GarySJ

Several interesting articles about MLB finances: Not sure why the disparity in figures, but it's clear that the large-broadcast franchises have a huge financial advantage. Some other articles on the subject: http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/stories/2003/05/26/story6.html http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2003/0428/064_print.html http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/inside_game/mike_fish/news/2002/03/22/fish_straightshooting/

Something to consider: The Yankees' TV package is worth $250M (probably more now). The small-market teams' deals can be as worth as little as $5M. So broadcast value is probably a big factor here.

Let's see. The NFL hasn't had labor unrest in ages, players and owners have freedom to do what they want, the NFL is by far the most prosperous and competitive of the four major professional leagues, and everyone involved is making lots of money. This is bad? Yes, the NFL owners have more leverage to "negociate down" than in baseball. What you fail to understand is that the union (and players) gets a lot in return. Example 1: Mike Frier, a Seahawks player who was crippled in a car accident a few years ago. One of the union's demands in the last labor agreement was extensive post-career health care for its members. They got it. And thanks to the NFL players union, Mike Frier's health expenses are taken care of for life. Tell him how bad the NFL player's union is. Compare his story to that of, say, J.R. Richard. Example 2: Jerry Rice, Rod Woodson, Junior Seau, Emmett Smith, and various other future Hall of Famers who can still play the game. Without the flexibility to accept incentive-laden, cap-friendly contracts, these guys would have been forced into retirement years ago. No team would want them at the "no negociating down" superstar prices the union would make them pay. Furthermore, the players wouldn't be able to play for the teams they want to play for. So these deals aren't just owner-friendly, they're also player-friendly in a lot of ways. Bash the NFLPA if you will, but they take care of their members after their careers end; give their members flexibility; negociate in good faith rather than blindly adhering to arbitrary standards; and have an interest in the long-term health of the industry.

True, his deal is so big it probably makes more sense to keep him around. But Snyder could easily can him if he wanted to; he's paid off head coaches with lots of years left on their contracts before.

Let's see... **** Jauron goes 7-9 with 4-12 talent and gets fired. Dave Wannstedt goes 10-6 with 13-3 talent and gets extension. Steve Spurrier spends a huge amount of team money on free agents, goes 5-11, and keeps his job. Dave McGinnis manages to win 4 games with the most decrepit, cheap, incompetent franchise in the league and gets fired. Marty Schottenheimer ties for the worst record in football and his star player doesn't think the team can turn it around, yet he keeps his job. Bill Callahan lost control of his team months ago, went from AFC champ to 4-12, and (thus far) hasn't been fired. Dan Reeves is one of the most successful coaches all-time, loses his franchise QB for most of the season, and is fired. Jim Haslett has kept the woeful Saints competitive in a tough division, and is on the ropes. NFL justice.

Excuse me, but are you the same smazza who took issue with me when I attacked the MLBPA for vetoing the A-Rod/Boston deal because the contract was being negociated down? What about the NFL players union membership who will suffer from such an arrangement?

1: Vikings 1A: Rams Distant 3rd: Bengals (who did well just to be in the running by Week 17) Dishonorable Mention: Chiefs, Dolphins, Saints

No, it was -- the Chokies always fall apart late in the season. Nice win for Cal, but Va Tech gets WAY too much national respect.

No, that's not it all. I don't think BC leaving and the new members joining have anything to do with each other. The BE is not forced to take the new members if BC decides to pay the exit fee and leaves for 2004. They can play 2004 with just the teams they have, and have given every indication that they are prepared to do that. The BE has stated that it whether or not the new teams move for 2004 is "a CUSA membership issue." 'nother words, it's up to Banowsky, whcih means we'll get a decision around about 2018. My opinion is that it is in CUSA's will hold on to the outgoing teams for the extra year, because it is in their best interest to do so. But I don't think it has anything to do with Boston College.

Hey, I had classes with Manny Lucoff! I remember him well. He was a great prof -- the kind you best appreciate after you're done with his class.

Do you really want to be #1, considering what's been happening to teams that acquire that spot this season?

And the #2 Big East slot is currently the Gator Bowl, an NYD game in Jacksonville, against the ACC #2 team. I think that's a damned appealing destination, especially when you consider the teams likely to finish second in the 12-team ACC.

Almost all the opponents in the Big East are "marquee", whereas in C-USA only a few were. Crowds like we had for Louisville will be more common because opponents like Louisville will be more common. I don't think we'll go through the roof, but we'll see fewer low-20s figures for conference games. The attendance affect will be more pronounced in basketball. I think we will see a huge increase in interest in that sport. In CUSA, only Memphis, Cincy and UofL qualified as big draws, and most of those we only played at home every other year. In the NBE pretty much every game is a "name" opponent.

U of San Diego just got a huge donation from someone for athletics. This may be something they spent it on.

I see King James is getting TV ads now. The Sprite one was mildly amusing. Yao in the NYC souveiner store was much funnier though. "Kiriachek?"

I couldn't believe he missed that kick after that insane play to tie it up. What a waste of a miracle.

Yeah, which is another part of the whole "pitching inside" problem we've been discussing. Most guys take it as a personal assault if you dare use the inside half of the plate. The only good baseball fight I ever saw was 44-year-old Nolan Ryan getting a half-his-age Robin Ventura in a headlock and punching him 50 times with his non-pitching hand. Ventura had charged the mound over ordinary high-and-hard pitching he had no right to gripe about, and it was great to see him get what he deserved. Plus there was such a huge fight going on that no one even noticed. It was hilarious.

It's just a different generation. Pitchers in the day of Gibson/Drysdale/etc were also expected to go nine innings, start 38 or more games a year, pitch relief on occasion, and produce at the plate. (Check the batting stats for any of these guys -- all could swing the bat. Drysdale had like 15 career homers.) The modern approach to developing pitchers sucks in a lot of ways. The mentality you speak of is merely one of them. Few modern day pitchers can really intimidate you like these guys did. I would put Clemens, Pedro, and Randy Johnson in their category, but that's about it. Pitching is less about intimidation, and is more cerebral -- the Greg Maddux approach. So I don't know if it's a rules thing, a mentatlity thing, or what, but the bottom line is that it's a different game altogether. This is probably just one of several factors.

I thought the phone bit was hilarious. That, and the guy who pulled out the "please don't fine me" sign. I understand the NFL wants to keep this sort of thing to a minimum, but sometimes they do go a little overboard.

I read an interesting theory about Mike Price... he's just applying for jobs he knows he won't get so he can prove "damage to his reputation" in his lawsuit vs. Sports Illustrated.

The problem is that the union ISN'T looking at the bigger picture. I understand that they don't want their players negociating deals down, ostensibly because it would hurt everyone in the membership. But doesn't it hurt the membership more to be so inflexible that they can't make small sacrifices to extricate themselves from situations they want out of? Some day some other union member may want to leverage a trade, get out of a contract, or otherwise make a deal to get something they want. Not because it's in the interest of the game, or any high-minded reason like that -- because it's in the self-interest of the union members. But their union has denied them that freedom.

The DH isn't the problem so much as the fact that pitchers simply can't pitch inside anymore. If Gibson/Drysdale/etc did any of the stuff today they did in the 60s, they'd be fined, ejected, suspended, and face constant mound-chargings from whiny, irate batters. And I'm just talking about pitching inside -- forget about something as horrid as throwing behind a guy who shows you up. That, along with the current enforcement of the strike zone, essentially MAKE pitchers throw the ball right over the plate like it's Little League. And everybody wonders why there are so many home runs hit. Hint: the ball's not juiced.

Snore... when a handful of franchises can invest more in one player than two-thirds of their competition spends on their entire team, it's kinda hard to get interested. Not to mention the 50,000,000,000 other problems MLB has. Did you see that the friggin' player's union blocked the A-Rod/Manny trade? They refused to allow the deal to be rengociated on the grounds that A-Rod was giving up too much. It's just emblematic of the short-sightedness of everyone involved with MLB. A-Rod wants out of Texas, Boston wants rid of Manny, everyone involved is willing to come to the table to get it done, and here comes the **** players union to defend its selfish interests -- essentially denying the wishes of two of their own members. I realize it's the union's job to represent its members, but I think their members are better off having the freedom to negociate themselves out of white-elephant contracts if they so choose.

Since I have boasted of USF's 5-0 record against NBE teams in football, it's only fair to point out the less impressive track record in hoops... 18-60: Cincinnati 3-16 Connecticut 0-3 DePaul 4-9 Georgetown 1-2 Louisville 3-15 Marquette 2-10 Pittsburgh 2-0 Providence 1-1 Rutgers 0-2 St. Johns 1-0 Syracuse 0-2 West Virginia 1-0 USF has never played Notre Dame, Seton Hall, or Villanova in men's basketball.

I just don't think the 'Cuse has had good QB play since Donovan McNabb left. They need a maestro to make their offensive style run. Not entirely unlike USF's offense post-Blackwell.