A funny thing happens during the two-weeks of hype that preceed the Super Bowl. The attention somehow shifts from the game to the event. The end result is that people are waiting for the pregame show and the commercials more than the sixty minutes of football.
The "event" has nothing to do with football. It starts innocently enough, with the media running out of "x's and o's" material and moving to features on the players. But it doesn't stop there. The media coverage gets dilluted until any story about any aspect of the Super Bowl makes even the most avid football fans cringe. We think, "Not another story on how some player's offensive line coach in college helped form his religious beliefs and guided him to find strength in football." And, if you're anything like me, you turn the channel.
Joe Buck, who will call the game on Sunday, told Paul Christian of the Post Bulletin in a teleconference call that "the build-up for the game is mind-boggling." It's also mind-numbing. When you focus for so long on one particular game, more people tune out than in. By the time the big game rolls around, most people have had enough Super Bowl talk and don't have any interest in watching more than a quarter or two of football.
Unfortunately, this 14-day media blitz won't be ending any time soon. Since millions upon millions of people will mindlessly go to their Super Bowl party (this group may include me this year) the ratings will remain high and the decision makers at the television station will continue to overwhelm us with coverage.
Maybe you're the kind of person who thrives on the endless feature stories. Maybe you can't get enough speculation and prediction. Maybe for you, the hype is the perfect build-up to the big game. If so, turn your TV to Fox at 9 a.m. Sunday. You might want to bring a big bucket for popcorn. Super Bowl programming will be on the air but the four hour game won't start for more than eight hours. So get comfortable and--eventually--enjoy the game.
In a news conference yesterday, University of Iowa athletic director Bob Bowlsby and head basketball coach Steve Alford kicked Pierre Pierce off the team. Pierce was the leading scorer for the Hawkeyes, averaging nearly 18 points per game. The junior guard has been in trouble before, having been charged with third-degree sexual assault which caused him to miss the entire 2002-2003 season. He pleaded guilty to a lesser charge (assault causing injury) and was allowed back onto the team with the understanding that being involved in another off-court incident would result in his dismissal from the team.
Now, Pierce is the subject of an investigation by West Des Moines police. That is what prompted university officials to kick him off the team.
I can only assume the athletic department at Iowa knows more about the most recent situation than the general public. Publicly, we're only being told that Pierce spent more than two hours with investigators Wednesday night. If that is truly the extent of anyone's knowledge, then Iowa should have waited for more facts before kicking Pierce off the team.
With the past conviction, it's easy to think, "He must have done it." Whatever "it" is in this case. But, at least publicly, we don't have any idea if he did anything wrong. It's entirely possible Pierce was in the wrong place at the wrong time and is completely innocent this time. If that were the case, kicking him off the team would be a mistake.
But Iowa did give him the boot, suggesting Pierce's guilt. I don't believe Steve Alford would remove his best player from the team without some pretty strong evidence that he broke the law...again.
If Pierce did break the law, and the facts will certainly come out soon enough, then it's time to commend the Iowa athletic department. It's not easy for a coach to dismiss his leading scorer. At many school's, something like this would be swept under the rug. Alford's squad is ranked 28th in the nation and his job depends on fielding a winning team. Losing Pierce will undoubtedly hurt the squad's chances. But it's the right thing to do.
Because of that, I say--and you might want to make a copy of this because as an Iowa State fan I don't say this very often--I'm pulling for the Hawkeyes.
Future Hall of Famer Emmitt Smith is expected to announce his retirement from football during a press conference in Jacksonville on Thursday. The St. Paul Pioneer Press has suggested that he might join an investment group that will purchase the Minnesota Vikings from Red McCombs. One thing is for sure: someone needs to.
McCombs has had the team up for sale since 2002, and his spending habits have reflected it. For the Vikings, the salary cap isn't an issue. Minimum salary requirements maybe, but not a cap. Rumors have swirled for months about prospective buyers. First it was Glen Taylor, owner of the Timberwolves, then Reggie Fowler, and entrepreneur from Arizona. Now, Emmitt and others?
The number one option among the three is Taylor. As the Wolves owner, Taylor has shown a willingness to spend money on his investment. His top priority was to secure Kevin Garnett with a long-term deal. It paid off when K.G. became the first league MVP in franchise history. But Taylor didn't stop there. He brought in Sam Cassell and Latrel Sprewell, giving the Wolves the "MV-3". That paid off with the team's first trip to the Western Conference Finals. If Taylor owned the Vikes, I would expect the same approach.
Emmitt would be my second choice. With his three Super Bowl rings, which he was an important part of attaining, Smith has to have an understanding of what it takes to win the big one. A large part of that is talent. With the money he has accumulated as a player, one would hope he could deal with the demands players make, and filter through the overpaid and the underrated.
Although I know nothing about the Arizona businessman, anything would be better than a Texas businessman. Taylor, Emmitt or Fowler. I don't care. Let's all just hope we won't be seeing any more Red.
For Opening Day, 2005, just like Opening Day 1999 and every one in between, Brad Radke will get the nod as starting pitcher for the Twins. This after a solid season in which his 11-8 record doesn't tell the story of how well the righty from Eau Claire pitched. And after Johan Santana became a 20-game winner and swept the Cy Young voting. The question is, is starting Radke the right call?
It took me a while to make up my mind on this one because I have an immense amount of respect for Radke, I like the fact that he's from the Midwest and I tend to lean right on matters of baseball...meaning I'm a traditionalist who doesn't like change. Besides, Radke has been more steady and consistent than any Twins pitcher over the past decade. He takes the ball, is all business and gives his team a chance to win each and every time out. Assuming he fights through his typically rough first inning. He is a leader on the team, respected throughout the clubhouse and has earned the title of a "crafty veteran." Still, Johan should get the Opening Day nod.
Santana emerged as the best pitcher in the American League, if not the Major Leagues, with his unprecedented second half. Granted, I never saw Sandy Kofax, Walter Johnson or Cy Young, but I've never witnessed such complete domination of major league hitters on such a regular basis. It's possible Santana will turn out to be a one-hit-wonder. It's also possible he could become a Hall of Famer.
My problem with giving Radke the starting nod is the same problem I have with some people who seem to have a tough time thinking Barry Bonds is winning too many MVPs. There are other good players out there, and they deserve to be MVP some too, is the unspoken belief some have. But in the grand scheme of baseball history, all that does is taint the accomplishments of super stars. When we look back at how many awards Babe Ruth won, do we think, "They should have spread that around some. There were other good players then." No, we think, "He must have been one of the best players of all time."
The point is, if we get the chance to witness one of the best players of all time, we need to recognize him as such. Everyone gets what they deserve, what they earn. That way, looking back, we can see who was the best, second best and so on.
With last year's performance, Johan Santana earned an Opening Day start. I would love to see Radke earn next year's nod. It's not like this is a huge scandal. Santana doesn't seem to care and he'll get a nationally televised start against the White Sox for his second start. But what if Santana goes on to have a Hall of Fame career and years from now, someone looks back and sees he started nine games on Opening Day? It should have been ten. Is it a big deal? No. It just comes down to getting what you deserve. And Brad Radke doesn't deserve to start the opener. Johan Santana has earned that right.
So what if he corked his bat? So what if steroid rumors swirled around his name? So what if he left the dugout Randy Moss style? Sammy Sosa is still one of the most lovable characters in baseball.
After the strike of '94, it was Sosa, along with Mark McGwire, who put baseball back into the minds and hearts of the American people. The two of them hit longer, more majestic home runs more frequently than anyone had ever seen before. They were two good people, never trash talking or bickering, but embracing and cheering one another. When Big Mac hit 70, Sosa's 66 was delegated to the runner-up position. But he was classy in defeat, and people loved him for that as well.
Now Sosa has done it again. In a league where players demand more money not because they need it, but because they don't want to be insulted by accepting less money than inferior players, Sosa has agreed not to demand that the Orioles extend his contract before the trade is complete. Granted, it's a small step. But it shows that there are some rational players still out there. Many wouldn't have agreed to the trade because they would lose out on guaranteed money. Sosa, it appears, sees the bigger picture.
Before you go feeling sorry for him, realize that Sammy will still make more than $17 this season alone, and hasn't waived his $4.5 million buy-out for the option year of the contract. Still, the media tends to focus solely on controversial news as a way to entice viewers/readers/listeners, and it's nice to focus on something good for once.
So hats off to Sammy Sosa. The man with the twinkling smile who plays for the love of the game...And 17 mil.
For several years, the 2006 Minnesota Amateur baseball tournament has been scheduled for Rochester, Minnesota. Everything was set, there were no problems. Then the Rochester Honkers got involved.
The fact that they are involved is nothing more than a fluke. Due to an error made by a lawyer, the Honkers suddenly have the "legal right" to the concession stands at Mayo Field during the state tournament. This isn't the way anyone intended it to be, but because this lawyer tried to simplify the language, he accidentaly kept the word "amateur" out of the contract, thus giving the greedy Honkers their legal rights.
Morally the rights still belong to the Royals. Ethically the Honkers have no right to any money that comes from the state amateur tournament. Just legally. And even that is the result of an admitted accident.
Adding insult to injury, the Honkers go to the local press crying like they have been victimized in some way. They say they want a "fair" outcome. They say they want an agreement that will "benefit both sides." No offense, Litz and Kim, but you don't deserve to be benefitted by this tournament. You aren't supposed to have anything to do with it. You aren't supposed to get any money from it. So the only fair outcome is that you give back the rights that aren't supposed to be yours and quit thinking of yourself as the martyr. You have your gig, we have ours. Let it stay that way.
It comes down to greed and a fight.
Greed is what drives the Honkers to try to get the money. It's no different from watching a fifty dollar bill fall from the pocket of a man walking in front of you, picking it up and showing it to him and saying, "This is mine. I found it on the ground." You know it's not really yours. You know the other man earned it, not you. Still, and just because you can, you say something like, "I think the fair option here would be to make sure we come to an agreement that benefits both sides. How about you get 25 bucks and I get 25 bucks.
Here is my message to the Rochester Honkers. It's not your 25 bucks, so give it back.
The other aspect is the fight. The Royals have no part in this fight, they are simply caught in the middle. The fight is between the Honkers and the city of Rochester. The Honkers were taken advantage of when Willie Nelson and Bob Dylan came to town. The concessions were taken from them. It was legal, but neither moral nor ethical. Now the Honkers are on the other side of things. This time they have the undeserved power. And they are using it in an attempt to hurt the city. But Rochester baseball is the only one suffering.
The Honkers are a great organization. But they rarely take local talent and bully the local teams. They are not good for baseball in southeastern Minnesota. They are proving that now by threatening to make it impossible for the state tournament to come to town.
Amateur baseball in Minnesota is stronger than almost anywhere in the nation. It is made of young men and old with one thing in common: a love for the game. They have other jobs, responsibilities and obligations. They make immense sacrifices to play the game they love. Dan Litzinger and Kim Archer, I ask you this favor. Don't make those sacrifices be in vain. Don't spit in the face of those who love the game. Don't let your greed and vendetta against the city hurt the Rochester Royals.
