Long time readers here may remember this post . It was one of the first things I wrote as Sir Rantalot. If you don't have the time to read it now the basic point is that any state or local government that displays the Confederate Stars and Bars should be considered in an open state of rebellion and charged with treason against the United States. Well I doubt anyone at the University of Mississippi reads this blog but they've decided to do the right thing any way.
Recently Ole Miss has changed it's fight song in an attempt to eliminate the chant "The South shall rise again." Follow the link to the ESPN article for the full details. What I thin should be pointed out is that a symbol of the south is taking steps to divorce itself from its sesesh past. Ole Miss has previously dropped its Colonel Rebel mascot.
The University of Mississippi should be applauded for their efforts towards uniting their student body and their fan base. Let me be the first to provisionally welcome Mississippi back into the Union.
Family, Sports, Politics, Random Rants: @bertoinpublic, facebook.com/interdisciplinarylife/
Friday, October 23, 2009
Thursday, October 22, 2009
And Take Al Davis With You.
So A guy named Ed Roski is planning to build a football stadium in LA. He's planning this even though he does not own an NFL team. He's planning this even though his prospects of owning an NFL team are slim. Good for him. Now let's hope he can get the Raiders to move back to LA.
That's right boys and girls Sir Rantalot's prayers may be answered. There is now a chance, however slim, that our fine community may be rid of the Raiders once and for all. And good riddance. After all who can tell me that the Raiders return has been anything but a nightmare? Massive debt to the county, an ugly ugly remodeling job to the stadium, black outs, PSLs, high ticket prices, six straight seasons of 11 losses or more, black outs, Darrell Russell, this abomination that I still have sort of blocked out of my memory, black outs, and the list goes on. And we still haven't mentioned drunk violent Raider fans.
The Raiders second stint in Oakland had been a disaster for everyone involved. Al has been looking for a way out since he signed the lease. If he bolts back to LA the rest of us can get back to real double headers on Sundays and not being afraid of getting stabbed for wearing colors other than black. I know Al is unlikely to sell and Roski wants a majority stake in a team before he breaks ground but this may be the time. Al's health is failing and I'm sure he could work out a gradual transfer of power that would be completed upon his death. After all it can't be long before Darth Raider throws old Emperor Alpatine down the shaft right? Best of all if Al leaves then maybe, just maybe, we can get a 35,000 seat baseball only stadium that will keep the A's in town and prevent Al from ever coming back.
So here's to all the decent people of the east bay getting together to find out what we can do to make this thing happen. Sometime dreams really can come true.
PS: I've got things to say about Rush, Crabtree, and the other recent sports happenings but I'm still on vacation so it'll have to wait for another day. G'night y'all.
That's right boys and girls Sir Rantalot's prayers may be answered. There is now a chance, however slim, that our fine community may be rid of the Raiders once and for all. And good riddance. After all who can tell me that the Raiders return has been anything but a nightmare? Massive debt to the county, an ugly ugly remodeling job to the stadium, black outs, PSLs, high ticket prices, six straight seasons of 11 losses or more, black outs, Darrell Russell, this abomination that I still have sort of blocked out of my memory, black outs, and the list goes on. And we still haven't mentioned drunk violent Raider fans.
The Raiders second stint in Oakland had been a disaster for everyone involved. Al has been looking for a way out since he signed the lease. If he bolts back to LA the rest of us can get back to real double headers on Sundays and not being afraid of getting stabbed for wearing colors other than black. I know Al is unlikely to sell and Roski wants a majority stake in a team before he breaks ground but this may be the time. Al's health is failing and I'm sure he could work out a gradual transfer of power that would be completed upon his death. After all it can't be long before Darth Raider throws old Emperor Alpatine down the shaft right? Best of all if Al leaves then maybe, just maybe, we can get a 35,000 seat baseball only stadium that will keep the A's in town and prevent Al from ever coming back.
So here's to all the decent people of the east bay getting together to find out what we can do to make this thing happen. Sometime dreams really can come true.
PS: I've got things to say about Rush, Crabtree, and the other recent sports happenings but I'm still on vacation so it'll have to wait for another day. G'night y'all.
Saturday, October 3, 2009
LeGarrette Blount Update
It looks like there may be some forgiveness for LeGarrette Blount. It's interesting to see that one of the people Blount's been consulting with is Kermit Washington who I mentioned in my original post.
Friday, October 2, 2009
Checking in on Crabtree
Crabtree II
The question I haven’t seen answered in all the Michael Crabtree analysis is this, how much more money will he have to get to make this hold out worth it? If you examine it in terms of simple math rather than leagalese contract math (discounting various bonus triggers that change what is paid when) it goes like this: the contract on the table is reported as $20M/5years. That breaks down to an average of $4M/year. For some antiquated reason NFL players are given game checks 16 times over the course of the season. Each of Crabtree’s game checks should be ~$250,000. Right now the 49ers are pro-rating their offer so that every time Crabtree misses a game the offer is reduced by ~$250,000. So far he has “lost” ~$750 ,000. If you’re not yet sick to your stomach about a guy turning up his nose at that kind of money read on.
Crabtree has threatened to hold out the entire year and re-renter the draft next year. This plan seems to be based on the fact that he thinks he will be picked higher than he was this year and thus get more money. It is also possible that he believes that the amount of money available next year will get him a better deal. Again, how much more money will he need to get to make it worthwhile? Well for one he’d have to make up for sitting out this year. Essentially he’d have to make six years worth of salary in five years giving us a break even point of $24M ($4M/year x 6 years). But that’s not all.
According to the current collective bargaining agreement (CBA) players can become free agents after five years of service time. That’s when big time players really cash in. Forget for a moment that we don’t know if Crabtree is Randy Moss or Carlos Rogers, he believes he’s a big time player which means whatever deal he gets will have to make up for the fact that he’s now delaying free agency and his big payday by another year. If you look at just the average of the top five cap numbers for wide receivers in 2008 ($9.74M) it means Crabtree would have a new break even number of $34M. If you consider the fact that salaries rise over time it's not crazy to think that number will be higher five years from next year so lets say, accounting for 6 years of salary inflation, he needs $40M to break even. Still this number is only what he would need to make up for missing this year. This is the “the plan didn’t really work and it’s kind of a wash” number. For this hold out to be considered a success he’d have to make a lot more than this.
Now, ready for what he’s allegedly asking? $40 million. That’s right, the guy picked tenth wants $40M. That’s about $2M more than the guy picked seventh, who plays the same position, got. But remember, Crabtree’s whole rationale for this hold out is that he should have been picked fifth.
Beyond the money though is another issue. How good can Crabtree be expected to be? The final answer is we have no way of knowing, but that answer’s no fun to analyze. Instead lets look at other players who have missed entire years. The two that spring to mind for me are Maurice Clarett and Mike Williams. If you don’t remember Mo C. he was a running back at Ohio State who had a great freshman year. He was so good that year he decided he should challenge the NFL rule that forces players to wait three years after high school to apply for the draft. When Clarett won a temporary injunction against the NFL Williams decided it would be a good idea to declare for the draft as well. In the end the NFL rule was upheld (thank you judge Sotamayor) and both players missed the entire 2004 season. In 2005 Williams was taken 10th overall and Clarett was taken 101st. Clarett, who turned down $413,000 in guaranteed money in favor of an incentive laden deal with no guarantees, didn’t make it through training camp and never played in the NFL. Williams ended his rookie year with 29 receptions and 1 touchdown. Not exactly what one looks for in the number 10 overall pick. The next year Williams had just 8 catches and 1 touchdown. In 2007 Williams split time between the Raiders and the Titans recording 7 receptions and 0 touchdowns. He has not played a down since then.
What does this mean for Michael Crabtree? Possibly nothing. Andre Smith, this year’s number six pick was the last player left holding out other than Crabtree. Smith finally reported to camp and was immediately lost for the year with a broken foot the next day. Smith was following the path laid out by 2002 number 6 overall pick Ryan Sims who held out for weeks and then was injured and lost for the year a couple weeks after reporting.
Beyond that sports landscape is littered with guys who thought they could do better. Matt Harrington was drafted by MLB teams four years in a row. He was initially a first rounder but found the offer of a paltry $4.9M to be too little. He played junior college ball, then independent ball and got a little worse every year. Now he works installing tires at Costco. The history of players who turn up their noses at not enough millions and skip a year is littered with stories of failure. In fact the only person I can think of who’s at least made a ton of money after sitting out is J.D. Drew and he at least played a year of high level indie ball while he was off denying the Phillies. But there is no high minor league for football. Crabtree gave up his eligibility for the closest thing to that when he left college. Besides that Crabtree has more to lose in terms of his rookie deal by playing this season in Canada or the UFL than by sitting out. The risk of injury is too great and of he doesn’t excel his stock will drop. Instead he’ll hope that his college resume will hold up through next April. That hope is all he’ll have since he won’t be allowed to work out for other teams before the draft. Here’s hoping the Niners will be in position to draft him again. And again, and again, and again.
The question I haven’t seen answered in all the Michael Crabtree analysis is this, how much more money will he have to get to make this hold out worth it? If you examine it in terms of simple math rather than leagalese contract math (discounting various bonus triggers that change what is paid when) it goes like this: the contract on the table is reported as $20M/5years. That breaks down to an average of $4M/year. For some antiquated reason NFL players are given game checks 16 times over the course of the season. Each of Crabtree’s game checks should be ~$250,000. Right now the 49ers are pro-rating their offer so that every time Crabtree misses a game the offer is reduced by ~$250,000. So far he has “lost” ~$750 ,000. If you’re not yet sick to your stomach about a guy turning up his nose at that kind of money read on.
Crabtree has threatened to hold out the entire year and re-renter the draft next year. This plan seems to be based on the fact that he thinks he will be picked higher than he was this year and thus get more money. It is also possible that he believes that the amount of money available next year will get him a better deal. Again, how much more money will he need to get to make it worthwhile? Well for one he’d have to make up for sitting out this year. Essentially he’d have to make six years worth of salary in five years giving us a break even point of $24M ($4M/year x 6 years). But that’s not all.
According to the current collective bargaining agreement (CBA) players can become free agents after five years of service time. That’s when big time players really cash in. Forget for a moment that we don’t know if Crabtree is Randy Moss or Carlos Rogers, he believes he’s a big time player which means whatever deal he gets will have to make up for the fact that he’s now delaying free agency and his big payday by another year. If you look at just the average of the top five cap numbers for wide receivers in 2008 ($9.74M) it means Crabtree would have a new break even number of $34M. If you consider the fact that salaries rise over time it's not crazy to think that number will be higher five years from next year so lets say, accounting for 6 years of salary inflation, he needs $40M to break even. Still this number is only what he would need to make up for missing this year. This is the “the plan didn’t really work and it’s kind of a wash” number. For this hold out to be considered a success he’d have to make a lot more than this.
Now, ready for what he’s allegedly asking? $40 million. That’s right, the guy picked tenth wants $40M. That’s about $2M more than the guy picked seventh, who plays the same position, got. But remember, Crabtree’s whole rationale for this hold out is that he should have been picked fifth.
Beyond the money though is another issue. How good can Crabtree be expected to be? The final answer is we have no way of knowing, but that answer’s no fun to analyze. Instead lets look at other players who have missed entire years. The two that spring to mind for me are Maurice Clarett and Mike Williams. If you don’t remember Mo C. he was a running back at Ohio State who had a great freshman year. He was so good that year he decided he should challenge the NFL rule that forces players to wait three years after high school to apply for the draft. When Clarett won a temporary injunction against the NFL Williams decided it would be a good idea to declare for the draft as well. In the end the NFL rule was upheld (thank you judge Sotamayor) and both players missed the entire 2004 season. In 2005 Williams was taken 10th overall and Clarett was taken 101st. Clarett, who turned down $413,000 in guaranteed money in favor of an incentive laden deal with no guarantees, didn’t make it through training camp and never played in the NFL. Williams ended his rookie year with 29 receptions and 1 touchdown. Not exactly what one looks for in the number 10 overall pick. The next year Williams had just 8 catches and 1 touchdown. In 2007 Williams split time between the Raiders and the Titans recording 7 receptions and 0 touchdowns. He has not played a down since then.
What does this mean for Michael Crabtree? Possibly nothing. Andre Smith, this year’s number six pick was the last player left holding out other than Crabtree. Smith finally reported to camp and was immediately lost for the year with a broken foot the next day. Smith was following the path laid out by 2002 number 6 overall pick Ryan Sims who held out for weeks and then was injured and lost for the year a couple weeks after reporting.
Beyond that sports landscape is littered with guys who thought they could do better. Matt Harrington was drafted by MLB teams four years in a row. He was initially a first rounder but found the offer of a paltry $4.9M to be too little. He played junior college ball, then independent ball and got a little worse every year. Now he works installing tires at Costco. The history of players who turn up their noses at not enough millions and skip a year is littered with stories of failure. In fact the only person I can think of who’s at least made a ton of money after sitting out is J.D. Drew and he at least played a year of high level indie ball while he was off denying the Phillies. But there is no high minor league for football. Crabtree gave up his eligibility for the closest thing to that when he left college. Besides that Crabtree has more to lose in terms of his rookie deal by playing this season in Canada or the UFL than by sitting out. The risk of injury is too great and of he doesn’t excel his stock will drop. Instead he’ll hope that his college resume will hold up through next April. That hope is all he’ll have since he won’t be allowed to work out for other teams before the draft. Here’s hoping the Niners will be in position to draft him again. And again, and again, and again.
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Sit Down, Read Rule Book, Shut Up
Pic from ESPN.com
You see what you've brought me to Raider fans? You see what's happening here? No? I'll tell you what's happening here, I'm blogging from my phone that's what's happening here. I swore I didn't want to do this but you've driven me beyond my limits. Read below for the short version.
Get this straight you freaks, you did not get robbed last night. Not even a little bit. Of course, being Raider fans I don't really expect you to this into that black hole in your head. You know, the place where common sense and actual football acumen go to die. But try to pay attention here: it was not a catch. Under no circumstances in no one's interpretation of the rules is that ever going to be a catch.
Since I know you don't actually know the rules here they are:
"A player is in possession when he is in firm grip and control of the ball in bounds. To gain possession of a loose ball that has been caught, intercepted or recovered, a player must have complete control of the ball and have both feet completely on the ground in bounds or any other part of his body, other than his hands, on the ground in bounds.
"If the player loses the ball while simultaneously touching both feet or any other part of his body to the ground or if there is any doubt that the acts were simultaneous, there is no possession. This rule applies to the field of play and in the end zone."
"A player who goes to the ground in the process of attempting to secure possession of a loose ball (with or without contact by a defender) must maintain control of the ball after he touches the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone.
"If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, there is no possession. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, it is a catch, interception or recovery."
The guy lost control of the ball. It hit the turf. He didn't Bert Emanuel the ball and get it mostly off the ground. He fully lost the ball and it completely hit the ground. If you go to 1:41 of this recap video you'll see the ball clearly hit the ground before his elbow. After that he never regains possession. Then go to 3:15 of that vid, if the first one was a TD the pass to Higgins should have been a fumble. Higgins also took 2 steps. If that had been a fumble then there would be no TD after that and the same result in terms of the final score.
Friday, September 4, 2009
Instant Reaction
I do not support LaGarrette Blount's actions. I do think we need to try to understand what he did.
For those of you not following this story Blount is a running back for the University of Oregon football team. After a game last night Blount punched an opposing player in the face. The opposing player, Boise State's Byron Hout, sought out Blount immediately after the game and taunted him. The taunt may have been a reaction to Blount's comments to the media before the game to the effect of Oregon owing Boise an "ass whuppin" to avenge the Ducks loss to the Broncos in Oregon last year. I can't condone players punching each other after a game. I do think this kid Blount is getting a bad rap.
I have long contended that this idea that words should never lead to violence is, like communism, a nice idea that has no real practical basis in reality. The fact is you can't just go around saying whatever you want to whoever you want and not be ready to accept whatever reaction you get. Now, if you do something reasonable like honk at someone who darts out in front of your car it is fair to expect they won't smash in your windshield with a crowbar. However, if you roll down your window and yell "Get your stupid ass out the street." I don't see how you can expect to not have your windshield smashed in with a crowbar. Polite society is for polite people. If you can't be polite I hardly see how you can complain if someone answers your rudeness with even greater rudeness.
Apply this to the end of a game. If you win you should let the fact that you won be all the smack you need to run out there. However if at the end of a tough emotional game you feel compelled to seek a guy out, tap him on the shoulder and rub it in his face you should expect to get punched in the face. If you want to live in a world where you do not ever get punched in the face don't go around taunting angry men who just lost a contest of strength and will. If you want to live in a world where you can taunt large angry men without any repercussion move to Candyland. Point: Hout needs to accept some responsibility for his actions and the result.
Some ESPN analysts have referred to the incident as a sucker punch. I don't think this is a fair characterization. If Hout had stood and faced Blount after his comment he would have seen the punch coming. Instead he puts on a shit eating grin and turns to look for props from his boys. Dude, if you're going to talk shit keep your wits about you. In the immortal words of Chris Tucker, "You got knocked the fuck out!" I also think it's telling that Hout's teammates didn't rush to his defense. Maybe the guys' just a dick.
Let me emphasize I am not behind hauling off and punching people. I don't think it's the right thing to do. I just think we shouldn't act so shocked when it happens. Colin Cowherd said something on his show today that stood out for me. He said, "It's not how you act that's important, it's how you react." This is true. Hout is a dumb ass for what he did. Blount could have shown tremendous character and restraint by shining Hout on. That would be the kind of thing we look up to as a society. But Blount isn't that guy. I don't think he should be vilified for it. I'm not that guy. Ask Kermit Washington what can happen in a bad instant. Washington punched Rudy Tomjonovich and his life changed forever. Blount is getting hammered for something that happened in the heat of the moment. We accept temporary insanity as a basis for murder defense. We coach temporary insanity in football players so we can be entertained. But when the insanity carries over by a few minutes we want to act like we're outraged.
Now Blount has been suspended for the rest of the year. I'm fine with that. Just like I was fine with the Mike Vick suspension. Blount needed some sort of punishment. I think a year is a little harsh but he did something wrong and he needs to accept the consequences of his action. I don't think we need to keep hammering on him after this. I don't think we should write him off as a person or a player based on this one incident. It could well be that he's a good person who did a bad thing. We need to look at ourselves and ask if our expectations are really in line with reality. Is it really reasonable to expect that these guys will just turn it off as soon as the whistle blows? Is it really reasonable to expect that we should all have carte blanche to say whatever, whenever, to whomever and expect that it will never draw an unfavorable reaction?
Monday, August 31, 2009
Cop Out
OK, I know this is old news but it has become one of the sticking points of my marriage, Dumbledore the made up wizard character in the Harry Potter series was "outed" by author J.K. Rowling about two years ago. My wife was thrilled. Every gay rights minded Harry Potter fan I know was thrilled. I was not. Honestly I see it as a stunt. First off Dumbledore's sexuality is in no way germane to the books. It simply doesn't enter in to it. second why "out" him now? What's the point? This is no great symbol for gay rights or anything else. It's complete BS.
Rowling went on to say, "If I'd known it would make you so happy, I would have announced it years ago!" I doubt that very much. Cynically I think she was looking for a secondary boost in sales or publicity. If we can posthumously out Dumbledore and have people cheer why not other pretend people? Why not Captain Ahab? Hey, Atticus finch was gay. Does that do anything for ya? It doesn't matter if Dumbledore or Snape or Moaning Myrtle were gay. It's not a win for social justice. It's nothing. If it were going to be a win for anything important it would have been revealed in the books. I think the following quote sums it up nicely.
Ross Douthat of The Atlantic Monthly:
"It seems like a case of J.K. Rowling trying to retroactively bestow a level of adult complexity on her characters that they don’t possess on the printed page. A writer confident in her powers wouldn’t feel the need to announce details like this after the fact."
In an interview with Harry Potter fan site The Leaky Cauldron GLAAD spokesman Sean Lund sees the Dumbledore revelation as a good thing. You can read the interview but I'm not convinced.
Having openly gay characters in books and other media is important for gay rights. Hopefully having visible gay characters helps normalize homosexuality for the audience. But "outing" a fictional person after the character has been killed off after the final volume of the series has been released is baloney. It's a meaningless gesture signifying nothing.
Blah! to you J.K. Rowling. You're no pioneer, no activist.
Rowling went on to say, "If I'd known it would make you so happy, I would have announced it years ago!" I doubt that very much. Cynically I think she was looking for a secondary boost in sales or publicity. If we can posthumously out Dumbledore and have people cheer why not other pretend people? Why not Captain Ahab? Hey, Atticus finch was gay. Does that do anything for ya? It doesn't matter if Dumbledore or Snape or Moaning Myrtle were gay. It's not a win for social justice. It's nothing. If it were going to be a win for anything important it would have been revealed in the books. I think the following quote sums it up nicely.
Ross Douthat of The Atlantic Monthly:
"It seems like a case of J.K. Rowling trying to retroactively bestow a level of adult complexity on her characters that they don’t possess on the printed page. A writer confident in her powers wouldn’t feel the need to announce details like this after the fact."
In an interview with Harry Potter fan site The Leaky Cauldron GLAAD spokesman Sean Lund sees the Dumbledore revelation as a good thing. You can read the interview but I'm not convinced.
Having openly gay characters in books and other media is important for gay rights. Hopefully having visible gay characters helps normalize homosexuality for the audience. But "outing" a fictional person after the character has been killed off after the final volume of the series has been released is baloney. It's a meaningless gesture signifying nothing.
Blah! to you J.K. Rowling. You're no pioneer, no activist.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)