Play on, playa. Also, I too would like to ponder the prospects of bagging it up.
Friday, March 16, 2012
Thursday, March 15, 2012
Vikings Stadium: Definitely Not A Matter of When
I'll admit, the title of this post is meant to be another in a series of reminders that Peter King was full of excrement when he said on national television that it was of "when" not "if" the new Vikings Stadium would be built.
The Vikings stadium funding bill came to the legislature after month upon month of wrangling and it exited with the grace of an act getting chased off the stage at the Apollo by the Sandman. The reason why the newest variation of the Vikings Stadium bill is failing is pretty simple--the State's plan for funding is pretty terrible.
I know that not every state in this fine nation has embraced the most ridiculous version of gambling out there--Pull Tabs. If you have never played Pull Tabs, please allow me to describe. Essentially it is a combination of lottery tickets and slot machines. You buy some tiny cards that have tabs (that you pull) revealing whether you are a winner or a loser. Obviously, more often than not, you are a loser. The original Pull Tabs are called "Cardboard Crack" among those in the know for a reason.
But actual pull tabs are not part of the funding bill. Electronic pull tabs are the future, and the funding source of the almost $400 million that the State of Minnesota is being asked to pay. So, in an effort to avoid actually getting anyone to pay any sort of tax, the sponsors of the bill decided, "Hey, why not just grab some of those degenerate gambler dollars?"
Minnesotans have a high tolerance for the taxing or screwing over of degenerate gamblers. We don't think twice about the totally awesome commercials from last year for the Vikings Scratch Off that starred John Randle; we rarely even ponder the free charter buses cruising poor neighborhoods taking the elderly to various Indian Casinos.
But there's a problem with that money on a couple of fronts. The first, most basic one is that a pull tab investment, technically, is supposed to go to a charity, not a private stadium (politicians and sportswriters can call it a People's Stadium, but it ain't). It's pretty lax, as far as I can tell. I'm pretty convinced that the pull tab machine I used to play at a bar that will be unnamed was funding a charity that was probably a front for the IRA. But all the same, that machine had the name of a nonprofit over it. Not a sign that said, "Play here and fund a stadium."
The second problem is that the numbers seem rather bogus. Here's MPR:
"The Spring Lake Park Lions Club sells pull-tabs at four sites in Spring Lake Park and Blaine. They do about $5.9 million in annual business. They're the seventh-largest charitable gambling operation in the state.
The projections for Vikings stadium funding have the Lions sales more than doubling to $11.8 million annually."
Also, please note their description: charitable gambling. Vikings don't count, last time anyone with a brain and/or without a boner for their legacy checked.
Which is why the Vikings Stadium bill debuted and was swept off the stage so quickly today. Consider this exchange, reported by Mike Kaszuba (a reporter doing yeoman's work) in the Star Tribune:
Sen. Julie Rosen, the chief Senate stadium proposal sponsor, conceded that negotiators were scrambling to come up with a backup plan in case charitable gambling revenue fell short.
The financial uncertainty came amid criticism from charitable gambling organizations that want more tax relief in the legislation, which could further reduce the state's take. "In the event that not enough people gamble, what is the backup plan?" asked Sen. Pam Wolf, R-Spring Lake Park, who has co-authored a rival proposal to give the Vikings only a state loan for the project.
"We're working on that," said Rosen, R-Fairmont.
I'm sorry, but could a plan for a stadium be more clearly put together with duct tape and chicken wire? I mean, the main sponsor of the bill is just now "working on that" problem in which the projected gambling revenue is clearly bogus and still hasn't been agreed to by the agencies that actually collect the money?
I'd say that maybe I'm exaggerating with that duct tape thing, but...
And now, here comes the City Pages to say a bunch of things we've been saying here but the City Pages took their time to research and write. Read it. It is a devastating take down not just on this Taj Mahal of a stadium in Minnesota, but for almost every other stadium argument coming up. Our Friend Neil at Field of Schemes (who literally wrote the book on this shit) thought the City Pages argument important.
The Vikings stadium funding bill came to the legislature after month upon month of wrangling and it exited with the grace of an act getting chased off the stage at the Apollo by the Sandman. The reason why the newest variation of the Vikings Stadium bill is failing is pretty simple--the State's plan for funding is pretty terrible.
I know that not every state in this fine nation has embraced the most ridiculous version of gambling out there--Pull Tabs. If you have never played Pull Tabs, please allow me to describe. Essentially it is a combination of lottery tickets and slot machines. You buy some tiny cards that have tabs (that you pull) revealing whether you are a winner or a loser. Obviously, more often than not, you are a loser. The original Pull Tabs are called "Cardboard Crack" among those in the know for a reason.
But actual pull tabs are not part of the funding bill. Electronic pull tabs are the future, and the funding source of the almost $400 million that the State of Minnesota is being asked to pay. So, in an effort to avoid actually getting anyone to pay any sort of tax, the sponsors of the bill decided, "Hey, why not just grab some of those degenerate gambler dollars?"
Minnesotans have a high tolerance for the taxing or screwing over of degenerate gamblers. We don't think twice about the totally awesome commercials from last year for the Vikings Scratch Off that starred John Randle; we rarely even ponder the free charter buses cruising poor neighborhoods taking the elderly to various Indian Casinos.
But there's a problem with that money on a couple of fronts. The first, most basic one is that a pull tab investment, technically, is supposed to go to a charity, not a private stadium (politicians and sportswriters can call it a People's Stadium, but it ain't). It's pretty lax, as far as I can tell. I'm pretty convinced that the pull tab machine I used to play at a bar that will be unnamed was funding a charity that was probably a front for the IRA. But all the same, that machine had the name of a nonprofit over it. Not a sign that said, "Play here and fund a stadium."
The second problem is that the numbers seem rather bogus. Here's MPR:
"The Spring Lake Park Lions Club sells pull-tabs at four sites in Spring Lake Park and Blaine. They do about $5.9 million in annual business. They're the seventh-largest charitable gambling operation in the state.
The projections for Vikings stadium funding have the Lions sales more than doubling to $11.8 million annually."
Also, please note their description: charitable gambling. Vikings don't count, last time anyone with a brain and/or without a boner for their legacy checked.
Which is why the Vikings Stadium bill debuted and was swept off the stage so quickly today. Consider this exchange, reported by Mike Kaszuba (a reporter doing yeoman's work) in the Star Tribune:
Sen. Julie Rosen, the chief Senate stadium proposal sponsor, conceded that negotiators were scrambling to come up with a backup plan in case charitable gambling revenue fell short.
The financial uncertainty came amid criticism from charitable gambling organizations that want more tax relief in the legislation, which could further reduce the state's take. "In the event that not enough people gamble, what is the backup plan?" asked Sen. Pam Wolf, R-Spring Lake Park, who has co-authored a rival proposal to give the Vikings only a state loan for the project.
"We're working on that," said Rosen, R-Fairmont.
I'm sorry, but could a plan for a stadium be more clearly put together with duct tape and chicken wire? I mean, the main sponsor of the bill is just now "working on that" problem in which the projected gambling revenue is clearly bogus and still hasn't been agreed to by the agencies that actually collect the money?
I'd say that maybe I'm exaggerating with that duct tape thing, but...
And now, here comes the City Pages to say a bunch of things we've been saying here but the City Pages took their time to research and write. Read it. It is a devastating take down not just on this Taj Mahal of a stadium in Minnesota, but for almost every other stadium argument coming up. Our Friend Neil at Field of Schemes (who literally wrote the book on this shit) thought the City Pages argument important.
Sunday, March 11, 2012
Ricky Rubio, Remember When?
Look, I could dwell on the craptacular nature of his injury. I watched it in real time (with 20 seconds left in the game), and at the time, I thought, "Oh, he banged knees with Kobe, no big deal." And then I saw him trying to walk it off, and I was like, "Oh, shit." And yesterday, the news came down. You probably know it.
And hey, I could gnash my teeth and rend my garments, and talk about how the Wolves, as the 8th Seed in the playoffs really match up well with the OKC Thunder and now we won't know, because we won't make the playoffs now.
I could also talk about how righteously the Timberwolves GM David KAAAAAHN made sweet gentle love to the brains of the Washington Wizards when he got the pick that became Ricky Rubio by trading Randy Foye and Mike Miller, two players that the Wizards did not trade and did not re-sign, thus making Ricky Rubio literally a guy the Wolves got for nothing, in that the Wizards got nothing out of the trade.
But what I'd rather do is use this opportunityto be a huge dick to look back on the all those guys who said that Ricky Rubio would never play in Minnesota. And let's preface that look with one of my more prescient paragraphs ever, written way back in 2010, when I was deservedly giving Kelly Dwyer of Yahoo the business. I was describing with whom an "uninterested [according to Dwyer] Ricky Rubio" would be playing with:
"He'll see Milicic and Pekovic at Center, both under 26 years of age; he'll see Love and Beasley at Power/Small Forward, with Martell Webster and Wes Johnson at small forward; he'll see Wayne Ellington at shooting guard, and he'll have Jonny Flynn pushing him. And a team with a ton of money to swing a sign and trade, if that's what it takes. That's a team that improves on last year's 15 wins. Guaranteed."
That team is in the hunt for the playoffs, and aside from Jonny Flynn being replaced by Luke Ridnour, that's pretty bang on. Oh, and Kelly was a dick about Luke Ridnour, too.
There was Bitchy Jay Mariotti.
There was the vague discomfort of Ball Don't Lie.
SlamDunkCentral wrote: "It seems that Rubio will never play with the Timberwolves."
local favorites(?) 1390 in St. Cloud (The Fan)
The Sports Headaquarters: "The T-Wolves aren’t losers because they’ve never won the lottery, have never improved their spot or have dropped lower 7 of 13 times. Ok, maybe they are, but in this instance they are losers because they missed out on Irving. Cue the 18,000 David Kahn point guard jokes, but seriously they needed one this time. Johnny Flynn is terrible (thanks to being mismanaged and playing in the wrong system) and I still hold firm Ricky Rubio will never play for Minnesota."
There is at least one terrible BleacherReport slideshow.
And a weird reactionary BleacherReport article, in which the authour (who clearly knows what he's talking about as he describes Ricky Rubio as an egomanaic who sees himself as the next Michael Jordan. I HAVE NO IDEA WHY PEOPLE SHIT ON BLEACHER REPORT*)
Unrelated: Duluth Radio gets the poopstain for dimissing Nikola Pekovic way too soon.
*I totally know why BleacherReport gets pooped on. It is managed, produced and written by idiots who don't know anything beyond SEO. That is all.
And hey, I could gnash my teeth and rend my garments, and talk about how the Wolves, as the 8th Seed in the playoffs really match up well with the OKC Thunder and now we won't know, because we won't make the playoffs now.
I could also talk about how righteously the Timberwolves GM David KAAAAAHN made sweet gentle love to the brains of the Washington Wizards when he got the pick that became Ricky Rubio by trading Randy Foye and Mike Miller, two players that the Wizards did not trade and did not re-sign, thus making Ricky Rubio literally a guy the Wolves got for nothing, in that the Wizards got nothing out of the trade.
But what I'd rather do is use this opportunity
"He'll see Milicic and Pekovic at Center, both under 26 years of age; he'll see Love and Beasley at Power/Small Forward, with Martell Webster and Wes Johnson at small forward; he'll see Wayne Ellington at shooting guard, and he'll have Jonny Flynn pushing him. And a team with a ton of money to swing a sign and trade, if that's what it takes. That's a team that improves on last year's 15 wins. Guaranteed."
That team is in the hunt for the playoffs, and aside from Jonny Flynn being replaced by Luke Ridnour, that's pretty bang on. Oh, and Kelly was a dick about Luke Ridnour, too.
There was Bitchy Jay Mariotti.
There was the vague discomfort of Ball Don't Lie.
SlamDunkCentral wrote: "It seems that Rubio will never play with the Timberwolves."
local favorites(?) 1390 in St. Cloud (The Fan)
The Sports Headaquarters: "The T-Wolves aren’t losers because they’ve never won the lottery, have never improved their spot or have dropped lower 7 of 13 times. Ok, maybe they are, but in this instance they are losers because they missed out on Irving. Cue the 18,000 David Kahn point guard jokes, but seriously they needed one this time. Johnny Flynn is terrible (thanks to being mismanaged and playing in the wrong system) and I still hold firm Ricky Rubio will never play for Minnesota."
There is at least one terrible BleacherReport slideshow.
And a weird reactionary BleacherReport article, in which the authour (who clearly knows what he's talking about as he describes Ricky Rubio as an egomanaic who sees himself as the next Michael Jordan. I HAVE NO IDEA WHY PEOPLE SHIT ON BLEACHER REPORT*)
Unrelated: Duluth Radio gets the poopstain for dimissing Nikola Pekovic way too soon.
*I totally know why BleacherReport gets pooped on. It is managed, produced and written by idiots who don't know anything beyond SEO. That is all.
Saturday, March 10, 2012
Washington Gives It All Up for Griffin: UPDATE
Although the deal isn't yet official, the Rams and Washington have agreed to trade draft picks. What did DC give up to jump four spots in this year's draft? A metric shit-ton.Three first rounders and a second rounder is a helluva heaping bowl of oatmeal for one player. Thanks to clever structuring by the front office, DC is also many millions under the salary cap. I fully expect the dams to burst: they will overspend in the areas of WR, D-Back and interior O-line.
With QB decided upon, WR is the next position the team will target. Supposedly, free agents will be excited to play with RG3. But they will mostly be drawn to Snyder's spread-eagled wallet. Again, the front office deserves credit for inking smart deals the last couple years. We could easily be yet another shitty team which is inexplicably way over the cap (see: Raiders).
Robert Griffin the Third
Those draft picks won't be missed if DC has truly found their franchise QB. Football experts have been wowed with his intelligence and leadership. That should help with the inevitable Vick comparisons. Physically, he might be the fastest QB to ever play in the pros. He has quick instincts and verifiable belly-fire. Overall, the Heisman Trophy Winner is acknowledged as the best player in college football.But will he be a good QB in the NFL? Physically he is closer to Vick than Newton. He will need to pack on muscle if he has any hope to survive behind an O-line which gave up 41 sacks last year, tied for 8th worst.
According to scouts, RG3 hasn't yet shown a proficiency in looking off safeties, pocket comfort or making his progressions. By most accounts, he should be amenable to improving these areas.
I have watched a lot of highlights and I remain unconvinced that he can drop back and throw from the pocket. In the NFL he won't be able to run around and heave a long ball on a broken play, which seems to have been his forte.
Nobody will say it yet, but Shanahan's future in DC is now going to be determined by RG3's success or failure. As big-name free agents are added, the weight of expectations will grind on the young QB. I worry. I feel like I've seen this movie before.
But RG3 is our future, whatever that will mean. I am going to work hard to convince myself that we have made a good deal for an outstanding, long-term answer. A good place to start is with his defining game, an upset over Oklahoma. Griffin sparked a two-TD comeback and finished with over five hundred yards. The singular moment of the game, a strike in the end zone with 8 seconds left, begins at the 3:42 mark.
Last year, RG3 hit 72.4% of his passes at almost 11 yards per completion, and finished with a gaudy 37 TDs to 6 INTs. But start feeding that young man some oatmeal!
UPDATE: Roger Goodell just announced that Washington will be penalized for front-loading contracts during the cap-free 2010 season. This was the practice I was referring to when I said the front office wrote smart contracts. Ex post facto, DC is getting ripped for being clever, even though they did not violate any league rules and the contracts had already been approved by the NFL. Ripped for $36 million, which brings down our space under the cap to peanuts.
Goodbye Vincent Jackson. Hello Andre Rison.
Thursday, March 08, 2012
Yes, Flopping In Basketball is Soccer's Fault. Sure
I was listening to Tom Pellisaro on 1500 ESPN in the Twin Cities Wednesday evening, and he was talking with Star Tribune malcontent Jim Souhan. They were discussing the Timberwolves complaints about the rough treatment Ricky Rubio has gotten of late. (A legit beef, I think, having watched about as much Timberwolves basketball as one can). Rubio has been getting hammered by moving screens.
And if you can count on one thing the local sports guys in the Twin Cities have in common (aside from girth), it is a given that with even the smallest window to bag on soccer, they will (Star Tribune Twins beat writer LaVelle Neal excepted).
Sure enough, Jim Souhan suggested that guards of the Wolves might be flopping a bit--Rubio is occasionally (not often) guilty of that charge, while JJ Barea is guilty of it about five times a game. But then Souhan said what I knew he was going to say, even as I was hoping against hope he wouldn't. He said, and I paraphrase*, "Well, of course they do--it's the influence of soccer. They come from soccer-influenced countries and they learn the flop there, and now they bring it to the NBA."
Which is a nice and tidy story, but also total bullshit. The flop and assorted other foul-drawing techniques were alive and kicking out their legs well before the wave of South American and European soccer-floppers were in the NBA or NCAA. Greg Paulus didn't learn how to flop from the Italian National Team; he learned from John Stockton. JJ Redick learned the leg kick flop from Reggie Miller. Reggie, who in his own self-produced ESPN 30 For 30 feature (which was awesome) basically admitted to transforming a John Starks glancing headbutt into one of the most violent acts witnessed in a NBA playoff game.
Not to mention, Bruce the damn Bowen!**
On the opposite side of the coin, I could easily mention that Steve Nash doesn't have a reputation for flopping, and seeing as he grew up loving soccer and watching soccer and playing soccer, and recognizes the obvious connections between basketball and soccer (myriad, by the way), he seems like he would be a great candidate for the Souhan Axiom. But he doesn't fit, because as I previously mentioned, the Souhan Axiom on Basketball Players who Grew Up With Soccer is total bullshit.
Not to say that soccer doesn't have flopping. Of course it does. It is often egregious. But to be fair, soccer can be much more violent than basketball as well. At least, I don't remember the last time I saw bone poking through a sock in a NBA game. I can't watch the video of Eduardo's leg getting broken, but maybe you can!
And it is worth stating that the best player in the World, Lionel Messi, never dives. Sometimes to his own detriment. I mean, for real, watch this highlight real of him getting savaged, and tell me that soccer players are all a bunch of flop artists who don't take real contact, or however that tired argument goes. Soccer isn't "The Beautiful Game" every single time it is played, but I think if you come away from a highlight package of Messi slipping tackles and shirt pulls and takedowns and go "Enh" then there is probably something wrong with you.
*You want his exact wording, you can go here.
** Yes, that was an odd reference to NewsRadio's Jimmy James "Kermit the Damn FROG" But seriously, Bruce Bowen was a flop-artist extraordinaire, and he didn't grow watching soccer, I'm guessing.
And if you can count on one thing the local sports guys in the Twin Cities have in common (aside from girth), it is a given that with even the smallest window to bag on soccer, they will (Star Tribune Twins beat writer LaVelle Neal excepted).
Sure enough, Jim Souhan suggested that guards of the Wolves might be flopping a bit--Rubio is occasionally (not often) guilty of that charge, while JJ Barea is guilty of it about five times a game. But then Souhan said what I knew he was going to say, even as I was hoping against hope he wouldn't. He said, and I paraphrase*, "Well, of course they do--it's the influence of soccer. They come from soccer-influenced countries and they learn the flop there, and now they bring it to the NBA."
Which is a nice and tidy story, but also total bullshit. The flop and assorted other foul-drawing techniques were alive and kicking out their legs well before the wave of South American and European soccer-floppers were in the NBA or NCAA. Greg Paulus didn't learn how to flop from the Italian National Team; he learned from John Stockton. JJ Redick learned the leg kick flop from Reggie Miller. Reggie, who in his own self-produced ESPN 30 For 30 feature (which was awesome) basically admitted to transforming a John Starks glancing headbutt into one of the most violent acts witnessed in a NBA playoff game.
Not to mention, Bruce the damn Bowen!**
On the opposite side of the coin, I could easily mention that Steve Nash doesn't have a reputation for flopping, and seeing as he grew up loving soccer and watching soccer and playing soccer, and recognizes the obvious connections between basketball and soccer (myriad, by the way), he seems like he would be a great candidate for the Souhan Axiom. But he doesn't fit, because as I previously mentioned, the Souhan Axiom on Basketball Players who Grew Up With Soccer is total bullshit.
Not to say that soccer doesn't have flopping. Of course it does. It is often egregious. But to be fair, soccer can be much more violent than basketball as well. At least, I don't remember the last time I saw bone poking through a sock in a NBA game. I can't watch the video of Eduardo's leg getting broken, but maybe you can!
And it is worth stating that the best player in the World, Lionel Messi, never dives. Sometimes to his own detriment. I mean, for real, watch this highlight real of him getting savaged, and tell me that soccer players are all a bunch of flop artists who don't take real contact, or however that tired argument goes. Soccer isn't "The Beautiful Game" every single time it is played, but I think if you come away from a highlight package of Messi slipping tackles and shirt pulls and takedowns and go "Enh" then there is probably something wrong with you.
*You want his exact wording, you can go here.
** Yes, that was an odd reference to NewsRadio's Jimmy James "Kermit the Damn FROG" But seriously, Bruce Bowen was a flop-artist extraordinaire, and he didn't grow watching soccer, I'm guessing.
Hypothetical Vikings Stadium is to Lucas Oil Field
As I've mentioned before, a bunch o' times, the proposed Vikings Stadium is being compared to Lucas Oil Field, for reasons I can't quite determine.
But here's a fun question for you to ponder during your lunch break/dog walking/opium haze (I don't judge):
If Lucas Oil Field is the stadium the Peyton Manning built (and it undoubtedly is) than who is the player that will hypothetically "build" the new hypothetical [Sponsorship Pending] Vikings Stadium?
Will it be the stadium that Adrian Peterson built? The stadium that Antoine Winfield started to help build, before his shoulder acted up and he had to go home? The Stadium That time-traveling Christian Ponder built, after he had a glorious ten-year career in which he put up Manning like numbers? Or will it be the stadium that Peyton Manning built again?
I've ridiculed the notion that the purposed Vikings Stadium is anything like Lucas Oil Field, despite the constant, unexplained comparisons the local media like to throw around.
But one, really obvious glaring difference is that the Indianapolis Colts had won the goodwill of the City of Indianapolis, and many of its denizens, by being an incredibly successful franchise for a over a decade.
Vikings fans are so desperate to have a team they can believe in that if they had the kind of run that Peyton Manning had given the Colts, they would have agreed to a stadium on the moon, if the ownership of the Vikings, The Wilfs*, had requested it.
There are a whole truck load of reasons that the new proposed Vikings Stadiums isn't like Lucas Oil Field, but one of the most obvious is still the one least talked about--does a team, that vacillates between criminally average and mercenary deserve a House That The Taxpayers Built? Adrian Peterson can only do so much, especially coming off that knee injury. Does a team that has been terrible for most of a decade (one Brett Favre fueled season aside) really have leverage? We'll see, I guess.
*There is some truth to the rumor that if the Wilfs get a Moon Stadium, they will change their last name to SWilf, which is short for Space-Wilf. That's TRUE.
But here's a fun question for you to ponder during your lunch break/dog walking/opium haze (I don't judge):
If Lucas Oil Field is the stadium the Peyton Manning built (and it undoubtedly is) than who is the player that will hypothetically "build" the new hypothetical [Sponsorship Pending] Vikings Stadium?
Will it be the stadium that Adrian Peterson built? The stadium that Antoine Winfield started to help build, before his shoulder acted up and he had to go home? The Stadium That time-traveling Christian Ponder built, after he had a glorious ten-year career in which he put up Manning like numbers? Or will it be the stadium that Peyton Manning built again?
I've ridiculed the notion that the purposed Vikings Stadium is anything like Lucas Oil Field, despite the constant, unexplained comparisons the local media like to throw around.
But one, really obvious glaring difference is that the Indianapolis Colts had won the goodwill of the City of Indianapolis, and many of its denizens, by being an incredibly successful franchise for a over a decade.
Vikings fans are so desperate to have a team they can believe in that if they had the kind of run that Peyton Manning had given the Colts, they would have agreed to a stadium on the moon, if the ownership of the Vikings, The Wilfs*, had requested it.
There are a whole truck load of reasons that the new proposed Vikings Stadiums isn't like Lucas Oil Field, but one of the most obvious is still the one least talked about--does a team, that vacillates between criminally average and mercenary deserve a House That The Taxpayers Built? Adrian Peterson can only do so much, especially coming off that knee injury. Does a team that has been terrible for most of a decade (one Brett Favre fueled season aside) really have leverage? We'll see, I guess.
*There is some truth to the rumor that if the Wilfs get a Moon Stadium, they will change their last name to SWilf, which is short for Space-Wilf. That's TRUE.
Monday, March 05, 2012
New Rule in Minnesota Stadium Writing
If the sports columnists of the Twin Cities (to a man, supporting just about any stadium deal that comes along, including the newest one) are going to keep vaguely asserting that the model of the new Vikings stadium is going to be Lucas Oil Field (happens every day), then they need to start explaining why the new Vikings stadium is going to cost $200 million more dollars and yet be less functional.
You can't keep comparing this new stadium to Lucas Oil Field when one of those stadiums has a retractable roof, and the other doesn't. And again, the stadium with the retractable roof is also the cheaper one? By 200 million dollars? Explain yourself, dicks.
You can't keep comparing this new stadium to Lucas Oil Field when one of those stadiums has a retractable roof, and the other doesn't. And again, the stadium with the retractable roof is also the cheaper one? By 200 million dollars? Explain yourself, dicks.
Sunday, February 26, 2012
Two Sid Hartman Commentaries in a Week? Who's the Sadomasochist Now, Debby?*
First of all, I'd like to give a hearty "Screw You" to Sid Hartman, simply for writing about stadium issues. I have better things to do with my time than read about how great a new stadium will be, and how idiotic our public representatives are being for accurately reflecting the will of the public...Huffington Post has a slideshow of Dogs on Trampolines, for heaven's sake. That's so much better than reading Sid Hartman that is reminds me Carl Sagan's analogies about the solar system--"Say this basketball is the sun...this tennis ball, representing the Earth, would need to be 100 yards away."** The difference in happiness between reading Sid Hartman and watching dogs on a trampoline is literally BIGGER THAN YOU CAN IMAGINE. And yet, here we are. Poops.
Let's get to it, knock it out, and get back to watching dogs on trampolines, OK?
First graf from Sid: "If the Vikings move to Southern California some three years from now, I'm sure some fans will circulate the front page of Saturday's Star Tribune with pictures of the seven Minneapolis City Council members who are opposed to offering any help to a stadium without a referendum."
First off, The Vikings are not moving to Los Angeles. Anyone who claims this as a concern is either lying, or not paying attention. Not only are there no stadiums to move to (and there probably won't be 3 years from now) but the NFL likes the Vikings in Minnesota--they LOVE the NFC Central, and they don't want to break it. Of all the teams rumored to move to Los Angeles, the one least likely to move is the Minnesota Viking franchise. It ain't happening.
Anywho...
This is the article that Sid is reacting so strongly towards. From that article, here's the bit that I think is the most important to understanding what is going on here in Minnesota, and specifically, Minneapolis as the City Council struggles with what to do about this damn stadium proposal:
"The glue holding opponents [of the Stadium deal as currently constructed] together is the 15-year-old charter requirement to hold a referendum on sports facilities costing the city more than $10 million -- a vote [Minneapolis Mayor RT] Rybak wants to bypass. It's what prompted Council Member Sandra Colvin Roy to declare her opposition, creating the majority bloc. It's also what fuels [Council Member Gary] Schiff, who traces the rise in his political career to his co-authorship of the referendum language -- before it was approved by nearly 70 percent of city voters. "This was where I cut my teeth, opposing taxpayer waste through these mega-giveaways in professional sports facilities," Schiff said.
So are we clear here? There's a requirement that big ass sports subsidies go through a voter referendum. That's what Minneapolis decided they wanted, years and years ago. The Twins managed to bypass it for Target Field, but that's neither here nor there (no matter how often Vikings Stadium backers bring it up). Basically, a very narrow majority of the City Council is saying, "You know what? This requirement has been in place for 15 years, and we aren't keen on overturning it twice in a half-decade, especially when our constituents are demanding that we don't."
I wonder if Sid Hartman has read the comments on that article, because I just read through three pages of the comments, and they are overwhelmingly applauding the City Council's stand. It was decided a long time ago that this was one aspect of city governance that was going to stay with the people. The current talk from the Sports Reporters here are the folks on City Council are being cowards or hiding behind The People, or whatever--but they are following not just what their constituents want, but rules that were passed both by the Council and by the public. OK?
Sid again: "A stadium, mind you, that the team will use for only about 10 games a year, but would also serve as a venue to land big-time attractions such as the Super Bowl, the Final Four and other major events to Minneapolis."
We've been through this before--recently, as a matter of fact. Any stadium built in Minneapolis will get exactly one Super Bowl, like the Metrodome before it. Hartman can overlook the obvious as much as he wants, but the NFL likes hosting the Super Bowl in cities that don't require a tourist to back an extra bag just for their parkas. Minneapolis in February (this strangely warm year notwithstanding) is not a desirable location when compared to Miami, Los Angeles, or New Orleans. New stadiums get paid off with a Super Bowl, but are never heard from again. While the Super Bowl hasn't been in the Metrodome since 1992, it did serve as a host for a Regional of March Madness as recently as 2009, so let's pump our brakes a bit on how terrible the Metrodome is (though, to be fair, it is pretty terrible). I'm unsure as to what Sid means when he says, "other major events". It is helpful to his point that he doesn't list them, because I'm reading some of what the Metrodome has hosted, and it is clear that the TCF Stadium or Target Field would work for most of the top-flight concerts and local high school championships. Are we really worried that the Promise Keepers (they are still a thing?) or Monster Jam will demand better digs than the Metrodome?
Sid: "While Indianapolis and Dallas have built new stadiums and Los Angeles is getting ready to do the same, this group of council members have done nothing to assure the city that the Vikings will remain here."
Lucas Oil Field in Indianapolis cost $200 million dollars LESS than the proposed Vikings stadium, and has a retractable roof. Just sayin'. Again, Los Angeles is getting ready to build a new stadium in much the same way that Newt Gingrich is running for President. It's out there, but the amount of coverage is no way connected to the likelihood of it happening. Sports writers in Minneapolis who treat the threat of new LA Football stadiums are either not paying attention or they are lying (or in Sid's case--both lying and not paying attention.)
Sid: "Yes, when the Vikings move, the members of the Legislature and the City Council eventually will build a stadium at a much larger cost many years down the road, just as they did in Baltimore when the Colts moved to Indianapolis and just as they did in Cleveland when the Browns moved to Baltimore."
On this point, Sid seemingly has a point...stadiums do seem to keep going up in cost, even in inflation-adjusted dollars. But I wonder if there isn't a point when the NFL owners come to their senses and realize they could make great money with a relatively intimate, cheap stadium. The NFL makes it's money from the television, and everyone seems to know that except NFL owners. The Vikings could play in a 20,000 seat stadium, and they'd probably do better than break even. Do they know that? How much of this stadium fetish is about Keeping Up With The [Jerry] Joneses?
It should also be noted that Sid's most recent example of a team leaving a city is from...15 years ago. And his second most recent example is from 28 years ago. Irsay and Modell may still be hated in Baltimore and Cleveland (respectively) but the fact is, the NFL isn't the NHL, and they've put a lid on all this moving about.
Sid: "Rest assured, some fans will save a copy of that newspaper as a reminder of a group that has done exactly nothing to help promote sports in this city."
Nothing? So this thing only exists in my fevered dreams?
And finally, my favorite Sid quote, because it might just be the perfect encapsulation of the Twin Cities Sports Writer ethos--arrogant, self-assured, without a even a hint of actual facts***.."I assure you that if they are responsible for the Vikings' departure, re-election might be tougher. The members of the council talked about all the e-mails they get encouraging a vote against the stadium. Remember, people in favor of a stadium don't e-mail; it's only the people against one who do."
Wait, what?
There are facts that one can casually assert because they are obviously true, like "The sky is blue." or "Neil Young is a genius songwriter." There are facts that one can assert that are true, despite some crackpot on the sideline arguing with you--like, "yes, we really did land on the moon", or "President Obama is NOT a secret Muslim." And then there are facts that are just facts because you assert loudly said facts in your newspaper column, and right at the top of the list of "facts" like that is, "Remember, people in favor of a stadium don't e-mail; it's only the people against one who do."
Good Lord, Sid Hartman--are you arguing that a lack of public outcry for a stadium is, in and of itself, an argument for a public outcry for a stadium? That's brilliantly stupid. Kudos, you crazy, lazy old man!
*I'd really like "Who's the sadomasochist now, Debby?" to make it onto a national TV broadcast, so I can claim a catchphrase that made it into the national consciousness.
**Hipster Carl Sagan takes on a similar discussion here.
***It reminds me of that Stupid Fat Fuck, Tom Powers.
Thursday, February 23, 2012
Old School Thursday: Dr. Octagon
It is a sign of my aging process that I can now call something from 1996 "old school". (Clearly, in the strict hip-hop definition, it isn't truly "Old School", but Christ--Dr. Octagonecologyst is an album is old enough to drive this year.)
One of the oddest hip-hop singles that I can think of, "Earth People". Please enjoy. Rapping by Kool Keith, production by Dan the Automator and scratching by DJ Q-Bert.
One of the oddest hip-hop singles that I can think of, "Earth People". Please enjoy. Rapping by Kool Keith, production by Dan the Automator and scratching by DJ Q-Bert.
Monday, February 20, 2012
Sid Hartman, Making Sense (Not Really!)
It has been awhile since I've written a blog post specifically targeting one of our local Star Tribune columnists. The only excuse I can offer is that the Star Trib experimented with a Pay to Read structure for some of their most "in-demand" columnists, which of course meant that no one read them (aside from the tech-averse who thought getting a paper stuffed to the gills with AP articles was worth having delivered to their doorstep). But that experiment has died, and we can all read all of the Star Tribbers in all of the glory.
And today, I'd like to focus on Sid Hartman, the hardliest-working columnist in the Twin Cities. Believe me, it was a tough choice. After all, Patrick Reusse wrote this defense of urban teachers in the Twin Cities:
"We have received an enormous influx of poor and tired and tempest-tossed people from cities that have decayed, and from other lands...And as Minneapolis and St. Paul teachers and administrators have done their darndest to educate these often disadvantaged pupils, they have seen their efforts bad-mouthed by legislators from school districts with newer buildings and better equipment and with one-10th of the problems in a week that a Twin Cities teacher can face on a daily basis."
It's a wonderful sentiment, except that Reusse is using that as a jumping off point to argue that anyone against $700,000,000 of public money on a new Vikings stadium is an idiot. Seriously. Just guessing, here, Pat, but if you polled those teachers, they would say, "Hey, if you are going to raise $700 million dollars, how about you spend it on the education system you are lauding? (you fucking dummy)." Just to be clear, I'm not calling Patrick Reusse a fucking dummy--that was just my imagining of what 95% of all teachers in the Twin Cities would say. Those teachers would also probably point out that an investment in education has been proven, by serious economists, to be an actual investment--every dollar put into improving education leads to about ten dollars in revenue for the state. Stadiums? Not so much. Just sayin'. Not that Reusse couldn't dig up a Gym Teacher or two who support the new stadium. He didn't bother to, of course (that would require "work", something the sports columnists of the Twin Cities papers have heard rumors of, and this "work", you speak of? It gives them the willies.)
And that's as good as any segue into Sid Hartman's latest inanity. Let's do it!
I won't bother with Sid's opening paragraph, in which he argues that a new Vikings stadium would host exactly the same number of Vikings games that the Metrodome hosts (though it does take some special chutzpah to make that a selling point.)
There's a metric ton of idiocy in Hartman's column, so let's just take the prospect of the Super Bowl argument for now. Sid says, "[One] showcase event that could come here with a new covered stadium would be the Super Bowl, which was at Indianapolis this year, at Cowboys Stadium last year, at Arizona's University of Phoenix Stadium at 2008 and at Detroit's Ford Field in 2006. The Giants and Jets' new MetLife Stadium in East Rutherford, N.J., is getting the Super Bowl in 2014, even though it is an open-air stadium."
All true. And if the Vikings got a brand new, Billion Dollar Stadium, the Super Bowl would undoubtedly come here. Once. Exactly Once. That's how the NFL backs up its owners, by essentially guaranteeing that if an ownership can get one over on their populace, the NFL will reward it with a Super Bowl. But let's be clear, the Vikings could spend $10 Billion on the new stadium, and have it outfitted with tiny cameras that flew across the field on solar powered wings and rendered every image in perfect, hi-definition 3D graphics, and the new Vikings Stadium would still get exactly One (1) Super Bowl. You know why? The Super Bowl is in February, and that brand new Vikings Stadium would still be located in Minnesota. So Sid's inventory of future and recent Super Bowl's is that perfect kind of fact--it is true, but it isn't illuminating. Dallas and Arizona will host again, to be sure. Indianapolis' current stadium will not host another Super Bowl. I guarantee it. Neither will Detroit. I'll be shocked if Metlife Stadium gets another one after what I assume will be a debacle (by NFL Super Bowl Standards) in 2014--wind! Maybe snow!
You know how I know all of these things? I've looked at the damn history of the Super Bowl--Miami and New Orleans, between them have hosted 19 Super Bowls. (That does not include the four held in Tampa Bay, by the by. Or the seven in Los Angeles...between Miami, New Orleans, Tampa and LA, we are talking about 31 of the 47 Super Bowls played). Everything about Super Bowl distribution screams "Nice Place To Go In Winter, Unless We've Got a Debt to Pay". Which is fine, but Minnesota Vikings fans should know, without a doubt, that it doesn't matter how awesome their new stadium is...they are getting one Super Bowl. And given the state of their team, it won't be the Vikings playing there come February of whatever year. Because the Vikings are terrible, you see.
There's some dirty pool going on in the NFL with this--yes, if you build a new stadium, you will get a Super Bowl, almost certainly (especially if it has a roof, regardless of how temperate it is). But let's not kid ourselves, the Super Bowl sells itself on tourist destinations, for the most part. If the NFL doesn't have a new stadium to reward, it will always go with tourist-friendly, warm in February locales. But you could have one Super Bowl, at least, as opposed to zero, whispers Roger Goodell in your ear. And if you happen to be in a Southern City, with a stadium younger than Lindsey Lohan, like Atlanta, you'll be told, "Yes, you are a perfect city, in a southern locale, that can generate some idle tourist dollars, but Gosh, with all of these new stadiums popping up, suddenly, your venue looks old and busted, like Lindsey Lohan." I explained all of this in my excellent post, "The Super Bowl as Economic Weapon", which apparently Sid Hartman never read. Someone should teach him how to operate a computing machine.
And today, I'd like to focus on Sid Hartman, the hardliest-working columnist in the Twin Cities. Believe me, it was a tough choice. After all, Patrick Reusse wrote this defense of urban teachers in the Twin Cities:
"We have received an enormous influx of poor and tired and tempest-tossed people from cities that have decayed, and from other lands...And as Minneapolis and St. Paul teachers and administrators have done their darndest to educate these often disadvantaged pupils, they have seen their efforts bad-mouthed by legislators from school districts with newer buildings and better equipment and with one-10th of the problems in a week that a Twin Cities teacher can face on a daily basis."
It's a wonderful sentiment, except that Reusse is using that as a jumping off point to argue that anyone against $700,000,000 of public money on a new Vikings stadium is an idiot. Seriously. Just guessing, here, Pat, but if you polled those teachers, they would say, "Hey, if you are going to raise $700 million dollars, how about you spend it on the education system you are lauding? (you fucking dummy)." Just to be clear, I'm not calling Patrick Reusse a fucking dummy--that was just my imagining of what 95% of all teachers in the Twin Cities would say. Those teachers would also probably point out that an investment in education has been proven, by serious economists, to be an actual investment--every dollar put into improving education leads to about ten dollars in revenue for the state. Stadiums? Not so much. Just sayin'. Not that Reusse couldn't dig up a Gym Teacher or two who support the new stadium. He didn't bother to, of course (that would require "work", something the sports columnists of the Twin Cities papers have heard rumors of, and this "work", you speak of? It gives them the willies.)
And that's as good as any segue into Sid Hartman's latest inanity. Let's do it!
I won't bother with Sid's opening paragraph, in which he argues that a new Vikings stadium would host exactly the same number of Vikings games that the Metrodome hosts (though it does take some special chutzpah to make that a selling point.)
There's a metric ton of idiocy in Hartman's column, so let's just take the prospect of the Super Bowl argument for now. Sid says, "[One] showcase event that could come here with a new covered stadium would be the Super Bowl, which was at Indianapolis this year, at Cowboys Stadium last year, at Arizona's University of Phoenix Stadium at 2008 and at Detroit's Ford Field in 2006. The Giants and Jets' new MetLife Stadium in East Rutherford, N.J., is getting the Super Bowl in 2014, even though it is an open-air stadium."
All true. And if the Vikings got a brand new, Billion Dollar Stadium, the Super Bowl would undoubtedly come here. Once. Exactly Once. That's how the NFL backs up its owners, by essentially guaranteeing that if an ownership can get one over on their populace, the NFL will reward it with a Super Bowl. But let's be clear, the Vikings could spend $10 Billion on the new stadium, and have it outfitted with tiny cameras that flew across the field on solar powered wings and rendered every image in perfect, hi-definition 3D graphics, and the new Vikings Stadium would still get exactly One (1) Super Bowl. You know why? The Super Bowl is in February, and that brand new Vikings Stadium would still be located in Minnesota. So Sid's inventory of future and recent Super Bowl's is that perfect kind of fact--it is true, but it isn't illuminating. Dallas and Arizona will host again, to be sure. Indianapolis' current stadium will not host another Super Bowl. I guarantee it. Neither will Detroit. I'll be shocked if Metlife Stadium gets another one after what I assume will be a debacle (by NFL Super Bowl Standards) in 2014--wind! Maybe snow!
You know how I know all of these things? I've looked at the damn history of the Super Bowl--Miami and New Orleans, between them have hosted 19 Super Bowls. (That does not include the four held in Tampa Bay, by the by. Or the seven in Los Angeles...between Miami, New Orleans, Tampa and LA, we are talking about 31 of the 47 Super Bowls played). Everything about Super Bowl distribution screams "Nice Place To Go In Winter, Unless We've Got a Debt to Pay". Which is fine, but Minnesota Vikings fans should know, without a doubt, that it doesn't matter how awesome their new stadium is...they are getting one Super Bowl. And given the state of their team, it won't be the Vikings playing there come February of whatever year. Because the Vikings are terrible, you see.
There's some dirty pool going on in the NFL with this--yes, if you build a new stadium, you will get a Super Bowl, almost certainly (especially if it has a roof, regardless of how temperate it is). But let's not kid ourselves, the Super Bowl sells itself on tourist destinations, for the most part. If the NFL doesn't have a new stadium to reward, it will always go with tourist-friendly, warm in February locales. But you could have one Super Bowl, at least, as opposed to zero, whispers Roger Goodell in your ear. And if you happen to be in a Southern City, with a stadium younger than Lindsey Lohan, like Atlanta, you'll be told, "Yes, you are a perfect city, in a southern locale, that can generate some idle tourist dollars, but Gosh, with all of these new stadiums popping up, suddenly, your venue looks old and busted, like Lindsey Lohan." I explained all of this in my excellent post, "The Super Bowl as Economic Weapon", which apparently Sid Hartman never read. Someone should teach him how to operate a computing machine.
Saturday, February 18, 2012
Oh, David Brooks Is Writing About Jeremy Lin Now
Let me just admit one thing off the bat--I was tired of "Linsanity" almost from the moment I heard of it. I'm sure Jeremy Lin is a wonderful, wonderful human being, but Christ, I think five hours of coverage on ESPN is way too much for just about anyone, let alone a guy who is more than likely just riding a hot streak, who just happens to play in New York City, and had the benefit of some bad competition. (and hey, I know everyone flipped their lids when the Knicks beat the Lakers, but, c'mon--the Lakers have lost to Denver, Portland and Milwaukee, and were coming off a ridiculously tough (overtime!) game in Boston the night before--a night the Knicks had off).
(I write this just as I've discovered that the Knicks lost to the Hornets tonight, with Lin's nine turnovers part of the headline)
But as much as I don't enjoy every discussion point on ESPN's First Take being about Jeremy Lin (and I really don't enjoy that), I really, really don't like it when guys like David Brooks weigh in on the cultural impact of guys like Jeremy Lin. I don't like it when George Will masturbates all over his memories of baseball, I didn't like it when every cultural commentator felt the need to weigh in on Tim Tebow, and boy, Jesus Pooped on the Cross**, do I not care for David Brooks' take on Jeremy Lin.
I'm not alone--go ahead and take a look at the all the folks who are mocking the column I'm about to delve into. I'm not treading new ground (but I've done my best not to read anyone else's take, for the sheer fun of pretending every mocking point I'm about to make is brand new).
Let's begin at the beginning, because Brooks goes off the rails quicker than a county fair roller coaster. Brooks' thesis is this: "Jeremy Lin is anomalous in all sorts of ways. He’s a Harvard grad in the N.B.A., an Asian-American man in professional sports. But we shouldn’t neglect the biggest anomaly. He’s a religious person in professional sports."
Hey, that first point is accurate. Not very many Harvard grads have been in the NBA, and at least according to DatabaseBasketball, it's been awhile. But hey, it takes some very careful parsing to make his ethnicity an issue. You can't just say "Asian", of course, because there are Asians playing professional sports all over the goddamn place. Japanese Baseball players, for example. There have probably been more Chinese players in the NBA than Chinese-Americans, so Brooks is careful to make sure he says "Asian-American". Of course, poor Mark Chung and Brian Ching are all like, "Ummm...we aren't that rare." Also, Hines Ward! Also, Johnnie Morton! Also, Haloti Ngata! Also, Tiger "I'm Attempting to Make As Many Asian-American Athletes as I can" Woods!
But I'm burying the lede. Let's get to that sentence--according to Brooks (who knows these things) religious people in professional sports is rare. WHAT? But he quickly explains that yes, he is aware of the religious-driven player (there's our Tim Tebow reference!)
But, says Brooks, "The moral ethos of sport is in tension with the moral ethos of faith, whether Jewish, Christian or Muslim. The moral universe of modern sport is oriented around victory and supremacy."
First of all, thank goodness we aren't including all of those crazy Buddhist and Shinto and Taoist and Hindu cricket, volleyball, table tennis, badminton, soccer players (not to mention Ninja Warriors), because goodness, this could get confusing quickly! Atheists? Fuck them!
Secondly, the moral universe of modern sport? Was ancient sport just about getting trophies for participation? Sport, since the time of the Greeks, has been about victory and supremacy. That's what sport is, practically by definition. Ancient Greek wrestling usually ended with someone dead or severely broken. According to Wikipedia (I know, I know) the Native American lacrosse players who originated the game "took part...in the role of warriors, with the goal of bringing glory and honor to themselves and their tribes. The game was said to be played 'for the Creator' or was referred to as 'The Creator's Game'". So yeah--that's always been there, David.
The big conflict that Brooks sees is that a professional athlete is setting out for glory for himself, for his team, and isn't being humble to God. Jeremy Lin sees that conflict, apparently. Brooks quotes Lin in an interview from two years ago, when Lin wasn't the Knick of The Month: "I wanted to do well for myself and my team. How can I possibly give that up and play selflessly for God?"
Now, I read that quote and think, "What? That's such a ridiculous concern. Who imagines that God gives a shit about how you conduct yourself on a basketball court? He gets to watch quarks dance and black holes eat entire galaxies--he's going to concern himself with how you play basketball?" But Brooks sees that inherently self-aggrandizing quote as a proof of humility.
Let's quote Brooks one more time: "You have to be willing to lose yourself in order to find yourself; to gain everything you have to be willing to give up everything; the last shall be first; it’s not about you... For many religious teachers, humility is the primary virtue. You achieve loftiness of spirit by performing the most menial services. (That’s why shepherds are perpetually becoming kings in the Bible.)"
It is telling that Brooks' example of humility leading to the loftiness of spirit comes from a book that's a couple of thousand years old.* Christianity hasn't been about actual humility since what? 200 CE? Has David Brooks seen where the Pope lives?
Has David Brooks wandered into his church in midtown Manhattan and wondered how they paid for all that nice stuff they have?
Christianity being about humbling one's self to God works for the suckers, but it isn't at all what the leaders of the Church are about. Hence, not so many leaders of any denomination are former shepherds or former cannery workers or former auto mechanics or former window washers or former window mechanics on car assembly lines. Brooks does a great job of picking and choosing his aspects of Christianity in this column (as all Christians do in their day to day life. Imagine a country full of people who actually turned the other cheek and supported caring for the least fortunate among us! Obama would be considered Conservative in that world).
If I were running the sports/religion beat, I'd make every story end with Matthew 6:5, (the second Oldest Gospel, after Mark) "When you pray, you are not to be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and on the street corners so that they may be seen by men. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full."
David Brooks could have done himself some good by remembering that quote. Or by acquainting himself with sports. Either/Or.
*shepherds "perpetually becoming kings in the Bible"? I think it happens once, with David. Sure, there are Judges who rise from the populace, but Kings? Not so much, I don't think. Brooks is full of poo.
**I'm going to make "Jesus Pooped on the Cross" happen. You watch.
(I write this just as I've discovered that the Knicks lost to the Hornets tonight, with Lin's nine turnovers part of the headline)
 |
| Why wouldn't you trust this man to know basketball? |
I'm not alone--go ahead and take a look at the all the folks who are mocking the column I'm about to delve into. I'm not treading new ground (but I've done my best not to read anyone else's take, for the sheer fun of pretending every mocking point I'm about to make is brand new).
Let's begin at the beginning, because Brooks goes off the rails quicker than a county fair roller coaster. Brooks' thesis is this: "Jeremy Lin is anomalous in all sorts of ways. He’s a Harvard grad in the N.B.A., an Asian-American man in professional sports. But we shouldn’t neglect the biggest anomaly. He’s a religious person in professional sports."
Hey, that first point is accurate. Not very many Harvard grads have been in the NBA, and at least according to DatabaseBasketball, it's been awhile. But hey, it takes some very careful parsing to make his ethnicity an issue. You can't just say "Asian", of course, because there are Asians playing professional sports all over the goddamn place. Japanese Baseball players, for example. There have probably been more Chinese players in the NBA than Chinese-Americans, so Brooks is careful to make sure he says "Asian-American". Of course, poor Mark Chung and Brian Ching are all like, "Ummm...we aren't that rare." Also, Hines Ward! Also, Johnnie Morton! Also, Haloti Ngata! Also, Tiger "I'm Attempting to Make As Many Asian-American Athletes as I can" Woods!
But I'm burying the lede. Let's get to that sentence--according to Brooks (who knows these things) religious people in professional sports is rare. WHAT? But he quickly explains that yes, he is aware of the religious-driven player (there's our Tim Tebow reference!)
But, says Brooks, "The moral ethos of sport is in tension with the moral ethos of faith, whether Jewish, Christian or Muslim. The moral universe of modern sport is oriented around victory and supremacy."
First of all, thank goodness we aren't including all of those crazy Buddhist and Shinto and Taoist and Hindu cricket, volleyball, table tennis, badminton, soccer players (not to mention Ninja Warriors), because goodness, this could get confusing quickly! Atheists? Fuck them!
Secondly, the moral universe of modern sport? Was ancient sport just about getting trophies for participation? Sport, since the time of the Greeks, has been about victory and supremacy. That's what sport is, practically by definition. Ancient Greek wrestling usually ended with someone dead or severely broken. According to Wikipedia (I know, I know) the Native American lacrosse players who originated the game "took part...in the role of warriors, with the goal of bringing glory and honor to themselves and their tribes. The game was said to be played 'for the Creator' or was referred to as 'The Creator's Game'". So yeah--that's always been there, David.
The big conflict that Brooks sees is that a professional athlete is setting out for glory for himself, for his team, and isn't being humble to God. Jeremy Lin sees that conflict, apparently. Brooks quotes Lin in an interview from two years ago, when Lin wasn't the Knick of The Month: "I wanted to do well for myself and my team. How can I possibly give that up and play selflessly for God?"
Now, I read that quote and think, "What? That's such a ridiculous concern. Who imagines that God gives a shit about how you conduct yourself on a basketball court? He gets to watch quarks dance and black holes eat entire galaxies--he's going to concern himself with how you play basketball?" But Brooks sees that inherently self-aggrandizing quote as a proof of humility.
Let's quote Brooks one more time: "You have to be willing to lose yourself in order to find yourself; to gain everything you have to be willing to give up everything; the last shall be first; it’s not about you... For many religious teachers, humility is the primary virtue. You achieve loftiness of spirit by performing the most menial services. (That’s why shepherds are perpetually becoming kings in the Bible.)"
 |
| Nice digs, leader of the humble religion. |
It is telling that Brooks' example of humility leading to the loftiness of spirit comes from a book that's a couple of thousand years old.* Christianity hasn't been about actual humility since what? 200 CE? Has David Brooks seen where the Pope lives?
Has David Brooks wandered into his church in midtown Manhattan and wondered how they paid for all that nice stuff they have?
Christianity being about humbling one's self to God works for the suckers, but it isn't at all what the leaders of the Church are about. Hence, not so many leaders of any denomination are former shepherds or former cannery workers or former auto mechanics or former window washers or former window mechanics on car assembly lines. Brooks does a great job of picking and choosing his aspects of Christianity in this column (as all Christians do in their day to day life. Imagine a country full of people who actually turned the other cheek and supported caring for the least fortunate among us! Obama would be considered Conservative in that world).
If I were running the sports/religion beat, I'd make every story end with Matthew 6:5, (the second Oldest Gospel, after Mark) "When you pray, you are not to be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and on the street corners so that they may be seen by men. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full."
David Brooks could have done himself some good by remembering that quote. Or by acquainting himself with sports. Either/Or.
*shepherds "perpetually becoming kings in the Bible"? I think it happens once, with David. Sure, there are Judges who rise from the populace, but Kings? Not so much, I don't think. Brooks is full of poo.
**I'm going to make "Jesus Pooped on the Cross" happen. You watch.
Friday, February 10, 2012
Second Wave Serbian Hip-Hop Saturday
Because everyone now loves Wolves center Nikola Pekovich, tonight's Wolves telecast on FSN featured a mini-bio on Pekovich.
Some of the info was safe to assume--his favorite basketball player is Vlade Divac; he enjoys fishing (as legally required of anyone living in Minnesota). But here's the fun fact that I learned: Pekovich's favorite music is by the 11-person second-wave Serbian hip-hop collective Beogradski Sindikat. Now, just in case you find yourself on a plane sitting next to Nikola, you'll now be able to talk about Beogradski Sindikat. Here you go. You are welcome.
Some of the info was safe to assume--his favorite basketball player is Vlade Divac; he enjoys fishing (as legally required of anyone living in Minnesota). But here's the fun fact that I learned: Pekovich's favorite music is by the 11-person second-wave Serbian hip-hop collective Beogradski Sindikat. Now, just in case you find yourself on a plane sitting next to Nikola, you'll now be able to talk about Beogradski Sindikat. Here you go. You are welcome.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)