Archive for the ‘Sports figures’ Category
Should Packers WR Donald Driver Start Against SF?
Earlier this evening, as I often do on Mondays, I listened to sports-talk radio on WTMJ-AM 620 out of Milwaukee, WI. The question posed by hosts Greg Matzek and Jeff Falconio (known as “the freak” and “the geek”) was this: Should Packers WR Donald Driver play against San Francisco?
And of course, as you might expect, Falconio and Matzek’s answer was that Driver should not play. Driver’s stats this year do not look good, as he’s played very few downs. With only eight receptions for 77 yards and no touchdowns, Driver has not been the same cog in the Packers offense that he was for so many years since being drafted back in 1999.
My question, therefore, is different: Should Donald Driver start against San Francisco, even knowing Driver hasn’t been able to do much this past season?
I say yes.
Before you go ballistic, hear me out. Driver’s history needs to be factored into the equation. He’s a three-time Pro Bowler with seven seasons of 1000 receiving yards or better. He’s a well-prepared professional with enough speed and smarts that it’s quite possible he can still make plays, even at his advanced football age of 37.
Yes, yes, I know that Driver only had 565 yards receiving in 2010 and 445 in 2011. I know by those numbers that he was starting to slow down, and that opposing defenses had fully adjusted to him.
Still. Driver has heart. He continues to have skills. And he can still help the Packers win — but he must be on the field and have a chance to catch the football in order for this to happen.
My thought is this: the 49ers definitely won’t be expecting Driver to start, especially as Driver was a “healthy inactive” for the playoff game versus Minnesota this past Saturday. They’ll be feverishly studying game film on the other Packers receivers — Greg Jennings, Jordy Nelson, James Jones and Randall Cobb — and will forget about Driver, as Driver appears at this moment to be nothing but an afterthought.
This could be a dangerous mistake.
Driver can still beat any team in the NFL if given a chance. He knows the opposing defensive players and their tendencies. He knows the opposing defensive coordinators, too, much less their tendencies. And he knows what he has to do to make plays, even though he’s gotten little opportunity to do so this past season in Green Bay.
Besides, if this is Driver’s last game with Green Bay, he should be treated with the respect he has earned due to his three Pro Bowl seasons and his seven 1000-plus yardage seasons.
That’s why I believe that Driver should start the game against San Francisco, much less play. Because I truly believe that Driver still has more to give, if only head coach Mike McCarthy will allow Driver to do so.
Suzy Favor Hamilton Outed as Vegas Call Girl
This afternoon (December 20, 2012 to be exact), news broke that Olympian Suzy Favor Hamilton — one of the biggest female sports stars to ever come out of Wisconsin — has admitted to working as a high-priced call girl for a shady Las Vegas outfit called Haley Heston’s Private Collection.
Here’s a link to the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel’s story and a relevant quote:
Suzy Favor Hamilton, a three-time Olympian who capitalized on her wholesome image as an elite runner, mother and wife to land lucrative endorsement deals and motivational speaking engagements, has admitted to leading a double life for the last year as a high-priced call girl.
In a stunning confessional via her Twitter account, following a story published on thesmokinggun.com, Favor Hamilton wrote that she was drawn to escorting “in large part because it provided many coping mechanisms for me when I was going through a very challenging time with my marriage and my life.”
The 44-year-old Favor Hamilton, a Stevens Point native and former University of Wisconsin track star, admitted to working as “Kelly Lundy” with Haley Heston’s Private Collection, one of Las Vegas’ premier escort services, in the thesmokinggun.com story.
“I do not expect people to understand,” she wrote on her Twitter account. “But the reasons for doing this made sense to me at the time and were very much related to depression.
“I have been seeking the help of a psychologist for the past few weeks and will continue to do so after I have put things together.”
What troubles me here is not just that Favor Hamilton is a married woman with a seven-year-old child, though that’s bad enough.
Nope. What bugs me is that Favor Hamilton is quoted as admitting that her husband “tried to get (her) to stop” and that he “wasn’t supportive of (her) need to do this at all.”
Which, mind you, is the way most husbands are likely to behave when it comes to thinking about their spouse being a paid escort who gave away the “full girlfriend experience” and was rated quite highly by The Erotic Review, which is called by the Smoking Gun article that the Journal-Sentinel references as “the Zagat guide of the escort business.”
So it seems that Suzy Favor Hamilton has more than a few problems here — she’s been working as an escort when she’s not destitute (her husband is employed, she owns a realty firm and they live in a $600,000 home), she’s been fighting depression for the past year or more and if her marriage isn’t in trouble because of all this, she must have the most supportive husband in the history of the universe.
While I have never understood the need for men or women to go outside their marriages, I do know that not everyone is meant to be monogamous. So for those people who have admitted open marriages and the like, I made up my mind a long time ago not to judge them even though I freely admit that I don’t get it.
So the sex part of the equation isn’t what is so very troublesome, even though I don’t really understand what would drive a high-powered woman like Favor Hamilton to go outside her marriage and have a number of risky sexual encounters for money.
It’s the lack of trust issue that bothers me more.
Favor Hamilton is someone who’s had a squeaky clean image. She’s had endorsement deals with Disney, various running firms, has been a model in more ways than one and has been someone female runners have looked up to for the past twenty years or more in Wisconsin and much of the Midwest.
So apparently, in order for her to somehow feel better about herself, she had to throw this all away and construct an alter ego of “Kelly” the escort. Who was willing to do just about anything if the price was right because she still had the body and panache and knew how to speak the high-powered language of well-heeled men in order to better separate them from their money.
Why this intelligent, beautiful woman couldn’t find herself in some other way, I just don’t know. Why would she would risk her career for this, much less her marriage? Why would she ever entertain such a thing, considering that it’s well-known that women who become prostitutes (the not-so-nice name for “call girls”) rarely retain custody of their children?
And what about the IRS audit that has to be on the horizon? Because it would be ridiculous to assume that she’s declared all of the money she’s made as a $600-per-hour escort on her tax forms.
All of this happened because Favor Hamilton apparently enjoys risky sex in extremely expensive hotel rooms with men she doesn’t really know.
This seems so off-the-wall, so uncharacteristic, and so utterly absurd that I feel like I’ve fallen into a parallel universe.
Yet it’s the truth.
Suzy Favor Hamilton, runner and Olympian, mother and realty owner, is also a call girl.
What a terribly sad thing to have happen . . . and she did it to herself.
Tragedy in KC: Chiefs linebacker Jovan Belcher Kills GF, then Suicides
Today, something awful happened in Kansas City.
If you haven’t heard already, the Kansas City Chiefs linebacker, Jovan Belcher, has died. Worse yet, he killed himself in full view of his coach, Romeo Crennel, and his general manager, Scott Pioli, at the team’s practice facility — this after killing his girlfriend in their home.
Belcher leaves behind a three-month-old daughter.
Yahoo Sports explains all the particulars in this article. Here’s a relevant quote:
Police told the Kansas City Star that Belcher, 25, and Perkins got into an argument at approximately 7:00 a.m. Saturday at a residence in nearby Independence, Mo. Belcher shot Perkins multiple times. She was taken to a local hospital and pronounced dead there. The couple had a 3-month-old daughter, who is currently safe in the care of a relative.
Members of the Chiefs’ staff tried to stop Belcher from committing any other acts of violence before the player turned a gun on himself. The team’s practice facility was evacuated and put on police lockdown.
This is nearly an unimaginably tragic event. Yet the NFL, in its infinite whatever, has decided that the Chiefs should play their game against the Carolina Panthers as scheduled at Arrowhead Stadium in Kansas City.
I don’t agree.
Neither does Yahoo Sports columnist Michael Silver, who says:
I’m appalled that the team and league are sticking to the script, and I question the logic behind the decision. Pardon my skepticism, and that of one Chiefs player who predicted this in the wake of the tragedy: “It’s all about money,” he said.
In this particular situation, it shouldn’t be. If the NFL wanted to do the right thing for the players, coaches and team employees reeling from this horrible occurrence — not to mention the loved ones of Belcher and, most of all, Kasandra Perkins, the woman he is believed to have murdered — the league should have postponed the game until Monday or canceled it.
Silver goes on to state that:
The abrupt loss of a teammate and friend is a tough thing to confront. The fact that Belcher apparently took lives carries even darker overtones. That Belcher’s death happened at the workplace is another level of horror. That his death happened in front of Pioli and Crennel makes the notion of playing on Sunday even more dubious. Asking the organization to soldier on through Sunday’s game – a decision made in large part by Crennel and team captains – is absurd and unreasonable in my opinion. They need grief counseling — which the NFL, to its credit, is providing — and they should get at least 24 hours to collect themselves and assess their respective emotional states.
A head coach typically addresses the team on Saturday night and presides over meetings, then speaks to the players again on Sunday morning before they take the field. In addition, the head coach oversees many other aspects of the football operation during the weekend of a home game. Should Crennel be expected to handle these matters in a business-as-usual fashion? The answer, to me, seems obvious.
During my editorial internship stint today for the Web site Bleacher Report, I came across this article by Brian Kinel. He points out that the Chiefs and the NFL should try to help the orphaned three-month-old baby:
Here’s a chance for sports to redeem itself for fans like me that struggle with this issue.
Take care of that baby.
She should have a whole lot of Chiefs’ “uncles” who will love her, help take care of her and do the best they can to help her have a good life.
Put some money aside from the bountiful gate for the Panthers game tomorrow for the baby.
If this game absolutely must be played, Kinel’s suggestion should be taken to heart by the powers that be in the NFL. Because it’s plain, flat wrong to put those Chiefs players and coaches into a situation like this when nothing good can come of it — except, perhaps, to give that little baby some financial assistance at a time she needs it most.
My quick take — recognizing, of course, that I am not a medical expert — is that Belcher was probably sleep-deprived. His girlfriend, too, was probably sleep-deprived. So the argument they had over her late arrival from a previous evening’s concert may have had a great deal to do with the frustration of being new parents.
Belcher, too, could’ve been more upset than usual as the Chiefs have won only one game all season long. That puts a great deal of pressure on everyone in the organization, but most especially on the players and coaches.
In this case, the argument between a 25-year-old man and his 22-year-old girlfriend escalated into a murder-suicide. That’s tragic. Two lives have been lost, cut down too soon due to pressures we may never fully understand.
That said, if I were Romeo Crennel and I’d just seen one of my best linebackers kill himself in front of my eyes, I think I’d have asked for a postponement of the game. And if the NFL refused, I believe the Chiefs should have just forfeited the game rather than go out and play with heavy hearts and risk serious injury because they can’t possibly be focused on a mere game at such a terrible time in all of their lives.
I understand the NFL’s “play or else” mentality. One of the best games I’ve ever seen was Brett Favre’s complete dismantling of the Oakland Raiders on Monday Night Football on December 23, 2003, one night after his father’s sudden death due to a heart attack or stroke. (See this link from Sports Illustrated for further details.)
But that was one man’s tragedy — bad, but not anywhere near as bad as what happened today in Kansas City.
The NFL should do the right thing and either postpone the game tomorrow between the Chiefs and Panthers, or cancel it altogether. And they definitely should do something for that poor, orphaned baby girl.
And although I know it’s trite, my heart definitely goes out to the people affected by this tragedy — the coaches, players and fans of the Chiefs. The family members of Belcher’s girlfriend. Belcher’s own family members. And anyone affiliated with Belcher in any professional or personal capacity.
Boxer Hector “Macho” Camacho, 50, to Be Taken Off Life Support
Folks, this is one of the more disturbing sports stories to hit the wire in the past several months.
Boxer Hector “Macho” Camacho — a man who was one of the best boxers in his time, or any time — was sitting in a car with a friend, Adrian Mojica Moreno, a few days ago in his native Puerto Rico. Thugs shot at the car, perhaps not even knowing Camacho was inside; they killed Moreno instantly and wounded Camacho severely. The motivation behind this shooting appears to have been drugs, as nine small bags of cocaine were found on Moreno’s body, with a tenth bag found inside the car.
Doctors now say that Camacho is brain-dead.
Camacho’s mother, Maria Matias, has decided to take Camacho off life support, saying in this article from The Sporting News that:
“I lost my son three days ago. He’s alive only because of a machine,” Matias said. “My son is not alive. My son is only alive for the people who love him,” she added.
(Camacho’s) three other sons were expected to arrive from the U.S. mainland around midnight Friday. “Until they arrive, we will not disconnect the machine,” Matias said.
However, the one son of Camacho’s who is already there, Hector “Machito” Camacho, Jr., does not wish his father to be taken off life support. And other family and friends continue to wrestle with Camacho’s mother’s decision, even though she’s the one who has the final say — and assuredly, she’s made up her mind.
Here’s a bit more from the TSN article, which explains Camacho’s significance to the world of boxing:
He won super lightweight, lightweight and junior welterweight world titles in the 1980s and fought high-profile bouts against Felix Trinidad, Julio Cesar Chavez and Sugar Ray Leonard. Camacho knocked out Leonard in 1997, ending the former champ’s final comeback attempt. Camacho had a career record of 79-6-3.
I remember watching Camacho fight. There was an ease and fluidity to his movement, yes, but a deliberate intelligence and cunning, too. He was often underestimated due to his “Macho” nickname; fighters would learn, to their everlasting chagrin, that Camacho did his homework long before he ever stepped foot in the ring.
Or to put it another way, Camacho did not depend on bravado to win in the ring; instead, he used his mind as well as his fists to forge an impressive legacy.
Camacho’s later life was marred by a 2007 conviction for burglary (he served two weeks in jail plus probation) and his ex-wife (the New York Times, in this article, says Camacho had only one) swore out two complaints of domestic abuse before finally divorcing him. He also abused both drugs and alcohol, though there is no evidence that Camacho was on any sort of drugs at the time of the shooting.
Camacho’s sisters have said that they are willing to fly him to New York in order for him to be buried where he spent much of his adolescence — Harlem. But it’s unclear at this time as to what the final disposition of Camacho’s body will be, as no firm decision has been made regarding organ donation or anything else according to the latest articles from TSN, Yahoo Sports, and other sources.
One thing’s for certain: Camacho was at the wrong place at the wrong time, or he’d not be brain-dead right now.
What a terrible end to an otherwise remarkable life.
******
UPDATE: Camacho was taken off life support this morning, had a heart attack, and died.
A funeral is pending in New York, and a wake may be scheduled in Puerto Rico later according to this article from the Chicago Tribune. He is survived by his mother, father, four siblings (three sisters and a brother), four children — Hector, Jr., Taylor, Christian, and Justin, and two grandchildren.
NFL: Enter The Real Refs
It’s Week Four in the NFL, folks. And up until now, we’ve dealt with replacement referees who didn’t seem to know what they were doing at best — and definitely didn’t know what they were doing at worst.
But now, a deal has been reached by the NFL and the NFL Referees’ Association; that means the real, professional referees will be back on the field soon. Perhaps even as soon as Thursday night’s contest between the Baltimore Ravens and the Cleveland Browns.
Here’s a bit of the NFL and the NFLRA’s joint statement, courtesy of Yahoo Sports (short links aren’t working, so here’s the long link — http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nfl-shutdown-corner/several-reports-indicate-deal-between-nfl-officials-imminent-023915580–nfl.html):
The NFL and NFLRA are pleased to announce that they have reached an agreement tonight on an eight-year collective bargaining agreement, subject to ratification by the NFLRA.
“Our officials will be back on the field starting tomorrow night,” Commissioner Roger Goodell said. “We appreciate the commitment of the NFLRA in working through the issues to reach this important agreement.”
“Our Board of Directors has unanimously approved taking this proposed CBA to the membership for a ratification vote,” said Scott Green, president of the NFLRA. “We are glad to be getting back on the field for this week’s games.”
Hallelujah! (And amen!)
Lance Armstrong: Victim of Anti-doping Turf War?
Folks, I’m unhappy that seven-time Tour de France winner and noted cyclist Lance Armstrong has been stripped of his titles by the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA for short). There are many stories about this right now; here’s one about a federal judge tossing Lance Armstrong’s suit against the USADA, and here’s another regarding what the USADA did after the lawsuit was tossed.
In addition, the USADA has banned Armstrong, who is a retired American cyclist, for life from all cycling events under its jurisdiction.
However, there’s a bit of a turf war going on. The International Cycling Union says that it’s the organization that has jurisdiction, not the USADA. And the ICU wants to know why, exactly, Armstrong should give up his seven Tour de France titles; apparently the USADA has not made its case to them.
My take on this is simple: Armstrong may well have used blood transfusions, but he was and is a cancer survivor. This may have been a part of his treatment; if so, the USADA should’ve left this alone. As for the whole notion of Armstrong using EPO, a banned substance, I think it’s been sixteen years since Armstrong first won a title. He’s a retired competitor. The USADA should’ve left this alone, too.
See, right now, sports seems to want to tear down its heroes. Whether it’s Ryan Braun in baseball or Lance Armstrong in cycling, the various anti-doping agencies seem to be on a crusade. This isn’t necessary. Worse yet, it causes immense damage that is incredibly hard to fight, even if you’ve made millions upon millions of dollars like Armstrong, had an exceptionally good and lengthy career like Armstrong, and even if you’re able to hire the best lawyers possible.
This is why Armstrong ended up ending his fight against the USADA — it’s incredibly difficult to prove that you are innocent, especially sixteen years after the fact. Then when you add in the fact that the ICU doesn’t believe the USADA has the proper jurisdiction anyway, it’s obvious why Armstrong decided to end his fight.
To me, the fact that Armstrong has stopped arguing with the USADA does not prove that he used banned substances. All it proves is that the USADA is on a witch hunt. And by besmirching Armstrong and his legacy, it apparently feels like it’s doing the right thing — even though 99 out of 100 people would’ve told the USADA to back off years ago, especially considering the fact that Armstrong is a symbol to millions and that Armstrong has retired from competitive cycling.
This is what should be at the bottom of every serious story about Armstrong — the fact that there’s an anti-doping turf war going on — yet because this fact hasn’t been brought up nearly as much as it should, we’re getting all sorts of stories on the Internet about how Armstrong’s legacy has been completely ruined.
Hah!
Once again — the only ruination that’s occurred here is to those fanatics at the USADA, who really should’ve butted out of this one. Even if they’re right about what Armstrong did (something I find very hard to believe), they’re wrong about how they did it. And that wrongness is something that needs to end, here and now, before it ends up hurting another competitor who has far less money, energy, or time to fight than Armstrong did — ’cause as bad as these things are for Armstrong, at least he did fight and that shows that he believes himself to be innocent.
All the hand-wringing from well-known sports columnists aside, the fact of the matter is that the ICU thus far has refused to strip Armstrong of his titles just because the USADA threw what amounts to a huge hissy fit. People need to know this and realize that the way the media has slanted this story has got to end. (In other words, the narrative framing here is biased against Armstrong and is prejudiced instead in favor of the USADA.)
And I don’t know about anyone else, but I’m far more concerned with what a sports star does on the field — or on the track, as in the case of Armstrong — than whatever little turf war the USADA wants to win at the moment. (Aren’t you?)
Weird NBA Story: Commissioner Stern Insults Sportscaster Jim Rome During Interview
Folks, I really don’t understand what the commissioner of the National Basketball Association, David Stern, thought he was doing on Wednesday afternoon, June 13, 2012, but here goes: Stern intentionally insulted sportscaster Jim Rome during Rome’s live call-in, nationally syndicated radio show after Rome asked a perfectly legitimate question regarding the upcoming NBA Draft. This happened about twelve hours ago, and is all over the news.
Here’s what happened. According to the Yahoo Sports blog “Ball Don’t Lie,” Rome asked the question everyone’s been asking since the New Orleans Hornets won this year’s NBA “draft lottery,” meaning the Hornets will get to pick first, consequently getting the best player available in the 2012 NBA Draft. As the Hornets are currently owned by the NBA (and have been since December of 2010), this didn’t look very good. Rome, being a well-known sportscaster, asked the question in what surely appears to be a rather non-confrontational way.
To wit (as transcribed by Yahoo Sports from the article referenced above):
“You know, New Orleans won the draft lottery, which, of course, produced the usual round of speculation that maybe the lottery was fixed,” Rome said. “I know that you appreciate a good conspiracy theory as much as the next guy — was the fix in for the lottery?”
“Uh, you know, I have two answers for that,” Stern said. “I’ll give you the easy one — no — and a statement: Shame on you for asking.”
“You know, I understand why you would say that to me, and I wanted to preface it by saying it respectfully,” Rome replied. “I think it’s my job to ask, because I think people wonder.”
“No, it’s ridiculous,” Stern answered. “But that’s OK.”
“I know that you think it’s ridiculous, but I don’t think the question is ridiculous, because I know people think that,” Rome said. “I’m not saying that I do, but I think it’s my job to ask you that.”
“Have you stopped beating your wife yet?” Stern asked.
Now, this was a truly ridiculous answer, especially as Stern had already said above that the draft lottery wasn’t fixed. It’s especially dumb because Stern is sixty-nine years of age, an accomplished and learned man, and really shouldn’t have said any such thing, especially because his asinine statement has for the moment eclipsed the NBA’s premiere event — the NBA Finals.
Rome handled this pretty well, as you’re about to see from the transcript:
“Yeah, I don’t know if that’s fair,” Rome responded. “I don’t know that that’s fair.”
“Well, why’s that?” Stern asked.
My aside — oh, come off it, Commish! You’re playing dumb here. (Or were you having a “senior moment?”) Whatever you’re doing, it’s wrong. Cut it out.
Back to the transcript:
“Because I think that there are — and I know you read your emails and I’m sure you follow things virally on Twitter — people really do think it, whether it’s fair or not,” Rome said. “You don’t think the question’s fair to ask if your fans think it?”
Good question. So, how does Stern answer it? (Warning: this next exchange is rather lengthy.)
“People think it because people like you ask silly questions,” Stern said. “I expect it to be written about — and actually, I commented last night in my presser that there was one guy who I won’t dignify by naming who says, ‘I have no reason to know anything, and I don’t know anything, but I tell you, I believe it’s fixed.’ OK, that’s good. Why is that? ‘Well, because this team won.’ And if that team won, it would’ve been fixed also, and if that team won, it would’ve been fixed also. And if every team was invited to have a representative there, and there were four members of the media there, and if Ernst and Young certified it, would you still think it? ‘Yes.’ So, I guess …”
“I think two things, which responds to this,” Rome interjected. “Number one, I don’t think so. I don’t think so — and I’m not covering myself — I don’t think so, and I think by asking the question, it would not suggest I think so. But the one thing I would say: The league does own the team, does it not?”
“… Yes,” Stern said, a question mark at the end of his sentence.
“Does that not make the question fair?” Rome asked.
“I don’t think so,” Stern said. “Number one, we sold it. We’re gonna close this week. We already have established our price. I think that if it had gone to Michael Jordan, which was the next team up with, in terms of a high percentage, they would’ve said, ‘Oh, David’s taking care of his friend Michael.’ And if it had gone to Brooklyn, which is going into Barclay Center, it would have been fair to speculate, I suppose, that we want to take Brooklyn off of the mat. So there was no winning. And people write about it, and it’s OK to write about it, and we sort of expect it, but that’s not a question that I’ve been asked before by a respectable journalist.”
This actually is a logic chain that makes sense. But why did it take Stern so long to come up with it? And why did he have to needlessly insult Rome before he got there?
———
Edited to add:
Upon further reflection, it seems that Stern wished to “frame the narrative” by giving a reason that explained why Stern had said something so insulting to Rome. Notice the slur about “respectable journalists” who supposedly wouldn’t ask such a question about “rigging the draft” — what was the point of that, especially as Rome had asked a perfectly legitimate question? (And am I really supposed to think that other sportscasters and journalists hadn’t asked Stern this question before Rome got around to it? Because I have a hard time buying that, too.)
That’s why, upon further reflection, I don’t think that Stern’s attempt at framing the narrative passes the “smell test,” even with the proviso that Stern’s logic chain regarding the other teams does make sense.
Back to the original blog.
———
From the transcript:
“I think I understand why you’re frustrated by that; I think that I understand why that would upset you,” Rome said. “I would hope that you would not hold that against me.”
“I wouldn’t hold it against you — you know, you and I have been into more contentious discussions than that,” Stern said.
“I don’t know, I’d put that one right up there,” Rome replied.
That’s the understatement of the year. But Stern was not yet done; check out this next line:
“Well, you know, it’s good copy, and you do things sometimes for cheap thrills,” Stern said.
I don’t know what Stern thought he was doing here, but that just escalated an already tense situation. And by this time, Rome was obviously getting exasperated:
“I did not do that for a cheap thrill,” Rome answered.
“Well, that’s what it sounds like,” Stern said.
“No, not at all,” Rome answered. “See, that’s where you and I — that’s our point of disconnect. That was not a cheap thrill and I was not throwing anything against the wall, and I was trying to be as respectful as possible. I’m just saying that people wonder about that. And here’s what I don’t want to do — I don’t want to say, ‘Hey commissioner, people would say …’ Because I’m going to ask a direct question. But people do wonder. But that was not a cheap thrill. I got no thrill out of that.”
“Well, it’s a cheap trick,” Stern said.
“No, flopping is a cheap trick,” Rome said.
Good one! (I get tired of watching NBA players, especially the stars, doing this all the time. It weakens the game and slows down the action.) This was an excellent way for Rome to re-direct the conversation back to basketball rather than whatever it was Stern thought he was doing. But once again, Stern didn’t take the high road:
“Well, no. But listen, you’ve been successful at making a career out of it, and I keep coming on, so …” Stern said.
“Making a career out of what, though, commissioner?” Rome interrupted. “See, I take great offense to that. Making a career of what? Cheap thrills?”
“What offense are you taking? You’re taking offense?” Stern asked.
I really do not buy Stern’s “I didn’t do anything” response here. Neither did Rome.
“I am. Now I am,” Rome answered. “If you’re saying I’ve made a career out of cheap thrills …”
“… taking on the world, and now Jim Rome is pouting? I love it,” Stern said.
Um, excuse me? Why do you wish to keep escalating an already bad situation, Mr. Commissioner? (Especially when this was entirely your own fault.)
Here’s the rest of the transcript:
“I’m not pouting; I take offense,” Rome said. “There’s a difference between pouting and taking offense. I take offense like you took offense to the question. What if I said — were you pouting when I asked the question?”
“What offenses? Do you want to hang up on me?” Stern asked.
“No, I can’t hang up on you, because I’m running out of time — I would never hang up on you,” Rome said.
“OK,” Stern said. “Listen, I’ve got to go call somebody important, like Stephen A. Smith, right now. He’s up next.”
“All right, you go make that call, and I’ll go talk to somebody else, too, I guess,” Rome said.
“All right,” Stern said.
“All right, commissioner. Have a nice day,” Rome said. “I did not hang up on him — we are officially out of time. We will come back and reset that momentarily. Stay tuned.”
As writer Dan Devine of “Ball Don’t Lie” said, Stern should not have done this because Stern is a “grown-ass man.” Devine also said, earlier in his critique:
Setting aside the moral/ethical/sensitivity argument you might make — “Hey, we probably don’t need to evoke domestic violence during a sports talk radio interview, especially when it’s not one about, y’know, domestic violence” — this wasn’t a loaded question. There most certainly was a way for Stern to answer Rome’s question — which, again, was “Was the fix in for the lottery?” — without in any way implicating the league in any impropriety.
Exactly right.
This is undoubtedly the strangest sports story in the past ten years or more, because here, we have a commissioner in David Stern who’d rather cause trouble for a sportscaster than talk about his own product — the teams who are playing in the NBA Finals (the Oklahoma City Thunder and the Miami Heat, to be exact).
Let me say it again, louder this time: David Stern would rather score cheap shots off Jim Rome than do his job, which is to promote NBA basketball. Stern shouldn’t behave this way no matter what questions Rome or any other sportscaster asks (even though Rome’s questions were fair), because it’s part of Stern’s job to handle the tough questions. (Otherwise, why accept the paycheck?)
And if I were an owner of any of the twenty-nine NBA franchises that aren’t owned by the NBA at this time, I’d be furious at Stern and be looking for a way to oust him over this. Because it’s just not right when a commissioner of a professional sport makes the story all about him, rather than about the players, coaches, or even the owners.
UAB Fires Coach Mike Davis
Competitive sports are all about one thing, and one thing only: “What have you done for me lately?” Otherwise, 2011’s Conference USA’s Men’s Basketball Coach of the Year, Mike Davis, would not be looking for a job.
The Associated Press (according to Yahoo Sports) is reporting that University of Alabama-Birmingham has fired their head coach — Mike Davis — despite UAB winning 20 games last season and going to the NCAA tournament for the first time in UAB’s history. But here seems to be the reason why, according to AP sports writer John Zenor:
A heavily depleted UAB team fell to 15-16 last season and lost six of its first seven games. The Blazers posted the same record in Davis’s first season, but followed that up with 23 victories to start the program’s first four-year run of 20-win seasons.
Zenor goes on to say that UAB returned only two starters from its 2010-11 squad; no other returning player averaged more than 3.9 points per game. This makes it sound as if Davis was in a no-win scenario; he had a predominantly young team with little experience, and he knew he’d have a down year. That UAB went 15-16 — one game below .500 — is a credit to Davis under the circumstances.
But Davis’s firing is odd in another sense; it seems that Davis is very well-known in Alabama. Also from Zenor’s article (referenced above):
Davis, a Fayette, Ala., native, was the state’s Mr. Basketball and then played for the University of Alabama, where he was known for his tough, scrappy defense.
And then, this is the second time Davis has been fired by a major university for what seems to be questionable reasons; he famously took over at Indiana University after Bobby Knight, and spent six years as IU’s head coach under incredibly trying circumstances.
Davis had one year remaining on his $625,000 a year contract; his record as UAB’s head coach stands at 122 wins and 73 losses, which shows that overall, he was an outstanding coach for UAB.
I am sure Davis will find another job, but I have to say that UAB’s decision here doesn’t make much sense. I doubt anyone would’ve done any better than Davis did with the players he had, and most would’ve done a great deal worse.
With regards to UAB’s perplexing decision, the only thing that comes to mind is the truism that “coaches are hired, only to be fired.” And considering all Davis did for UAB’s basketball program, that is just not right.
Barb Caffrey's Blog 