Showing posts with label sports. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sports. Show all posts

Sunday, November 7, 2021

Covid versus Sports



The emergence of Covid caused quite the dilemma for pro sports leagues. How could the desire to maximize public safety mesh with the desire to make maximum money? Somehow they pulled it off. The NBA came up with a "bubble" playoff system, keeping basketball players on teams that qualified for the postseason in isolation from the rest of the world. Cardboard cut outs and recorded crowd noise took the place of a live audience. Home court advantage ceased to be a thing. But the games could still be played and televised, which meant advertisers could spend money on commercials that aired during the games, which meant that plenty of revenue could still be generated. Somehow they made it all the way to the crowning of a new champion. Somehow it turned out not to be the patched together for instant greatness Brooklyn Nets, or the LeBron James will never convince enough people that he's greater than Michael Jordan led Los Angeles Lakers, but rather, the small market, old school process of drafting well and team chemistry improving sufficiently over time to win a title Milwaukee Bucks. 



When it was time for the NFL to figure out how to deal with Covid for an entire season, they faced a daunting challenge and did a respectable job of being up to it. There was no bubble, but once again home field advantage was rendered obsolete with piped in crowd noise and cardboard cut out fans. Since football games are played outdoors in huge stadiums, a limited number of fans were allowed to attend in person. The rest of us watched on TV or some other screen. Players were given the opportunity to opt out of the season. Some chose to do so, most decided to play, the season rumbled on to conclusion with Tom Brady somehow winning yet another Super Bowl ring - this time in Tampa Bay, Florida of all places.




All of the various other sports that are performed for profit and watched for entertainment (plus profit for those who gamble and guess correctly more often than not) took the necessary measures to at least give the illusion that athletes and fans alike were being protected from exposure to Covid while the games played on. After being postponed for a year, the Summer Olympic games were played. The challenge of continuing sports in the era of Covid was met head on with admirable work done in the name of commerce and entertaining distraction from real world problems.



It wasn't until we were offered hope in the form of vaccines that make it far less likely (though not impossible) to catch Covid, and make Covid much less likely to be fatal, that things got complicated. For some reason that I can't quite comprehend, it morphed from a public safety issue to a political one. Anti maskers smoothly transitioned to becoming anti-vaxxers. No more bubble. No more cardboard cut outs. 100% fan attendance allowed. No restrictions for anyone who wants to participate as either a player or an in-person fan, provided that you're Covid free, vaccinated, and willing to offer proof of vaccination status. Depending on the sport one plays, the city that sport is played in, and one's willingness to trust the science that is reducing a pandemic to mere nuisance, things got a lot more complicated. High profile athletes such as Kyrie Irving and Aaron Rodgers have been unwilling to follow new rules and play ball. And so here we are at the intersection of pro sports and politics and freedom loving social issues. It doesn't matter who you think is in the right and who you believe is dead wrong. The end result is a big mess. Perhaps Kyrie and Aaron now have a greater appreciation for what Colin Kaepernick went through because he chose to kneel in protest while a song that he found to be hypocritical was played at the start of every game. 



Everyone should stand up (or kneel down) for what he/she believes in. There will be people who agree with your stance and those who do not. In the end, the opinion of the person in the mirror is the one of primary consequence. Muhammad Ali did not want to participate in a war against people he did not consider to be his enemy, and for that his title was taken until he went out and took it back. Colin Kaepernick wanted greater spotlight on police brutality, and for that he was willing to sacrifice the remainder of his career as an athlete in exchange for one as a social justice warrior. Kyrie Irving and Aaron Rodgers apparently are rather wary of needles. Whatever, bruh. Choose your hill. Fight on it at your own peril. Keep your Covid germs to yourself.


     ~~~~~~~~~~~~                           ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~                ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , ,

Sunday, November 17, 2019

BREAKING SPORTS NEWS



There were a couple interesting events in the world of sports this week, NFL football to be specific, that caught my attention and led to extensive Twitter commentary by myself and others. The first was a brawl that took place towards the end of an otherwise boring game between the Cleveland Browns and Pittsburgh Steelers. Due in large part to the out of control behavior of one participant in particular, it may go down as the most memorable sports brawl since the legendary Malice in the Palace. I don't know if an equally catchy nickname has been decided on for this latest athletic brouhaha.

The second occurrence was a surprising and oddly rushed decision by the NFL to give Colin Kaepernick a tryout before all 32 NFL teams, after having snubbed him for the better part of the past three years, to possibly make a return to the league. I'm sure you know all about how and why he ended up out of the league to begin with.

Below you'll find a recap of both sporty happenings and various contrary reactions from those in my Twitter feed.





























I'm curious to see where this Kaepernick situation goes. After today are his odds of being signed by a #NFL team higher, lower or unchanged. Will teams retain their opinion that his potential to cause them headaches is greater than his potential to be a franchise QB?




















Oh, there was one other bit of sports news this week.




Also...OUCH and good night.

That's all I got for you sports fans. As for the avid book readers among you, here's one of my videos at Roy's Book Reviews.

Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , ,

Sunday, March 3, 2019

THE BLACK ATHLETE - Reprinted










Do African-Americans (and individuals of African heritage in general) tend to excel in athletic competition? If answered in the affirmative, what is the rationale behind this phenomenon? And most important of all, what are the implications of this reasoning?

Considered objectively, African-Americans clearly represent a significantly larger percentage of professional athletes (particularly at the most elite levels) than the portion of the population that they represent. This is beyond debate. On the track, if anyone will be gaining ground on Marion Jones or Maurice Greene any time soon, in all likelihood they will not have blonde hair and blue eyes. Whether in short distance sprints or long distance marathons, the person who crosses the finish line first usually has brown skin. On most teams in the NBA in recent history, if you were searching for a white man you would have been best served starting with the twelfth man on the bench, if there was one to be found at all. Disproportionate numbers of blacks occupy positions in the NFL that require the most speed, agility, and leaping ability. Think about it. If you were choosing sides for a game of pick up basketball and had to decide between the remaining white guy and the remaining black guy, all other characteristics appearing equal, whom would you choose?

Scientists have researched, and some even claim to have found physiological differences that prove members of one race are predisposed to do better at certain tasks than members of other races. If it is taken as factual that a person's heritage makes them more susceptible to a particular disease, then can an equally valid point not be made about one group of people genetically having faster twitch muscles than another?

And so, with both impartial numbers and unbiased science supporting the case, why is the statement that blacks are superior athletes to whites such a controversial one? Why do some people vehemently oppose such a seemingly obvious notion? The answer can be written in black and white. America is a land obsessed with race relations. Racial prejudice is by no means a lost art in the land of the free, home of the brave. So any broad statement that divides us along color lines will be open to great scrutiny. Even if a generality seems benign, it still constitutes a stereotype. Once a stereotype is accepted by those it is being pinned on, the argument for other less pleasant stigmas is strengthened. Is to accept being labeled as naturally faster worth the cost of also being considered inherently lazier, or less intelligent, or more criminal minded? Of course not. This is a clear cut case of the negatives far outweighing the positives. Sometimes evidence is best left ignored.


Besides, the latest wave of European imports and special American finds is slowly but surely bringing a semblance of racial balance to the NBA. If any race can be said to be tailor made to dominate Major League Baseball, that honor belongs not to blacks, but to Hispanics. Perhaps the next white heavyweight champion of the world is not lurking around a corner in nearby proximity (I was proven wrong here.  See Brothers Klitschko). But a Brit did recently manage to win and hold the belt for awhile, which is just about as fantastical as the plots of Rocky I through V.

It's just plain sense that those who were initially excluded from competing at the highest levels of sports would end up excelling when finally given the opportunity. As for dominating or at least achieving fair representation in coaching and front office positions, this is probably still a long time away. One barrier at a time. Changing institutionalized perceptions is a slow process, and Jackie Robinsons come around only every so often. So as tennis goes the way of the Williams sisters; Tiger Woods elevates himself farther and farther above his tennis brethren; and African-Americans continue to smash pigskin myths by demonstrating an aptitude for "thinking" positions like quarterback; those who long for a paler shade of sports are left to take solace for now that not too many folks who aren't greatly reddened by the sun have taken particular interest in ice hockey yet.

Speaking of ice hockey though...


Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , ,

Wednesday, October 7, 2015

When Sports and Social Issues Collide



Lately there has been a flurry of press about The Undefeated, a web site under the jurisdiction of ESPN that was supposed to provide an African American perspective on issues in the world of sports. It has been described as the "Black Grantland" and was to be headed by Jason Whitlock, but he did not prove to be up to the task. Lack of managerial skill on Jason's part is supposedly to blame, though I expect he begs to differ and will eventually do so publicly. In some way, shape or form The Undefeated will eventually become a thing that sports fans know and care about. Or else it won't.  Time will tell. This Deadspin article gives a thorough summary of the situation.


Depending exclusively on The Undefeated to maybe one day be the definitive "black word on sports" seems unnecessary. After all, I have been providing my own particular African American perspective for years. I used to do so when I had a monthly column entitled Sports Issues at the now defunct Suite101.com. I've contributed writings to a variety of other publications as well (e.g. - this John Amaechi profile), and plenty of my thoughts on sports/societal ills have been presented here at A Line a Day.




I invite you to browse. In so doing you'll find pieces such as:









Breaking News: There Will Be Race(ism)
Covid versus Sports


 What I'm saying is  - If you are interested in the intersection where sports and race and inequality talk meet up and you don't feel like waiting for ESPN and The Undefeated to get its act together, I'm here for you.  


Below you will find links to six older articles that addressed social issues such as racism and sexism in notable sports events.  I hope you take the time to walk down memory lane by reading them.  If you do, you'll find that what's old is often enough new again. Just recently for example, as Serena Williams drew close to a calendar year Grand Slam, there was much talk about the fact that Maria Sharapova has considerably more endorsements than her even though Serena has enjoyed a great deal more success on the court.  Years earlier I saw this coming when I wrote From Anna to Maria.   





Posted by at 1 comment:
Labels: , , , , , ,

Thursday, March 5, 2015

Mastering Triangular Zen



Back when Phil Jackson had recently won his 8th NBA championship ring as a head coach (6 with the Bulls followed by 2 with the Lakers) I wrote an article declaring that he was overrated.  I don't remember if calling people a "hater" was a thing back then, but if it was, folks from Los Angeles and Chicago and beyond surely would have called me one.  As a Knicks fan, Phil's championships with the Bulls had rubbed me the wrong way.  I took those he won with the Lakers less personally, but I didn't see his championships with a second team and different cast of players as proof that he had the Midas Touch when it came to hoops.  As I saw it, he had simply gone from one stacked situation to another and done what he was supposed to do in both.  Below I have reprinted my analysis of the legend of Phil Jackson.  These days, as a GM rather than head coach but still, my words seem rather prophetic.  Typically I love to be proven right.  But since the team he's now back with is the New York Knicks, I would have preferred to have been proven wrong.  Hope and logic say that next season will look A LOT better than this one for my Knickerbockers.  Until then, I suffer along with fellow fans.  Phil has been the butt of some jokes lately, but his impeccable legacy can easily handle the hits until he is able to follow up on Jordan+Pippen and Shaq+Kobe with Melo+player to be named later.  Prove me wrong, Phil.  I'm looking forward to it.   




Some people are blessed with a Midas touch. Others are born under a lucky star. Good fortune is the result in either case, but that which we credit for their accomplishments differs. After all, there is a crucial distinction between a man who does great things and one whom great things happen to. It is usually easy enough to tell such men apart, to see who belongs in one category and who resides in the other. But on occasion there are exceptions, enigmas about whom we cannot be certain no matter how closely we examine their lives.
Take Los Angeles Lakers coach, Phil Jackson. There is no disputing the success he has had in the NBA. Six championships with the Chicago Bulls, followed by a year off in which time that dynasty promptly crumbled, succeeded by a return to coaching that has netted him two more championships in as many years. It makes one wonder why pro basketball teams even bother to play out their seasons. Shouldn't David Stern simply head over to the headquarters of whichever team Phil Jackson happens to be running at the time and hand the man his trophy? 


I will admit right now that it's difficult for me to be unbiased in my opinion about Jackson. I happen to be a Knicks fan who vividly recalls the numerous times that they fell to Phil and his Bulls, but I'm not old enough to have recollections of when he played for the Knicks. So, since I only know him as the enemy, the temptation is great for me to side with those who feel that Phil is not a genius, but merely a good coach who has been the beneficiary of having some of the most talented individuals ever to lace up a pair of sneakers play for him. At this point in time (his legend possibly to be either validated or tarnished if he makes yet another comeback), Michael Jordan is a near unanimous choice for greatest basketball player of all time. His teammate Scottie Pippen was no slouch either. When two of the five guys that a coach has the luxury of sending out are at or near the top of the NBA's list of elite performers, how can you lose? In Phil Jackson's case, the answer is that you can't lose, because with that particular hand of cards he never did fall short. 





Of course, Jackson is not the only man in recent memory to have coached a dynamic duo. To name just one, although there are certainly several more examples I can give, Jerry Sloan of the Utah Jazz has had Karl Malone and John Stockton at his disposal for years. They have been remarkably consistent in winning a great many games while together, but they have not managed to win a single title. Were Malone and Stockton simply not as good as Jordan and Pippen? Perhaps not. Is Phil Jackson a greater strategist and motivator than Sloan. Perhaps. Even so, does coaching "the greatest" entitle one to the same accolades as the men actually performing the feats of skill and bravado? I've yet to hear anyone claim that Muhammad Ali achieved what he did in the ring because Angelo Dundee was the ultimate boxing trainer. Dundee received due credit for his work, but the man who threw and received the punches received the bulk of the praise. In Jackson's case, he gets a considerable degree of glory without having to put up a single shot. 


There is ample evidence that points to Phil Jackson being the greatest coach in NBA history, and perhaps even the most accomplished coach in the history of sports. The man already has eight championships under his belt, and all signs indicate that his current team is capable of earning several more under his helm. When the Bulls disbanded, it appeared as if Jackson's streak of success was over with. No matter what team he went to next, he would not have the safety net of Superman in a number 23 jersey to bail him out. Those who had reason to begrudge Jackson his triumphs reasoned with glee that he would be brought crashing down to earth wherever he ended up. Where he ended up was with the Los Angeles Lakers. Was the drop off in talent he had to work with at all significant when he went from Jordan and Pippen to Shaq and Kobe? The results say - apparently not. Or perhaps they proclaim - give Phil a couple of excellent players to build a triangle around and he'll beat your guys with his every time, no matter who the respective guys happen to be. Which of these conclusions is the correct one? Depends on your perspective. 


Much has been said about Phil Jackson's coaching technique. His vaunted triangle offense has consistently managed to get the ball into the hands of the team's best player, or else their second best player, while a collection of carefully selected role players take care of less glamorous but still invaluable duties. Imitation being the sincerest and most common form of flattery, other teams have employed the triangle with nowhere near the same degree of success. These teams have not had Jordan-Pippen or Shaq-Kobe, but they did feature players who made the star oriented three point offense seem like a fine idea at the time. Does the fact that they failed where Phil succeeded prove that Jackson is a coach without peer? Or does this mask the fact that if Jackson had found himself in less fortunate circumstances throughout his career, he would have had far less impressive results? 





It is easy to be irked by Phil's smug demeanor; the zen aura he exudes and fortune cookie wisdom dispensed; and his largely hands-off approach to dealing with turmoil, such as his habit of refusing to call time outs as other coaches do to stall an adversary's momentum. All of these things add up to a single infuriating perception. Phil Jackson acts as if he somehow knows in advance that he will be victorious. Far more frequently than not, he turns out to be right. It's enough to make one suspect that the man has made a pact with the devil. Has Phil Jackson created his incredible string of luck, or is the streak of good fortune responsible for inventing the sterling reputation of Phil Jackson? 


When Shaq and Kobe were feuding earlier this past season, both even separately demanding to be traded, it looked as if Phil Jackson might finally be exposed for the plain old ordinary man that he just had to be. But behind closed doors the situation mysteriously righted itself, bad attitudes were checked at the door, and the Lakers peaked with perfect timing in order to enjoy the most successful NBA playoff run ever. While with the Bulls, Jackson coached a certain miscreant by the name of Dennis Rodman. Dennis proved to be a distracting divisive force who negated his rebounding prowess with bad boy behavior on other teams.  But he didn’t hurt his Bulls teammates one bit, judging by all of those rings on their fingers. Apparently being a master psychiatrist is also part of Phil Jackson's resume. 


The only thing that those of us not in the Phil Jackson fan club can point to with satisfaction are the two seasons with the Bulls when his best player was MIA chasing after curve balls. During Michael Jordan's foray into baseball the Bulls remained a solid playoff caliber team, but they did not stay unbeatable. The Knicks and the Magic outlasted Phil Jackson in those seasons, both of them ultimately going down at the hands of the Houston Rockets. Scottie Pippen arguably became the game's best player without the shadow of Jordan cast over him, so why were championship trophies awarded to Hakeem Olajuwan and Rudy Tomjanovich? Why wasn't the coaching guru extraordinaire able to continue his win streak without missing a beat? Was his mortality finally exposed? Had holes of reality finally been poked in the myth of invincibility? The point became largely moot when Jordan and Chicago championships returned, and it has been just about forgotten thanks to Jackson's continued success with a different cast of characters in LA. At this rate, the only matter that will be left for basketball scholars to debate is whether the best of Phil's Lakers teams could beat his Bulls in their prime. You aren't doing too shabby when your only worthy competition is yourself. 


After much consideration, much to my distaste, I am forced to admit that Phil Jackson is enormously talented at what he does. What does he do? He gets himself into the best possible circumstances, leaves the real leading to his best players on the floor, and keeps the ship moving forward with a steady hand. The extreme confidence and composure that he possesses transfer to the men under his watch. His players sense no fear in him, whether they are up against a quality opponent or fighting their own inner demons, so they usually gather themselves in troubled times and take care of the business at hand. If Phil Jackson suddenly found himself as coach of the Clippers or the Nuggets or the Bulls as currently constructed, would he end up with yet another championship team by season's end? Most certainly not. I'd take a man like Doc Rivers over Phil Jackson to get a group of marginally talented players to overachieve any day of the week. But on the flip side of the equation, I didn't see former Lakers coaches Del Harris or Kurt Rambis leading the Lakers to the promised land, and they had the same main weapons that Jackson utilized with much greater efficiency. I'm not sure if Phil is suited to make a bad team good, and he has failed in the past to make a good team great. But there is no disputing his mastery as taking a great team and making them a dynasty. We can only question how dubious such a feat is. 


Shaq and Kobe are still young men. As Phil Jackson has done before with his superstars, he has gotten them to submerge their egos for the good of the team and the multitude of endorsements that will surely keep coming their winning way. It may be a long time indeed before another NBA coach gets his hands on the championship trophy, so for those who haven't already done so, get used to seeing Jackson's smug grin of satisfaction. Then again, it would really be something if Michael Jordan does come back and managed to lead the Washington Wizards to the Finals against the Lakers. Could it be that the man most responsible for having created the legend of Phil Jackson is the only one capable of smashing it? 

Midas touch or lucky star? My money is on the latter. After all, if truly everything that Phil Jackson touched turned to gold, the President of this great nation would be his buddy and former teammate, Bill Bradley. Instead, we ended up with George Bush, the equivalent of a first round playoff exit at best. I suggest that Phil restrict the sphere of his influence to men in shorts from here on out.




Fingers crossed for much brighter days ahead at Madison Square Garden.






Post by Basketball Genius.





Posted by at 1 comment:
Labels: , , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)