49ers. Kaepernick is getting no room to run around and Frank Gore got old too fast. The lack of receiving weapons is also blatantly obvious.

- We can't be fooled by that point differential for the Colts. Look who they have played so far.

- For Atlanta, 1-3 is 1-3. You can't take those games back. But this team is still supremely talented and needs a healthy Roddy White to prove it.

- I am all in on the NFC North with Detroit, Chicago and Green Bay. These guys are awesome. I wouldn't be surprised if all three make the playoffs and we have a preseason juggernaut like the Falcons or 49ers going home.

- Defense used to win championships. Nowadays though, I'd rather have the potent offense of the Saints to the potent defense of the Seahawks.


DAN:
- I’m not nearly as high on Tampa Bay as you are. They were a mess in week one against the Jets and have been accumulating more junk ever since. The quarterback change was the end in my book.

- I don’t like the Cardinals either. Very weak.

- Similar to Tampa, I think Carolina has no idea how to win a game. I watched them blow it against Buffalo, a game they had no business losing. The announcer made a comment with four minutes to go and Carolina leading; he said now is when the Panthers find a way to lose. He was right.

- Something about the Steelers tells me they are not nearly as bad as they look. I see them as an 8-8 team when the season comes to a close.

- The opposite is true of the Cowboys. They will probably win their division, but not for lack of trying to lose it. I don’t trust them.

- Guess I like the Dolphins a lot more than you here. They managed to find swagger over the summer. I like what they are doing and each week they are moving closer to the AFC East crown as New England falls apart. As a Jets fan I hate this. Boo Dolphins.

- Much much higher on the Bengals and the Colts than you. We will get into this on Friday, but from everything I’ve seen this season, it’s the AFC with the strong teams and the NFC with only a top five and a bunch of jokes. The Colts and Bengals can beat anyone if they show up on time.

[Part two - AFC vs NFC dominance]

 

"Hey. Hey guys. Guess what the bat represents!" - What ha... happened? (August Part one)

"Hey. Hey guys. Guess what the bat represents!" - What ha... happened? (August Part one)
by Dan Salem and Todd Salem (8-26-13)



"What ha... happened," where we scour the internet for a crazy sports photo or GIF and someone must try to explain it. Seesaw Sports asks what ha... happened? Monday: Opening statement. Friday: Rebuttal.

Real photos. Real results. But what in the heck happened?



DAN:
The Alex Rodriguez crying photo is pretty awesome, but its only a warm up. An insightful cover for the sweet stuff inside. We got GIFs baby!

I present to you the following:

Photo: Nice and easy A-rod

Title: "Hey. Hey guys. Guess what the bat represents!"

Description: Are you familiar with Alex Rodriguez? The third baseman for the New York Yankees? He's been in the news a bit lately. Something about PED allegations, a ban by Major League Baseball, an appeal to MLB which has allowed him to continue to play for the New York Yankees and a potential lawsuit against the Yankees themselves for screwing him over with their doctors. Then he got hit by a pitch, hit a home run, dropped his lawsuit and now...

Oh good, you have heard. Well A-rod seems to be enjoying his time with the bat here. I wonder what he's thinking. I wonder who or what the bat represents to him. Why Alex; why are you man handling your wood like that?

What ha... happened?


TODD:
As hilarious as this might be, I feel like Alex Rodriguez has been taking too much heat. Enough heat to bring any man to tears, or a fit of passion with the bat.

I know it is an awful lot of fun to hate on the guy, but we've gone over the line. He's not evil; he hasn't hurt or injured others off the field. He has never gotten into legal trouble per say, other than going against baseball's own rules. And those rules seem kind of arbitrary and shallow to begin with. Why are some performance-enhancing actions legal and others are not? Alex is not the villain you want him to be and his fun time waiting on deck exemplifies this.

A true villain doesn't rub so hard. A-Rod is getting slammed all over and it doesn't seem warranted. Bud Selig tried to suspend him a year and a half for a violation that already has a set penalty of a 50 game suspension. Something doesn't add up! I don't like to be a Rodriguez supporter, but like the wood he's stroking, I'm with him for now.

If Alex Rodriguez was not A-rod, rather someone we previously liked, it would be interesting to see what penalty this situation would have warranted. If all the details were the same except the name of the player, I think Selig would have issued a much more reasonable suspension...which seems absolutely ludicrous! Imagine a professional sports commissioner airing out personal grievances against a player by slamming him with harsher penalties. It sounds like something out of the WWE.

So what happened? Alex has baseball by its balls and he's going to town on their bat.

[Part two - "Liars and Cheats* get Love too"]

Fantasy Football: Evolution & Naming your fantasy team - Part two

Fantasy Football: Evolution & Naming your fantasy team - Part two
by Dan Salem and Todd Salem (8-23-13)

[Part one - Is a two QB league evil?]



TODD:
You are spot on about wide receivers in fantasy football, but I don't know why this upsets you. Wide receiver has a few studs, the best of the best. Calvin Johnson, A.J. Green are clear; perhaps Brandon Marshall and Dez Bryant could be on that level. There are just a few of them though. After that, there are about 30 interchangeable guys. You were exaggerating to make your point but your lofty number might be pretty accurate. Demaryius Thomas, ESPN's 6th rated wide receiver this season, is costing about $24 more than their 36th rated wide receiver, Mike Williams, and I just don't see it. Sure Thomas has a bigger upside I guess, but Williams scores touchdowns and is a pretty consistent performer. I'd much rather have Williams and the extra dough to spend on a running back. To me, this is just one more instance of separating the smart fantasy owners from the followers. Thomas and Andre Johnson and Larry Fitzgerald are all going to be taken for big money but the receivers going $15-20 cheaper might accumulate 85% of their stats for a fraction of the cost.

It will be interesting to see if the same thing happens at quarterback in normal leagues. The top guys are veeeerry expensive. The bottom guys who are capable of being pretty damn good (Eli Manning, Phillip Rivers, Jay Cutler, Josh Freeman) are going for a buck or going undrafted completely. In a one QB league, it seems plausible that an owner could grab two or even three of those dirt cheap signal callers and play match-ups to a title.

But if fantasy is becoming too offensive heavy for you, which seems like an odd complaint but whatever, they do have IDP leagues. Individual Defensive Player leagues are detailed and confusing. The best performers, as you hinted at, are linebackers and defensive backs. Tackles do usually count, as do interceptions and sacks, etc. But some of the more popular defense-men aren't the best fantasy performers which leaves preparation and success in such a league on quite a learning curve. Also, the scoring settings will be of utmost importance. If certain actions are worth too much, suddenly Eric Weddle or Sean Lee become more valuable than the top offensive guys. It may be worth a try one of these years but, if we're not careful, we may be left on the inexperienced/noobie side of a competitive league.


DAN:
To those in one QB only leagues, don't listen to Todd. You're crazy if you take three average quarterbacks and try to play the matchups all season long instead of say, taking Tom Brady. That's like not paying as much as humanly possible for LeBron James in NBA fantasy basketball. Its crazy talk. When you can only start one QB you absolutely need a stud. Grab one of those top five guys and you are almost guaranteed an extra ten points a week over a less expensive counterpart. I'm not sure the list is any deeper than five quarterbacks who I'd pay big money for. Miss one of them and definitely grab Eli Manning and Jay Cutler for fifteen bucks combined if you can.

My main complaint about the evolution of fantasy football is not that its offensive heavy, its that all the emphasis has fallen to the quarterbacks in the last five years. When I first started playing fantasy football I felt like I was picking all my favorite players to be on my team. And no, I wasn't losing. The QB, Running Back and Wide Receiver positions felt balanced, with a skew towards the running backs as the killer commodity. With all the NFL rule changes favoring the passing game, and a ton of new QBs being good to great runners themselves, two things happened. First, the running back position in fantasy football got killed. Its not the stud it once was and there are less stars to go around. You end up drafting players you don't yet know. The second thing, which we already touched on, is that the Wide Receiver position is watered down to where the top two guys on every team are more or less even.

I know I'm exaggerating, but the reason I LOVED fantasy football in the beginning was because I could nearly draft a team full of players I knew and adored. I still love fantasy football, but its become more and more like fantasy baseball where you have to play the numbers and ignore the name of the player. That's all well and good, but something got lost along the way. I like to know what the players on my fantasy team actually look like. I want to know I'll care about them again next season, or at least hear how well they have continued to perform. One and done seasons by players is common on a fantasy baseball roster, but has crept itself into fantasy football now too.

On the fun side of things, one of my little joys in life is picking team name's for fantasy football etc. Yet I'm thoroughly confused, as I seem to be alone in this. I think I'm one of maybe two in our leagues who actually changes up their team names. You have the exact same team name for every fantasy sport you play and have always had this team name, never once changed it. And you are not alone by any means. Come on man! 

My rule of thumb for a fantasy team name, if I win it all (or even finish top three if its a killer name) then the name can stay another season. The reigning champ (or close to it) has to defend his or her crown. Otherwise, the name has to go. A loser name has no place around here.

I realize I opened two doors for you. You'll probably point out how you always win, not an exaggeration, and therefore keep your team name. You'll also mention how its absurd for me to be a New York Jets fan and then make the statement about ditching a loser team name.

Go on. I'm ready.


TODD:
Yeah, I am glad you realized this blatant setup. I don't change my fantasy team name because I don't ever finish lower than third.

Even if that was not the case though, I like to keep my team name consistent, to build the brand if you will. However, as league commissioner, I do enjoy changing the league name a bit every season. The names used to be rather clever; recently I've been finding classic or obscure deceased players to name the season after. It is kind of fun in its own right. Nevertheless, my personal team name needs to remain the same so opponents know who they're dealing with!

Let's revisit fantasy football once the season has gotten underway. We don't want to give too much away now, before we've even drafted.

[If you missed Part one - Is a two QB league evil?]

Image credit: here

Fantasy Football: Is a two QB league evil? - Part one

Fantasy Football: Is a two QB league evil? - Part one
by Dan Salem and Todd Salem (8-19-13)



TODD:
There is something inherently evil about fantasy football leagues in which owners are allowed to start two quarterbacks. This sounds ludicrous to people who do not play fantasy sports. In fact, this may sound rather stupid to others as well. But the evil exists in the logic behind the action. You see, in leagues that allow players to start two quarterbacks, it is a death sentence to not do so. Quarterbacks score so many more points each week than other positions. Even starting a "bad" QB is preferred to starting a solid running back or wide receiver. The numbers back this up.

Last season, Ben Roethlisberger was the 19th highest scoring quarterback (depending on league scoring settings of course). In other words, in a normal league, he started for pretty much nobody. Big Ben was also the 24th highest scoring PLAYER, meaning there were only five non-quarterbacks in the entire NFL who scored more fantasy points than him. They were the five best running backs from a season ago. Roethlisberger, as a bench quarterback and oftentimes a free agent, scored more points than every wide receiver in football; more than Calvin Johnson. He was better than all tight ends and all but the top five guys at RB. He was better than Ray Rice and C.J. Spiller, etc.

So we start with a league that 'allows' two quarterbacks to be started. This is a careful, yet important distinction between leagues that 'require' teams to start two quarterbacks. The decision comes in the form of a flex position and that position generates the evil. Because what it does is create an uneven playing field between owners and an unhealthy value on the QB position. Suddenly, Andy Dalton or Josh Freeman are more valuable than Marques Colston or David Wilson. In normal leagues, the Daltons and Freemans would not even be rostered, let alone started. They are outside the top 12-15 quarterbacks. Thus, they serve no purpose other than bye week filler. Except in these evil leagues where they become vital.

The comparison between Dalton and Colston isn't even apt. Colston is a second tier wide receiver. He is going to be a starter in most every league, as a wide receiver. The teams that are able to start three receivers better than him and thus have the Saints big man as a flex filler are few and far between. The same goes for players like Wilson, borderline number two running backs who may have to battle for carries in real life.

These guys become less important than the bottom feeder QBs but are still starters. The dreaded flex position becomes a battle between Dalton, scoring 12-15 points per week, and a flex RB or WR like, say, Brandon LaFell. This man will score 7 points if you're lucky. Weeks where he does not get in the endzone, owners will be fortunate to scrounge together 55 yards from these fellows. And now you see the problem.

Here's the bottom line: if you play in a league where a second quarterback is allowed to be started, and you do not have a second quarterback to start, you're essentially down 10 points before your matchup even begins. Good luck.

We both play in a fantasy football league that employs this. Full disclosure: I am commissioner and created this evil environment. I can't say that I'm proud of myself. It haunts me. It is my fault people have to consider drafting Sam Bradford over the likes of Hakeem Nicks. I live with this weighing over my conscience.

I guess my question to you is, am I a bad person?


DAN:
I'm not sure your question has anything to do with the fantasy football league you created. Zing!

You're commissioner of this so called "evil" league, so if it bothers you so much to this day, why did you ever build the league this way? Personally, as someone who has played in such a league for several years now, I'm a little shocked you dare to call it evil and I know exactly why you created your league in this way.

Having a flex position in fantasy football is awesome. You can start anyone you like, but more importantly, it exposes the inexperienced or disinterested player. You wanted to create a competitive league of players who are informed and actually like football. This flex position shows you, as commissioner, who falls short of those expectations. It only took one week of my first season playing with a flex roster spot to realize I'd be an idiot not to play two quarterbacks. Unless you somehow end up with three of the top five running backs in the league, then you're going quarterback all the way for the flex.

I'm going one step further. Its pretty moronic not to have three quarterbacks on your roster. You need a bonafide backup at all times to fill the QB and flex position. But evil? Hell no. I actually enjoy how the flex position gives someone like Mark Sanchez value. Mark freaking Sanchez had fantasy value in his first two years as a pro! He had none last season, but before then he did. With a ten team league we're talking the top 20 quarterbacks being on roster. That's 20 of the 32 quarterbacks in the league collecting points every week. If we add in the three per team wrinkle, that's 30 of 32 quarterbacks being employed by the members of our league. I love this! When in all of sports would you ever find yourself rooting for Ryan Tannehill, sorry Dolphins fans (no I'm not)? You wouldn't unless you had to add him to your team for the points.

I'm actually more fed up with the Wide Receiver position in fantasy football. When I started playing fantasy, the WR position was a money spot. You could rake it in, clean up, with the right guy on your team. Now its like there are three top guys and then 30 who all put up ten points a week. What's the point? Its annoying and disappointing and its the quarterbacks' fault. They are all spreading the ball around so damn much that no one is dominant week in and week out any more.

I think ultimately, fantasy football has always been offensive heavy. But with the watering down of the WR position, the ineptitude of the kicker slot and the top heavy need for quarterbacks, can we get the defense more involved? Why hasn't this been sufficiently worked out so that its fun? Linebackers and Safetys/Cover Corners accumulate statistics week after week. I'm not suggesting we count tackles, but would that be so bad? We count yards after all.


TODD:
You got me. Guilty. I did this on purpose to set the noobies back. If someone doesn't start two quarterbacks, it essentially becomes a white flag to the rest of us that they aren't going to be winning this league anytime soon.

And by the way, I kind of like Ryan Tannehill this season. I am happy to hear I won't be competing with you when his name comes up for bid as a third quarterback.

As for wide receivers, you are exactly right but I don't know why this upsets you.

[Part two - Evolution & Naming your fantasy team]

Image credit: here

NFL Kickoff: Off season questions Real & Hilarious - Part one

NFL Kickoff: Off season questions Real & Hilarious - Part one
by Dan Salem and Todd Salem (8-5-13)



TODD:
The NFL is perfecting its takeover of the entire calendar year. We start with training camp and preseason in August through to the regular season and playoffs. The Super Bowl is played in February. From there comes free agency, player movement and draft talk through April-May. After that is finalization of rosters, more player movement and preseason news through the summer. Parts of this takeover are more fun (the NFC West royalty) than others (the Aaron Hernandez story). But either way, the National Football League now lasts 12 months a year.

With that preamble out of the way, let's dive into a myriad of questions that currently surround the league.

First, and possibly most importantly, with concussion research and player safety in the front of everyone's mind, is it realistic that this league eventually folds, AKA no longer exists, like some people have opined? Perhaps not in the next decade, but in our lifetime is there ever not going to be an NFL?

On a smaller scale, we can get into who will win the Super Bowl, what happens to the Patriots offense, who's the surprise team of the year and the biggest disappointment, etc. But those aren't the questions people are clambering for. Not yet at least. Here's what fans are really wondering:

(1) From a pure popularity standpoint, as in most interest by the most people, which New England story was actually bigger news, Aaron Hernandez or Tim Tebow?

(2) Is this finally the year fantasy football leagues realize using a kicker as a scoring position is almost entirely irrelevant and luck-based?

(3) If Barry Sanders came out of retirement today, could he be the starting running back for the New York Jets?

(4) If Russell Wilson, Andrew Luck, Colin Kaepernick and Robert Griffin III played 2 on 2 in a decathalon-type event, what would the teams be, which side would win, who would America be rooting for, and would they all be immediately inducted into the respective Halls of Fame of each sport they participated in?

(4b) How much does it suck for all current and future first year starting quarterbacks?

(5) Do the New York Giants actually eschew the linebacker position entirely this season and go with an unconventional 5-0-6 alignment? ...Huh, oh, no one is actually wondering this other than me?


DAN:
Whoa, whoa, whoa, someone just exploded a four part NFL debate in my face! I see six valid questions and one that is complete horse manure.

A thought on your preamble, the NFL is definitely expanding itself across all twelve months of the calendar and there is no better time for this to happen. Its popularity couldn't be higher and the potential for making money is still growing. Yet I worry for the league, and not because of the concussion issue which I'll get to in a minute. I worry because too much of a good thing is a cliche for a reason. If you eat too much ice cream you get a brain freeze and swear off it for a week. If you drink too much you puke, wake up with a hang over and wish you never knew what alcohol was. My point, we as Americans are reaching a saturation point with football. Its not just the NFL, but college football in conjunction with the NFL is inescapable.

There will be a breaking point, a moment in time where each fan says "Enough!" I can't take anymore football and need a break. Sports were built this way to start out. You had an off season with few to no stories to tell, so by the time training camp came around you were clamoring for some football or baseball or what not. Expanding to twelve uninterrupted months of football news and notes and crap involving the legal system is dangerous territory. ESPN and the like need things to talk about, I get it, and the NFL can still make more money. I get that too. But I worry, will enough be enough or will it never be enough?

How about that first question. The league is not going to fold. That's completely unrealistic. Sports are a part of American culture and football is at the forefront. It has been our entire lives. Our father's generation had baseball in the lead and our kid's generation might have the NBA, if trends continue. But the major sports are staying put in our society. No one is shutting down or boycotting the NFL and the game will get safer. Hell, its infinitely safer then when I played in high school. Rules alone, not to mention equipment, make it harder to get seriously injured. Plus, more importantly, there is something about men that makes them want to inflict pain on one another. I'm not saying we want to injure other men, just bruise them and push them around a bit. It's why boxing gyms are so popular, even if the sport has leveled off. Its also why MMA has blown up. The NFL is like Mixed Martial Arts with a full body suit and too many rules to count. Plus, hold onto this ball. Men love this! We aren't letting it go, just allowing it to change to appease the women of the world.

I'd like to issue a half apology in advance for being semi-sexist. Just covering my bases.


TODD:
The saturation point seems far off with the way things are transpiring, but certain actions are on the horizon that may expedite this process. Expanding the league into other countries, which already happens once a year, is going to get kicked up a notch. Multiple games will be played overseas. There may even be a franchise located in a country outside of North America. So not only will American football be a full-year sport in America but in other parts of the world as well.

On a side note, if the NFL expands past Europe and into Latin speaking countries, I'm not quite sure what they will call it. Futbol is already taken and we know first hand how confusing it is when soccer fans call soccer futbol here in the states.

[Part two - Off season questions 'Tebow vs. Hernandez']
[Part three - The fantasy kicker & Barry Sanders] 
[Part four - A QB decathlon, rookies & the NY Giants]

MLB at the Break: Let's knock some Dingers - Part one

MLB at the Break: Let's knock some Dingers - Part one
by Dan Salem and Todd Salem (7-08-13)



TODD:
Oy, this is embarrassing.

The 2013 MLB All-Star game rosters were announced over the weekend and they are, to be honest, pretty perfect.

There are so few mistakes it's just picking nits to go through them. Sure Carlos Gomez should be starting. I mean, he leads all of baseball in WAR. But he still made the team. As did your boy Andrew McCutchen and my two shortstops, Everth Cabrera and Jean Segura. And everyone's favorite flash in the pan, Yasiel Puig is going to make it as well. Putting him in the final five fan vote was kind of brilliant. It takes all the pressure off of the manager to select him, while knowing he is still going to make the roster. There isn't a major problem with anything on the entire National League roster.

On the AL side, things look pretty clean as well. The starting lineup is fine, considering the steady decline this past month exhibited by Alex Rios. My only beef comes in the form of the AL outfield reserves. Torii Hunter did not deserve to make this team. Ben Zobrist has been okay this season; same goes for Alex Gordon. I would have much rather seen Jacoby Ellsbury or Brett Gardner or both in a couple of those spots. But if the only thing we can gripe about is the reserves of one position of one league, the rosters are pretty damn excellent. Other than, you know, the fact that the American League final roster spot to vote on is between five middle relievers. How lame is that?

Two important questions come to mind. First, can we go back and edit last week's post to make it seem like we were aiming for a reverse jinx here? By exclaiming where America was going to mess up, we were really just trying to align the baseball gods to give us a great set of teams. Drop the "Mission Accomplished!" banner!

Secondly, which team looks better, i.e. who is going to win this thing?


DAN:
Reverse Jinx baby! It worked and I'm totally taking credit for our tag team reverse fan voting jinx. The fans did a good job! I'm disappointed that neither Ellsbury or Gardner made the team (especially Gardner), but when we only have reserves to complain about you know something got done right. Only having a slew of middle relief pitchers to pick from for the American League final roster spot is a result of the stellar fan voting. David Robertson all the way baby! Puig is our National League guy. He better be. I'm flying the "Mission Accomplished" banner proudly outside my front door.

About the men on the field and who will secure home field advantage for their league come championship time. That honor will belong to the team from the American League.

It's all about pitching baby. Both leagues have stellar offenses to showcase, but the All-Star arms for the AL are kind of amazing. King Felix Hernandez, Yu Darvish, Justin Verlander, Max Scherzer and Clay Buchholz (to name more than a few) handing things over to Mariano Rivera is lights out. Sure, sure, the NL offense will grab a run or three, but this rotation is shut down. Two innings per guy is more than one game, so doing some rudimentary math leads to an American League victory. AL wins five runs to three.

I feel like the All-Star game always falls second fiddle to the real deal derby the night before, the Home Run Derby. I LOVE this event! Its stayed fun and fresh year after year. The NBA should take a page from Major League Baseball to fix its dunk, read stunk, competition. What makes the HR derby so great is each participant is playing for charity. You have one fan per player sitting and cheering their guy on in the hopes of winning a new house. How awesome! They are beyond super fans, with a new home for their family at stake. Add to that the players' kids running around and high fiving their dads after a dinger. The excitement is palpable. Oh, and "Back, back, back" still makes me smile. Can't wait!

Got any requests for Robinson Cano and David Wright? They have yet to pick their teams, which is another tremendous idea in itself.


TODD:
Hold on, let me first disagree with your All-star game pick. I actually think the AL has slightly better bats, but the National League has the loaded starting pitching. You can take those five from the AL; I'd rather have Clayton Kershaw, Matt Harvey, Adam Wainwright, Cliff Lee and Madison Bumgarner. Put it this way, if the managers run this thing like past years where the starters are rotated out by the third inning and they try to play as many guys as possible, the NL is going to win. The only chance the American League has is if Miguel Cabrera, Chris Davis, Trout and some of those other starters play nine innings. The AL reserves are not scoring against that pitching staff. Mark it down.

I'm with you though on the Home Run Derby. It is the main attraction. Just like the NBA, MLB's excitement showcase is the event before the All-Star game. I think the dunk contest is getting a bad rap though. Is it really that bad? 'We've seen every dunk imaginable so dunks get repetitive.' That is the main argument against it. How can anything be more repetitive than a home run derby? It is literally the same thing over and over. And sure they play for charity and they have the specific fan for each guy. That's all well and good. But you missed the biggest draw. The reason people still love the derby but are down on the dunk contest is because the top tier stars still do the derby! The dunk contest is low-name and no-name athletes who won't be ridiculed if they miss. There is no such fear from the Major Leaguers that they might get a goose egg. That's what I like.

Cano has it easy here picking the AL squad. He has to pick Chris Davis and Miguel Cabrera. No-brainers. With his final slot, I'd personally love to see Jose Bautista. Wright does not have it so easy. The NL field is wide open. At the moment, the top guys in the NL in home runs are Carlos Gonzalez (24), Dominic Brown (23), and Pedro Alvarez (22). None of those guys tip my interest all that much. Here's the trio I would personally like to see: Bryce Harper, Joey Votto and...Yasiel Puig! Sure, I didn't want him on my starting roster but I sure as hell want to see him sock a few dingers! Make it happen Wright.

[Part two - 2nd half thoughts & more Dingers!]

NBA Draft 2013: Repairs & Reactions - Part two

NBA Draft 2013: Repairs & Reactions - Part two
by Dan Salem and Todd Salem (6-28-13)

[Part one - A dull affair with Real consequence]



TODD:
So we agree the NBA draft is flawed, but how does it get fixed? I personally like the idea of instituting the baseball rule. A player can enter the draft out of high school if he wishes. However, if he decides to go to college, he must attend for at least three years. So the studs will enter out of high school and teams will drool all over them. The rest of the guys will gain the proper seasoning and experience during three years of major college basketball. We will get to know them; their games will improve; the NBA and NCAA products will both improve because of it.

Was there anyone in this year's draft you're even excited about? There are a few guys I like but no one that stands out to me. If I were a GM, I'd have been content to have a pick in the teens. There you can take the player you have the best feel for, without having to take one of the top guys with major flaws. Reaching for a player at 15 is no big deal. However, if you are Cleveland or Orlando and you pass on Nerlens Noel because of all the red flags (which they did), and he then becomes the next Tyson Chandler, you are in deep shit.


DAN:
The MLB rule for entering the draft works great in baseball, but the NBA had its chance to institute something similar and instead opted for a required one year in college. The reason is pretty obvious, Minor League Baseball is a huge entity and every single drafted player goes to the minors for at least a month or six. So coming out of high school is a null issue. The NBA doesn't use its development league in this way, hell it barely markets it. They addressed their biggest issue, all be it haphazardly, high school players getting drafted and not being ready for the NBA. In hindsight I think the NBA would make it a mandatory two years in college. The goal was to ensure top talent is NBA ready, bodies fully developed, skills honed at least a little bit. I don't think they've quite achieved this and the hype machine has certainly fallen flat in the last few years when the draft roles around.

So a draft fix? I'm taking your suggestion one step further. Actually use the damn D-league! The biggest hype in a draft is for the stars and nothing is bigger than a high school super star. These kids are all hype, since most of us fans have only seen clips of them play, if at all. So why not let them get drafted? Let the fans drool over hope and the future. Then send them to the D-league for a season and make money off those games too. Its not complicated. The MLB already has a model in place to follow. Come on man!

As for the draft that took place last night, here's hoping we get a star are two out of the bunch. No one excites me, just like no one stole the show during March Madness this season either. I wish this was a bigger deal, but its not. I'm still WAY excited for the NBA this summer. Doc Rivers is now the Clippers coach! Paul Pierce and Kevin Garnett are no longer Celtics! Dwight Howard is a free agent AGAIN. And what will CP3 do? I'm even excited for Ray Allen's contract decision. The NBA is chock full of stars. It doesn't need the draft, but they could really spice things up by having the current stars interview the potential newbies. I liked what Shane Battier brought to the table, but something was still missing. I want on camera hazing baby!


TODD:
I can't get with you on using the D-League like that. Basketball isn't the same as baseball as far as minor league development. There are way too many basketball players, the vast majority, who are ready to play in the NBA year one. They may not be ready to start or play big minutes. They may not be ready to hit an important shot at the end of a game. But they are ready to compete and contribute. So why send them away? If you're saying that just high school players should go to the NBDL, then we get into logistical problems of high school players who are ready to play right away versus college players who are not. Where is the line drawn and should a high school player then skip the draft and go to a year of college so he can avoid playing in the D-League? The list goes on.

We'll have to take another look at this problem next year when the crop of players is much better. Perhaps we're looking through whatever the opposite of rose-colored glasses are. Is the NBA draft really that horrible when there are potential franchise guys involved? This year there just isn't anyone like that.

You have to believe Cleveland is pretty upset, internally, about getting the number one pick this year versus a different season. They decided to go with Anthony Bennett, as I predicted they would last week in my mock draft for College Sports Madness. I was also spot on when predicting the Nerlens Noel drop. I had him going fifth and he lasted even longer than that.

I know you wanted to talk draft fixes, but last night pissed me off! The trading is AWFUL from an entertainment standpoint. Every trade happens after the picks are made and no trade is official; they are all pending league approval and "according to multiple sources." The guys narrating the draft react to each pick not knowing if a certain player will play for the team that chose him. They then react to each trade rumor and then react again when a proposed trade is supposedly agreed upon. After that, they are forced to react when a team is selecting someone with a pick involved in a previous proposed trade! It is cuckoo.

Some of the action from last night was actually fun. The "proposed" Jrue Holiday trade was exciting news even though we had to listen to everyone talk about how Noel would fit with Anthony Davis and then ten minutes later he was no longer a Pelican. Overall, the NBA draft is such a poor product for so many reasons and it's disappointing.


DAN:
I have a brilliant idea! What if, instead of putting on the hat of the team that drafted you, each player had to dunk a basketball with its new team's logo on it. Make the hoop a bit shorter, since the guys are in suits, and have them dunk over a stuffed animal of their new team's biggest rival. The photos of exceedingly tall men in suits dunking over large teddy bears would be amazing!

Final thought, I can't read the sentence "And then ten minutes later [Noel] was no longer a Pelican" without chuckling. Sure, they were the Hornets, but somehow a hornet is at least a little bit threatening of an animal. Pelicans are one step above storks and storks deliver babies. I'm not getting over this.

[If you missed Part one - A dull affair with Real consequence]

NBA Draft 2013: A dull affair w/ Real consequence - Part one

NBA Draft 2013: A dull affair w/ Real consequence - Part one
by Dan Salem and Todd Salem (6-24-13)



TODD:
Everyone loves the NFL draft; it is an EVENT. The same cannot be said for its professional basketball counterpart. The NBA draft has no zeal, no luster, no...excitement. This happens for many different reasons. Mainly, people don't care as much about the NBA as they do professional football. More fans equals more eyes. But there are other reasons the two drafts are not peers. And the whole thing is counter intuitive; the NBA draft should really be the bigger deal.

There are exponentially fewer players on a basketball roster; thus, one highly drafted player will/should have much more impact on his new team than one, lone footballer. This is simple math, as well as how the sports operate. Unless you're drafting a top flight quarterback, one football pick won't reap huge dividends. It is about roster building, team dynamics, coaching philosophy, etc, etc. However, one basketball player can make all the difference. In this year's NBA Finals, each team was led by a studly, number one overall draft pick: the Spurs in Tim Duncan and the Heat in LeBron James. A single pick can literally turn a franchise around! So then why, if a single player can turn around the hopes and future of an entire franchise, is the NBA draft such a bummer?

The answer lies in who gets drafted. NFL drafts feature seasoned, famous amateurs getting taken through round two and often later. Big name quarterbacks and skill position players still generate interest in the middle and later rounds. These are guys we've seen mature and develop on and off the field for at least three years in college. Compare that to basketball prospects. The top guys are, more often than not, freshmen one-and-dones. They are certainly the most talented players, but we don't know them; their games are raw and under-developed; we watched them for one semester essentially. If they played for a certain university, we might hate them (cough cough Duke). Otherwise, they mean nothing to us; a hired gun set to play a season and bail for greener pastures. These are the men (boys?) that make up the NBA draft. So why should we pay attention?

There is another reason the draft stinks, along those same lines. These guys are not ready. They've only played one season above high school competition. And even the sophomores and juniors that come out are usually not ready to compete at the NBA level. The NBDL is not a minor leagues for the NBA. It might be awesome if it were, but the league is not setup to support such a proposition. So instead of a 19 year old starting off in the d-league, they are thrown into the big time and do not have the bodies nor the experience to play up to their potential. Thus, those top talents put up middling statistics or, even worse, barely get to play. So why watch them get drafted?

With the NBA draft this week, on Thursday, who will go number one? But, more importantly, why should we care?


DAN:
The NBA draft should be the bigger deal, logically, as compared to its NFL counterpart, except it 100% isn't! And you missed the biggest reason entirely. I'm stunned really. First off, the NBA draft was once cooler and more fun than any other draft around. The top two guys were almost guaranteed to be stars in the NBA the following season, but as you noted, with the best players leaving college after one year, fewer and fewer are ready for the NBA on day one.

The SINGLE biggest reason the NBA draft stinks like dirty socks is the draft lottery. I understand the logic behind holding the lottery for the top three picks, it helps curb tanking down the stretch of the regular season. But it hasn't prevented tanking. It just smoothed it out over a larger swath of crappy teams. The NFL is amazing and sells hope for its crappy franchises because every single fan knows that if your team has an awful season, then you are getting a top ten pick. A top ten pick in the NFL is equivalent to a top three pick in the NBA, since rosters are smaller and depth is much less. But in the NBA, if you are the worst team in the league you might get the fourth pick or you might get the first pick. That could be the difference between LeBron James (1st pick in 2003) or a solid role player like Lamar Odom (4th pick in 1999). One is franchise altering, the other is a just a nice pick up. You are not guaranteed the top pick, and as a fan this sucks the life out of you. Hope is not nearly as strong and what has ultimately happened is that the NBA Draft Lottery is actually a bigger deal than the NBA Draft itself!

The other reason the draft stinks is because no one stays in college any more. You mentioned this, but weren't nearly angry enough. The NBA fan who is only a casual college fan, like myself, doesn't know anyone outside the top five of the NBA draft. In the NFL, where players are in college for two or three seasons at least, even casual fans get to know the top guys. Players can transcend this issue, but overall they haven't. They've actually perpetuated it and in recent years have completely killed the buzz surrounding the NBA draft! Super star college players like Adam Morrison from Gonzaga have stunk it up in the NBA. He was a rarity and played a few years in college, we all got to know him and his success, and then bam, he stinks. And the top players who are 'great' enough to leave after one year; they haven't been physically ready and got hurt, a la Greg Oden. Who can we trust to succeed?

A star will be a star. Kevin Durant was a star from day one in the NBA. But the majority of players are not Kevin Durant and need more time in college to mature their game and grow a national audience for themselves as a product. When nearly every superstar in the NBA was drafted in the top three to five, you'd think at least the first half hour of the draft would be fun to watch. You would be wrong.


TODD:
Yeah, I agree the lottery is hogwash. It does not prevent tanking in the least. We only escaped that fate this season because there was no college player worth tanking for. Watch out next year though. If Andrew Wiggins has himself the freshman season everyone is expecting, there will be tanking galore! He's the best high school player since LeBron and it's not even close. The race for last might be more exciting next May then the race for the final playoff spots.

Is the NBA draft fixable for its audience though?

[Part two - Repairs and Reactions]