The cry has gone up that the NFL's system of 4-5 preseason games needs to be shortened because too many (star) players are being hurt.
News flash - professional football is a violent game. To paraphrase the old adage: it is not a contact sport, it is a collision sport.
A bit of history here. In the old days - pre 1980's - NFL players used to take the entire summer off. The players also made less money so they had other jobs. They would get woefully out of shape and needed a 6-week exhibition season just to get into shape. Growing up, a guy next door played football so well that he ended up playing tackle for the Miami Dolphins. I can still recall the images of him coming to his parents' home for a week prior to training camp and trying to get back into shape running up and down our road.
In 1978, the NFL expaned from 14 regular season games to 16. Simultaneously, they decreased the preseason schedule from 6 to the current 4 games. A rise in salaries in the 1980s - due in part to the 3-year presence of the USFL - also led to a rise in workout ethic. Players stayed in shape throughout the off-season and teams began conducting mini-camps and other "voluntary" workouts. We started hearing about Roger Craig's hillside runs and teammate Jerry Rice's off-season regimens.
The fans want their stars to be healthy for the regular season. That is understandable. If I were a Redskin fan, I would be upset that Clinton Portis was injured on the first series in the first preseason game. But shortening or eliminating the preseason does not solve the injury crisis.
LeCharles Bentley - former Buckeye All-American - and current Cleveland Brown, was injured on the first play of the first PRACTICE of training camp. He is out for the year. Others, such as Minnesota safety Tank Williams, were injured in practice and lost for the season. Point? Injuries happen in football all of the time.
Imagine this - the NFL eliminates the preseason games or reduces them so that Clinton Portis does not play prior to the regular season. Then, on the first series of the first regular season game, he goes down with a serious injury. I believe that Michael Wilbon of the Washington Post (see link above) and ESPN Radio's Mike Greenberg would write an article about how the preseason games are necessary so that the players receive some "game conditioning" and are used to being hit. Perhaps preseason critics would then argue that Portis would not have been hurt if he had played in some exhibition games.
Jim Lachey, another Buckeye legend, was recently on the radio talking about training camp. He said the one year he held out of camp - and this was years into his career - on the day he returned to camp, he noticed a big difference in his skill level versus those that had been in camp. The message was that even if you are an All-Pro caliber player, you need practice time. If you need practice time, you probably are going to have blocking and tackling. If you have that, you will probably have injuries. The violence of football produces predictable results.
What if Portis would have been hurt during an inter-squad scrimmage versus an exhibition game? Would there be an article in the Washington Post about practice? (Practice? We are talking about practice?). I doubt it.
Players in the NFL are going to get injured. Each day, each week, each game, each season. Your number is going to come up sometime, someday. Clinton Portis had his come up in Preseason game No. 1. Had there been no preseason, it may have come up in practice the next day. Or, maybe it would have come up five minutes into Game No. 1. You can make all the changes to the schedule you want but you cannot change that fact. If you do not want your stars hurt, keep them out of practice and out of the preseason. But be prepared to have a star that is rusty and susceptible to injury because of that rust.
Friday, August 18, 2006
Sunday, August 13, 2006
Net Neutrality and Buckeye fans
Imagine this scenario - you cannot view the 2006 version of Penn State v. Ohio State game because you cannot get to a TV or the game is regionalized and you get to watch Oregon v. Arizona instead. You do, however, have access to a computer and decide to listen to the great Paul Keels call the game on the Buckeyes' flagship station 1460 The Fan's website. You log on to the internet, type in the address, and . . . you wait. And you wait. And you wait some more. Then, one of two things happen - either you get a message saying the page won't open, or it does open, but the connection is so poor and slow that the game is already at half over by the time your connected (and after that you only hear every 10th word Paul says).
This is more than a poor connection. This is a deliberate denial of access or an intentional slowing down of the signal. Freedom to access any website at any time coming to an end.
Cannot believe it could happen? Well, there are two large groups out there telling the government that it will happen, and soon, but for two very different reasons. Welcome to the issue of "Net Neutrality." How we got here is too long and complicated for me to understand, let alone describe, but Law Professor Tim Wu, has written numerous papers to help frame the issues and the debate.
In one corner, we have the "Deregulationists." These are the internet providers (such as AT&T, Bell South, and Verizon) who claim ownership of cable/DSL lines ("pipes") that bring the internet to you. They say that because of the increasing amount of internet traffic, you won't be able to get to the 1460 site. When the primary source of internet traffic was data, there was plenty of bandwidth (space) for the traffic to flow. But more and more the internet is handling voice and video which take up much more bandwidth. If you do get through, your connection may be very slow.
The Deregulationists' solution is to create a "tiered system" which essentially discriminates internet traffic based upon content. Voice and video get preferred bandwidth space if the content provider (such as 1460 The Fan) pays the Deregulationists a fee for that preferred space. The remaining internet traffic gets use of the non-preferred space.
In the other corner are the "Openists." These are the content providers (such as Google, Microsoft, Yahoo), as well as bloggers, and consumer advocacy groups. These are the people arguing for "net neutrality." Their argument is that the internet providers have never been able to discriminate based upon content before, and they should not be able to now. You, as the user, have been able to access any site you wanted to on the internet. Voice and video has been treated the same as e-mail, no matter the source. The openists' fear is that the providers' tiered system will essentially deny or limit your ability to access some sites.
Their scenario is this - you want to visit 1460 the Fan, but the station has not paid the internet provider money, while a competitor has. You cannot get through to 1460, but the provider lets you get through to the competitor. Your freedom is restricted based upon which companies pay money to the providers.
In a way, this would be very similar to how cable TV operates. I cannot get OLN to watch hockey, or the Do-It-Yourself network, because my cable provider does not offer those channels. Your internet selection would be limited based upon decisions made by the providers.
So, the Openists' solution is to have the government to step in and create regulations that preserve net neutrality. The Deregulationists want the government to stay out of the way and allow the free market system to work.
Normally, I am a free market kind of guy. Government does few things well, and typically regulations increase costs for companies, which are then passed onto you and me, the consumers. But, after reading Charles Wheelan's book "Naked Economics", I am now convinced that in some areas we need government intervention.
When an industry is deregulated, price becomes the primary margin of competition, presumably because consumers care more about price than service (e.g. airline industry). Many times that is good, but not so with all things. As Wheelan states, "anyone who tells you that markets left to their own devices will lead to socially beneficial outcomes is talking utter nonsense." There is great social benefit in allowing internet users the freedom go wherever they want. Based upon the Deregulationist position, a free market will not lead to that outcome.
The Deregulationists say that content providers are using their pipes for free and they are missing out on revenue that is rightfully theirs. They also claim that with this new income stream, they can build a better pipe system for the future.
The Openists say this is hogwash. The companies have benefitted from millions of dollars in public subsidies to lay their pipes on public land, while other industries have been required to pay the government fees to use the land. The companies already pocket fees from content providers, so no one is riding for free. Creating a tiered-system provides no incentive for the Deregulationists to expand the system - keeping a bottleneck of traffic keeps the increased fees coming. Also, the lack of competition gives the companies no incentive to make the system better - because who else can you turn to for internet access in your area?
There are bills in the House and Senate right now which would affect which group's vision of the future becomes reality. Both sides are trying to influence Congress to adopt their position. This is something each blogger and internet user should pay attention to because either way, we are affected. The internet as we currently know it may be in its last days. And if you cannot get a Buckeye game on television, an listening to Paul Keels describe the game on the web may soon not be an option.
This is more than a poor connection. This is a deliberate denial of access or an intentional slowing down of the signal. Freedom to access any website at any time coming to an end.
Cannot believe it could happen? Well, there are two large groups out there telling the government that it will happen, and soon, but for two very different reasons. Welcome to the issue of "Net Neutrality." How we got here is too long and complicated for me to understand, let alone describe, but Law Professor Tim Wu, has written numerous papers to help frame the issues and the debate.
In one corner, we have the "Deregulationists." These are the internet providers (such as AT&T, Bell South, and Verizon) who claim ownership of cable/DSL lines ("pipes") that bring the internet to you. They say that because of the increasing amount of internet traffic, you won't be able to get to the 1460 site. When the primary source of internet traffic was data, there was plenty of bandwidth (space) for the traffic to flow. But more and more the internet is handling voice and video which take up much more bandwidth. If you do get through, your connection may be very slow.
The Deregulationists' solution is to create a "tiered system" which essentially discriminates internet traffic based upon content. Voice and video get preferred bandwidth space if the content provider (such as 1460 The Fan) pays the Deregulationists a fee for that preferred space. The remaining internet traffic gets use of the non-preferred space.
In the other corner are the "Openists." These are the content providers (such as Google, Microsoft, Yahoo), as well as bloggers, and consumer advocacy groups. These are the people arguing for "net neutrality." Their argument is that the internet providers have never been able to discriminate based upon content before, and they should not be able to now. You, as the user, have been able to access any site you wanted to on the internet. Voice and video has been treated the same as e-mail, no matter the source. The openists' fear is that the providers' tiered system will essentially deny or limit your ability to access some sites.
Their scenario is this - you want to visit 1460 the Fan, but the station has not paid the internet provider money, while a competitor has. You cannot get through to 1460, but the provider lets you get through to the competitor. Your freedom is restricted based upon which companies pay money to the providers.
In a way, this would be very similar to how cable TV operates. I cannot get OLN to watch hockey, or the Do-It-Yourself network, because my cable provider does not offer those channels. Your internet selection would be limited based upon decisions made by the providers.
So, the Openists' solution is to have the government to step in and create regulations that preserve net neutrality. The Deregulationists want the government to stay out of the way and allow the free market system to work.
Normally, I am a free market kind of guy. Government does few things well, and typically regulations increase costs for companies, which are then passed onto you and me, the consumers. But, after reading Charles Wheelan's book "Naked Economics", I am now convinced that in some areas we need government intervention.
When an industry is deregulated, price becomes the primary margin of competition, presumably because consumers care more about price than service (e.g. airline industry). Many times that is good, but not so with all things. As Wheelan states, "anyone who tells you that markets left to their own devices will lead to socially beneficial outcomes is talking utter nonsense." There is great social benefit in allowing internet users the freedom go wherever they want. Based upon the Deregulationist position, a free market will not lead to that outcome.
The Deregulationists say that content providers are using their pipes for free and they are missing out on revenue that is rightfully theirs. They also claim that with this new income stream, they can build a better pipe system for the future.
The Openists say this is hogwash. The companies have benefitted from millions of dollars in public subsidies to lay their pipes on public land, while other industries have been required to pay the government fees to use the land. The companies already pocket fees from content providers, so no one is riding for free. Creating a tiered-system provides no incentive for the Deregulationists to expand the system - keeping a bottleneck of traffic keeps the increased fees coming. Also, the lack of competition gives the companies no incentive to make the system better - because who else can you turn to for internet access in your area?
There are bills in the House and Senate right now which would affect which group's vision of the future becomes reality. Both sides are trying to influence Congress to adopt their position. This is something each blogger and internet user should pay attention to because either way, we are affected. The internet as we currently know it may be in its last days. And if you cannot get a Buckeye game on television, an listening to Paul Keels describe the game on the web may soon not be an option.
Wednesday, August 09, 2006
No. 1 and Tipping Points
As this blog is titled "More Than Buckeyes", I would be remiss if I did not first address the initial USA Today Coaches' Poll which has Ohio State ranked No. 1. Yea. Woohoo. I think that most of the Buckeye Nation is content with being No. 1 but realize that it doesn't really matter now. Recall 2003 when the Buckeyes opened up at No. 2, and while they their first 3 games, they dropped to No. 5. All that matters is where you are at the end of the season. (E.g., Tennesse, No. 3 in first 2005 poll, finished 5-6).
It did, however, lead me to wonder how many times Ohio State opened up the season as No. 1. I have results of every game from 1968 on, with only Associated Press rankings (as the Coaches' Poll is only a recent creation - beginning in 1991). Ohio State opened up as the No. 1 team four other times - 1969, 1970, 1980 and 1998. They finished 4th, 5th, 15th and 2nd, respectively. In 1969, 1970 and 1998, they lost only one game each year (Michigan, Stanford, and MSU), so that bodes well for 2006 (the 1980 team was coached by Earle Bruce and obligated to finish 9-3).
The fact that Texas is currently ranked No. 2 leads to the potential 1 versus 2 match-up on September 9 (assuming both teams get through their opener and the coaches don't change their minds). So, you ask, how many times have the Buckeyes been involved with a regular season No. 1 v. No. 2 matchup? The Answer - None (since 1967, that is). In the Bowl season, they have been involved in two, which are two of the most famous games in Ohio State history. First was the 1969 Rose Bowl, when the Super Sophs of No. 1 OSU slashed the Juice-led No. 2 Southern Cal Trojans (please note my apologies in failing to avoid the tasteless OJ Simpson pun there). The other was a game you may have heard of - the 2003 Fiesta Bowl, when the No. 2 Buckeyes vanquished the great enemy of the South, Miami, in double OT. I was there for that shining moment.
What about that team up North? Well, none of the great Buckeye-Wolverine matchups involved 1 versus 2. The closest that series came was three matchups of No. 1 versus No. 4 (1973 and 1975 when Ohio State was on top, and 1997 when Michigan won their mythical National Championship).
A No. 1 v. No. 2 matchup in the regular season is so rare, that I have only found 4 such instances in the past 30 years. (1966 - Notre Dame tied Michigan State; 1969 - Texas defeated Arkansas; 1971 - Nebraska defeated Oklahoma; and 1993 - Notre Dame upset Florida State). As I am always looking for some sign that will bring joy to the Buckeye faithful, I offer these tidbits: In each game, the No. 1 was the visitor, just as Ohio State will be the visitor in Austin; the top-ranked team was 2-0-1 in the three games not played at South Bend - I'm eliminating the FSU-ND game because games played at Notre Dame are of questionable statistical value, i.e. strange things happen there. There have probably been other games - 1985/1986 Oklahoma v. Miami, Fl. may be another - but the point is that these games are very rare and the No. 1 team has done well.
Maurice Clarett - Update
Had he taken his one year suspension, and stayed for all 4 years of his eligibility, Maurice Clarett would be a senior at Ohio State this fall. Instead of wearing No. 13 on the No. 1 team, Clarett is being fitted for a longer prison number at the No. 1 penal institution. You see, early Wednesday morning, Mo made an illegal left hand turn in his SUV. When the police flipped on the lights, he did what he used to be very good at - avoided being caught. He led police on a high speed chase and forced them to blowout his tires in order to stop him. Now, you may think that's all, but just like a Ginsu knife offer, there's more. He would not get out of the car, and when he did, he would not cooperate so the police tried to Taser him. A taser works on most people because they don't wear bullet-proof vests! But Clarett was wearing this new fashion accessory and so the police had to use mace to subdue him. This incident, coupled with his upcoming trial for armed robbery - he flashed a gun at two people when he stole their wallets in January - means that my long held prediction needs to be altered. You see, back when the first Clarett problems surfaced in 2003, I predicted that Dateline NBC would do a story on him around 2007, and they would not find him in the NFL, but rather working at a car wash in Youngstown. I now formally amend the location for that prediction to the state penitentiary at Lucasville.
It's a sad and pathetic fall for someone with so much football talent. You wonder where the "Tipping Point" occurred and when Clarett was past the point of being saved. For those of you unfamiliar with "The Tipping Point" - author Malcolm Gladwell wrote a book about little changes that make huge difference, and changes that happend quickly and unexpectedly. He gets the name from epidemiology describing when a virus reaches critical mass. The Clarett situation does not exactly fit with Gladwell's book, but yet I wonder at what in the timeline when Clarett was inevitably headed for destruction? Was it his outburst at the 2003 Fiesta Bowl when he was upset that OSU would not fly him back to Youngstown for a friend's funeral - even though Clarett was terrified of flying? Was it in July of '03 when he filed that police report alleging $10k of stuff stolen from a car he "borrowed" (wink, wink) from a local dealer - a report that turned out to be false? Was it when he was suspended from the team for the 2003 season and then sued to NFL to be eligible for the draft in 2004 - a ruling that was initially granted in his favor, and then overturned? Or, was it not until he was drafted by the Denver Broncos in April 2005, but later cut in August 2005 - because he refused to practice and wanted the trainer fired? At some point
It's possible that the Tipping Point occurred prior to Clarett even enrolling at OSU. Maybe his course was set in stone by then. In that case, we should turn to Gladwell's other best-seller "Blink", which deals with rapid cognition. This is thinking that occurs in the blink of an eye. It is not intuition, but rational thought that occurs on a subconscious level, but thought that we cannot yet verbalize because we are not fully aware of it. As it applies to Clarett, could Tressel and other OSU coaches have looked at Clarett while recruiting him and determined instantly - don't recruit him, he's bad news. Gladwell says we can do this, we do do this, and that we are correct much more often than we are wrong on those instant judgments. This is counter-intuitive thinking as society tells us to "get all the facts" because you "don't judge a book by it's cover." But by getting more facts and taking more time, we rationalize Clarett's behavior and make excuses for it. We also think that we can be the Florence Nightingale and change this talented player's bad habits.
We are seeing that coaches cannot change players and keep them from making magnificent errors in judgment. Open up Espn.com and see what is going on at Oklahoma, Auburn, San Jose State, Miami (Fl.) and other schools this fall. The coaches know these guys are of questionable character, yet the pressure to win and win now is so great, that they look the other way and go against their own good judgment. Clarett may be the most spectacular flame out in College Football history, but he most certainly won't be the last.
It did, however, lead me to wonder how many times Ohio State opened up the season as No. 1. I have results of every game from 1968 on, with only Associated Press rankings (as the Coaches' Poll is only a recent creation - beginning in 1991). Ohio State opened up as the No. 1 team four other times - 1969, 1970, 1980 and 1998. They finished 4th, 5th, 15th and 2nd, respectively. In 1969, 1970 and 1998, they lost only one game each year (Michigan, Stanford, and MSU), so that bodes well for 2006 (the 1980 team was coached by Earle Bruce and obligated to finish 9-3).
The fact that Texas is currently ranked No. 2 leads to the potential 1 versus 2 match-up on September 9 (assuming both teams get through their opener and the coaches don't change their minds). So, you ask, how many times have the Buckeyes been involved with a regular season No. 1 v. No. 2 matchup? The Answer - None (since 1967, that is). In the Bowl season, they have been involved in two, which are two of the most famous games in Ohio State history. First was the 1969 Rose Bowl, when the Super Sophs of No. 1 OSU slashed the Juice-led No. 2 Southern Cal Trojans (please note my apologies in failing to avoid the tasteless OJ Simpson pun there). The other was a game you may have heard of - the 2003 Fiesta Bowl, when the No. 2 Buckeyes vanquished the great enemy of the South, Miami, in double OT. I was there for that shining moment.
What about that team up North? Well, none of the great Buckeye-Wolverine matchups involved 1 versus 2. The closest that series came was three matchups of No. 1 versus No. 4 (1973 and 1975 when Ohio State was on top, and 1997 when Michigan won their mythical National Championship).
A No. 1 v. No. 2 matchup in the regular season is so rare, that I have only found 4 such instances in the past 30 years. (1966 - Notre Dame tied Michigan State; 1969 - Texas defeated Arkansas; 1971 - Nebraska defeated Oklahoma; and 1993 - Notre Dame upset Florida State). As I am always looking for some sign that will bring joy to the Buckeye faithful, I offer these tidbits: In each game, the No. 1 was the visitor, just as Ohio State will be the visitor in Austin; the top-ranked team was 2-0-1 in the three games not played at South Bend - I'm eliminating the FSU-ND game because games played at Notre Dame are of questionable statistical value, i.e. strange things happen there. There have probably been other games - 1985/1986 Oklahoma v. Miami, Fl. may be another - but the point is that these games are very rare and the No. 1 team has done well.
Maurice Clarett - Update
Had he taken his one year suspension, and stayed for all 4 years of his eligibility, Maurice Clarett would be a senior at Ohio State this fall. Instead of wearing No. 13 on the No. 1 team, Clarett is being fitted for a longer prison number at the No. 1 penal institution. You see, early Wednesday morning, Mo made an illegal left hand turn in his SUV. When the police flipped on the lights, he did what he used to be very good at - avoided being caught. He led police on a high speed chase and forced them to blowout his tires in order to stop him. Now, you may think that's all, but just like a Ginsu knife offer, there's more. He would not get out of the car, and when he did, he would not cooperate so the police tried to Taser him. A taser works on most people because they don't wear bullet-proof vests! But Clarett was wearing this new fashion accessory and so the police had to use mace to subdue him. This incident, coupled with his upcoming trial for armed robbery - he flashed a gun at two people when he stole their wallets in January - means that my long held prediction needs to be altered. You see, back when the first Clarett problems surfaced in 2003, I predicted that Dateline NBC would do a story on him around 2007, and they would not find him in the NFL, but rather working at a car wash in Youngstown. I now formally amend the location for that prediction to the state penitentiary at Lucasville.
It's a sad and pathetic fall for someone with so much football talent. You wonder where the "Tipping Point" occurred and when Clarett was past the point of being saved. For those of you unfamiliar with "The Tipping Point" - author Malcolm Gladwell wrote a book about little changes that make huge difference, and changes that happend quickly and unexpectedly. He gets the name from epidemiology describing when a virus reaches critical mass. The Clarett situation does not exactly fit with Gladwell's book, but yet I wonder at what in the timeline when Clarett was inevitably headed for destruction? Was it his outburst at the 2003 Fiesta Bowl when he was upset that OSU would not fly him back to Youngstown for a friend's funeral - even though Clarett was terrified of flying? Was it in July of '03 when he filed that police report alleging $10k of stuff stolen from a car he "borrowed" (wink, wink) from a local dealer - a report that turned out to be false? Was it when he was suspended from the team for the 2003 season and then sued to NFL to be eligible for the draft in 2004 - a ruling that was initially granted in his favor, and then overturned? Or, was it not until he was drafted by the Denver Broncos in April 2005, but later cut in August 2005 - because he refused to practice and wanted the trainer fired? At some point
It's possible that the Tipping Point occurred prior to Clarett even enrolling at OSU. Maybe his course was set in stone by then. In that case, we should turn to Gladwell's other best-seller "Blink", which deals with rapid cognition. This is thinking that occurs in the blink of an eye. It is not intuition, but rational thought that occurs on a subconscious level, but thought that we cannot yet verbalize because we are not fully aware of it. As it applies to Clarett, could Tressel and other OSU coaches have looked at Clarett while recruiting him and determined instantly - don't recruit him, he's bad news. Gladwell says we can do this, we do do this, and that we are correct much more often than we are wrong on those instant judgments. This is counter-intuitive thinking as society tells us to "get all the facts" because you "don't judge a book by it's cover." But by getting more facts and taking more time, we rationalize Clarett's behavior and make excuses for it. We also think that we can be the Florence Nightingale and change this talented player's bad habits.
We are seeing that coaches cannot change players and keep them from making magnificent errors in judgment. Open up Espn.com and see what is going on at Oklahoma, Auburn, San Jose State, Miami (Fl.) and other schools this fall. The coaches know these guys are of questionable character, yet the pressure to win and win now is so great, that they look the other way and go against their own good judgment. Clarett may be the most spectacular flame out in College Football history, but he most certainly won't be the last.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)