Should the Oklahoma City Thunder Have Their Own Identity?

With the Oklahoma City Thunder in the midst of an NBA Finals battle with the Miami Heat, my thoughts turn to the team that the Thunder were once known by, the Seattle Sonics. After 40 years in the city of Seattle, the team moved to Oklahoma City in 2008. They changed their colors and their nickname became the Thunder. Despite the change in name and location, the current team still retains the former city's history. Even with a push to bring the team back to Seattle and name it the Sonics, their history lies in a city thousands of miles away.

What's wrong with this? The Thunder are basically a separate team and should be thought of that way. They should make their own history and not take another's with them. When the original Cleveland Browns franchise moved to Baltimore in 1996, the Brown's name, colors, uniform design, and franchise records would remain in Cleveland. After a three-year hiatus, the Browns returned in 1999. The Balttimire franchise became the Ravens and despite having the same players from the old Cleveland team, they were essentially a new team.

If and when the Sonics return to Seattle, should their history be returned to them? The answer is yes. Why would a team with the exact same name and color be forced to write a new history for themselves? Their history should belong to them and the Thunder should have no claim to it. It should be an interesting battle if it ever comes to it.                  

The Uncertainty

Last month and to no one's surprise, the Indianapolis Colts selected Stanford QB Andrew Luck with the #1 pick in the draft. The last time the Colts selected a QB with the first pick was in 1998 when they drafted Peyton Manning. That year the San Diego Chargers drafted Ryan Leaf with the second pick. There was debate back and forth about which team should draft which QB. Ultimately the Colts made a wise decision in taking Manning while Leaf flamed out.

Another QB was taken right after Luck and that was Robert Griffin III from Baylor. It seemed set for many months that Luck would most likely be taken ahead of Griffin. Both QBs have immense talent especially Griffin with his scrambling ability. Both QBs are destined to have great careers. Really though, how do we know that Luck will be the next Manning or the next Leaf? The Colts hit the jackpot the first time around but will lightening strike twice? Perhaps Griffin will have the more successful career then Luck or both QBs will thrive.

That brings us to Manning himself. The Colts cut him prior to the draft knowing that he and Luck would not coexist well. While there is a good chance that Manning will not return to his old self with the Broncos, there is also a good chance that he will be the Peyton of old and lead Denver to glory. Perhaps Luck will have a phenomenal season or perhaps he will fall flat on his face. Perhaps the Colts made the wrong decision. I don't know. Nobody knows. Nothing is guaranteed in life. Uncertainty is never certain.

Matt Flynn: The Next Rob Johnson?

When former Green Bay Packers QB Matt Flynn hit free agency last month, I was reminded of when a certain QB was also highly coveted although not a free agent, one Rob Johnson. Johnson was a fourth-round pick in 1995 of the Jacksonville Jaguars who was traded to the Buffalo Bills in 1998. His hype was based solely on one performance in Week 1 in 1997 when he went 20-24 for 294 yards and two touchdown passes and also had four rushes for 31 yards and one touchdown against the Baltimore Ravens in a 28-27 win.  When he was traded to Buffalo, he signed a five year $25 million contract. In comparison, Flynn was drafted by Green Bay in 2008 as a seventh-round pick. While sitting behind Aaron Rodgers, Flynn started two games. In 2010 against New England, he was 23-37 for 254 yards and three touchdown passes while throwing one interception. The Packers lost 31-27. His second start came on New Year’s Day 2012 against Detroit where he threw for 480 yards and six touchdown passes in a 45-41 win with both the yards and touchdown passes setting new Packer records. He most recently signed with Seattle, a three-year deal for $26 million. While not being named the outright starter, he will compete with Tavaris Jackson for the starting job.

Johnson’s stint with Buffalo did not last long as he was quite often injured and prone to sacks. He was let go by the Bills following the 2001 season. He bounced around from Tampa Bay (where he won a Super Bowl ring as a primarily a backup), Washington, Oakland, and finally the New York Giants in 2006. Johnson had a lot of promise but among the injuries and sacks, he had a laid-back attitude which didn’t sit well with the blue collar Buffalo fans since many had come to love Doug Flutie who had much more success with the Bills when both played there. As similar to Johnson as Flynn is in his only significant performances to date, it is still early to call Flynn the next Johnson. Only time will tell if Flynn becomes another in a long line of hyped busts.

Here is an article with a similar viewpoint that also compares Flynn to Scott Mitchell: http://www.footballnation.com/content/matt-flynn-the-next-rob-johnson-or-scott-mitchell/13252

The Peyton Manning Situation

The Peyton Manning saga in Indianapolis reminds me of a similar situation with the Green Bay Packers a few years ago.

The Packers drafted Aaron Rodgers in 2005 with the intent that he would one day replace Brett Favre. Following the 2007 season where Favre led the Packers to the NFC Championship game, he retired. The Packers seemingly moved on and were poised to go with Rodgers. Just before training camp in 2008, Favre decided he wanted to come back. Management thought otherwise and after a discussion and falling out, he was traded to the New York Jets. Favre ended his career with the Minnesota Vikings before officially retiring for good.

The Colts situation is similar. Although Manning's heir apparent has not been drafted yet (all signs point to Andrew Luck being their #1 pick), it looks like the Colts may decide to part ways with Manning. Of course Manning is coming off of neck surgery that sidelined him for all of the 2011 season. There is no falling out yet with management but Manning has made it know he wants to stay a Colt. Another issue is the roster bonus he due on March 8 of $28 million and whether the Colts want to pay it.

If the Colts do let Manning go, he may play for another team or may be forced to retire. Whether the Colts can succeed without him remains to be seen. While Manning is recovering from an injury and Favre was not, there could definitely be an ugly situation like with Favre where management has other plans and moves on. The similarities are striking.

Women in Sports

When it comes to women in sports, one thing is clear. The more beautiful and sexy they are then the more marketable they become especially to the male population.  Now there is nothing wrong with selling yourself for the sake of money  (unless you are a prostitute). The problem is why should a female athlete, who is attractive and flaunts it, be taken seriously? If they want to be treated like on of the guys then why make a spectacle of yourself? I look at a few cases of female athletes and the resume of success compared to their public perception.

The first one is featured above, Danica Patrick.  A very beautiful woman who competes with the big boys in Indy car and now NASCAR in 2012.  She is a very popular driver who is famously know for her Godaddy.com commercials.  With all her endorsements, it has not really translated into wins. In 7 years of racing Indy Car, she has competed in 114 races, won three poles, and has just one win with no no Indy 500 wins or championships.  As serious as she is on the racetrack, she is certainly not shy to shed that seriousness when it comes to commercializing herself especially in suggestive Go Daddy commercials and magazine spreads. What is she more famous for now, racing cars or posing half naked?

Another name is Anna Kournikova.  As a teenager in the later 90s, she took the tennis world by storm.  She became one of the best know tennis stars in the world.  She reached as high as No. 8 in the world in 2000 but never won a WTA singles title which has been the biggest knock against her. She did become known for her skimpy tennis outfits and appearing in many men's magazines in bikinis and swimsuits and also received a lot of attention for her personal life.

The polar opposite, however, is fellow tennis star Maria Sharapova. A very striking and beautiful woman, she has found great success on the tennis court as she has won 24 WTA singles titles which includes 3 Grand Slams. She has done some modeling too. Another successful female athlete is softball player Jennie Finch. In 2003, she was noted in an ESPN poll as one of the most attractive female athletes and in 2004 she was one of the 50 Most Beautiful People as voted by People magazine and the only female athlete on the list.  She is a three-time All American pitcher and first basemen and was won gold and silver medals at the Summer Olympics. Lisa Leslie is another successful female athlete.  While she has done modeling, she has also been very successful on the basketball court.  Leslie is four-time Olympic gold medalist, a two-time WBNA champion, a three-time MVP and first player to dunk in a WNBA game.

Well there does seem to be female athletes who are not only attractive but have been successful in their respective sports.  While Kournikova is retired and no longer competing, Patrick is still competing. Next year she will jumping to NASCAR which is hugely more popular than Indy Car and garners more attention.  There will certainly be more scrutiny on her to show results. Perhaps maybe she should  spend more time at the track and less time behind the camera?

Here is a fan letter to Danica on Grantland: http://www.grantland.com/blog/the-triangle/post/_/id/9483/an-open-letter-to-danica-patrick

College Sports and the Evil of Money

There was a time when college sports was truly for amateurs who played the game because they loved it. It was pure and untarnished but somewhere along the way, that all changed.  Money became an issue.  Bowl games are now sponsored by multi-million dollar corporations. Some of these corporations were even putting their names on stadiums.  Players are getting cash, cars, houses, and other benefits.  TV and exposure are huge.  Athletic Directors, conference presidents and officials, school presidents, and coaches make money off of the players. Sooner or later they get caught up in it.  What happened?

Perhaps the one famous example of corruption happened at Southern Methodist University in the 1980s.  From 1980-1985, the Mustangs football program was 55-14-1 and won three conference titles.  During that time there was rampant corruption including paying players.  The result of an NCAA investigation was the implementation of a "death penalty" which led to the cancellation of two seasons of competition, revocations of scholarships, and banishment from bowl games and live TV. It nearly destroyed the program.

The death penalty has made news again recently at the University of Miami.  A booster named Nevin Shapiro revealed his involvement with the football program.  He alleges that from 2002-2010 he provided players with improper benefits.  Many of these players are playing today in the NFL.  Shapiro himself is in prison for running a Ponzi scheme.  There is talk of using the death penalty and for a high profile university like Miami, that would certainly be devastating.

There are other examples of programs running afoul.  At Ohio State, several players received free tattoos in exchange for signed memorabilia.  Their head coach, Jim Tressel, resigned as a result of this.  At the University of Southern California, star running back Reggie Bush forfeited his Heisman Trophy and the team was stripped of its 2004 national title.  Bush had received $100,000 in cash payments and a house.  Also, basketball coach Tim Floyd resigned when it was revealed that he gave cash to a person who gave him star player OJ Mayo.  There is an ongoing investigation at Oregon, who lost in the BCS title game last season, about contact that head coach Chip Kelly has with a recruiting service and money paid to them. At issue at the University of North Carolina, are financial transactions made from an agent to a former assistant coach.

Money isn't the only benefit provided in some cases. At the University of Connecticut, a basketball recruit was provided with lodging, transportation, and meals by an agent and former student manager.  Assistant coaches also had phone and text conversations with this agent which exceeded the number of numbers of calls and text that can me made to a recruit.

These are just some of the documented cases and who knows what is going on at other schools.  Other violations have been committed, some minor and and some major.  What is going on in college sports today? Is time to pay the players and end this nonsense or should the NCAA have stiffer rules and penalties?

(research taken from Wikipedia and Yahoo Sports)

Interesting article from Forbes on the necessary evil of profiting for for financing athletics.

Football Profiteering

MLB Playoff Expansion

MLB Commissioner Bud Selig has said that an expanded postseason may happen in 2012. The idea is that each league will have one additional playoff team and those teams will meet to decide who would go on to the the next round against the division winners.  The proposed format would be a best of three or a winner take all.

Baseball last expanded the playoffs in 1995 with the addition of the wildcard round. A realignment in 1994 (implemented in 1995 because of the strike) created three divisions in both leagues and the need to add a wildcard. This angered many purists who preferred the old format where teams met in their respective League Championship Series and then advanced to the World Series. 

I for one am satisfied with the current system. I think it is fair.  I'm not really sure about expanding the playoffs further.  Clearly the motivation is money. It waters down the competition a little more with teams who in the past would not have qualified.  Bob Costas in his book Fair Ball: A Fan's Case for Baseball criticizes the current system saying that it diminishes the significance of winning a divisional championship. Costas proposes that a way to make it more competitive is to have just the three divisional winners in each league and the one with the best record gets a bye. Personally, I don't think the current system diminishes the divisional championship and for one reason I use my favorite team the LA Angels.  As of this writing, the Angels are two games behind division leader Texas in the AL West. That is really all they can realistically achieve as they are eight games back in the wild card standings.  It's divisional championship or bust for them. 

An expanded postseason looks inevitable but the question is, can it succeed?