Sunday, April 15, 2018

PAYING DEARLY


                The Chicago Tribune, to which I subscribe online to keep up with news from my homeland, last week ran a couple of stories about the ticket prices of the Chicago Cubs, my favorite baseball team. Both made me blink.

                The first was that the Cubs this season will set aside 60 “lower terrace” (i.e., not the worst) seats at their Wrigley Field base for each home game and sell them for $10 each to winners of a lottery the team has set up. Those who want them will sign up at a website 48 hours before the game they wish to see, with the winners announced 24 hours later. It’ll be a two-to-a-customer deal so winners won’t have to attend alone—a nice touch, I thought.

                The second, appearing a few days later, was the counterpoint to the first. It announced the opening of “Club 1914” at Wrigley, a bar-restaurant named for the ballpark’s inaugural year whose membership will be limited to the people who purchased the 700 or so most-expensive Cubs’ season tickets this year, at prices ranging from $695 a game ($56,295 a season) to $400 ($32,400). The glass-and-mahogany affair, situated underground behind the home plate area, will dispense food and drink to the expense-account set while giving them pre-and-post-game hangout space, lockers, access to uncrowded restrooms and their own team-merchandise shop. No computer-lottery victory will be required for access to the place, the members having already won the grand lottery that entitles them to their enviable lifestyle.

                The gentrification of professional sports is no news, already stretching back several decades, but its manifestations still can startle. As a Great Depression baby raised in leaner times, I never fail to marvel at the extent to which people at various income levels are willing to pay to support their teams, even though a flick of a remote can bring the games into their living rooms at little or no cost.  The thrill of joining one’s voice to the roar of the crowd packs a punch that defies quantification or, to me, reason.

                In the 1980s and ‘90s my press pass got me into games for free, but my spectating long predated that. As a kid I saw a lot of Cubs’ games at Wrigley, paying the 65-cent grandstand kids’ ticket price well past the 12-years-old cutoff (I must have looked young), and as a dad years later took my own kids to see quite a few Cubs and White Sox games.

 For 22 years—1972-94—I had a piece of a couple of season tickets to see the NBA Chicago Bulls, receiving also an education in how such things are priced. The initial tag on our seats (second row, first balcony in the old Chicago Stadium, where the balcony hung quite close to the court) was, I recall, $5 each at a time when the fledgling Bulls were a poor draw, but the figure rose steadily until it hit about $30 during the first few of the Michael Jordan title years. Despite my ingrained cheapness I gulped and paid up until the team moved into a new home, called the United Center. When management kicked my group into the upper reaches of the vastly larger arena and about-tripled our seat prices I balked, never to return.

I’ve lived in the Phoenix area for 20 years now and have yet to pay to see an NFL, NBA or NHL game—too pricey! The baseball Arizona Diamondbacks have one of the lowest price scales of any Major League team and draw so poorly that the logistics of attendance at their downtown home park are easy. Wife Susie and I see about a half-dozen games a season, always sitting in the upper deck behind home plate where the ticket tag rarely exceeds $20 per.  By me they’re the best seats in the house, so maybe I should keep quiet about this.  Anyway, figuring in parking and my bratwurst and Pepsi (Susie is allergic to ballpark food and brings her own) the two of us get away for about $60.

The rest of humanity pays quite a bit more. Team Marketing Inc., a company that tracks such things, reported that in 2016, the latest year for which its figures are available, the average cost for a family of four to attend a Major League Baseball game was $212. That included the average prices of two adult and two kids’ tickets, hotdogs, beverages, parking, two programs and two adult-sized baseball caps, and while most people probably would do without the caps it’s still a sizable amount.

In some cities the $212 figure is a dream; according to an online source the average price of a ticket alone at Wrigley Field last season was $151, and it topped $100 at three other parks (Yankee Stadium, Fenway Park and the Atlanta Braves’ Sun Trust Park). The Diamondbacks were in the bottom quarter of the 30-team list at $58, while the Chicago White Sox brought up the rear at $30.

It’s further noteworthy that MLB is the bargain among our major team sports; the family-of-four bill for the average NBA game in 2016 was $329, with $358 for the NHL and $473 for the NFL.  Those figures change in only one direction, so they’re undoubtedly higher now. They’ve all increased by at least a third since 2000.

 It’s ironic that the cost of going to a game is soaring at a time when more teams are seeking (and getting) public financing for their stadiums. That means that a lot of people are being taxed to build playgrounds for teams whose games they can’t afford to attend. Even when the stadium is privately owned (such as Wrigley Field) taxpayers must support the infrastructure improvements and extra policing the games demand.

Buy hey!, if you’ve got 10 bucks, and you’re lucky, you might get to see a Cubs’ game this year.

Sunday, April 1, 2018

THE LONG SEASON(S)


                Passover and the new Major League Baseball season arrived in a near dead heat a few days ago, so I think it’s apt to apply a signature question about the former to the latter; namely, “How is this season different from all other seasons?”

                The answer is that this MLB campaign had an earlier start (March 29) than any previous one, if you don’t count the couple of years when teams went to Japan or Australia to play a series before the rest of the teams got underway. The jump was part of a collective-bargaining agreement that provided for three or four more days off for each club during the regular schedule. It also ensures that, absent rain outs, the World Series will end before November begins, the better to avoid the possibility that mittens might replace mitts in the annual classic.

                Baseball’s move follows that of the National Basketball Association, which also started its 2017-18 season a week earlier than before, although that was little noted at the time. The extra week allowed the NBA to eliminate such inhumane practices as having teams play four games in five nights, or 18 games in 30. It also reduced the number of back-to-back contests teams play and threw in an occasional extra off day.
    
            The issue of schedule length has been very much alive in all our major team sports these past few years, matching the concern about a perceived increase in player injuries. Just about everyone agrees that the annual schedules of our premier professional baseball, football, basketball and hockey leagues are too long, but everybody also recognizes that it’s highly unlikely that will change anytime soon. That’s because schedule length is governed by commerce, not competition, and both the players and owners know that nobody makes money when the store isn’t open. The only one of our Big Four pro loops to reduce its calendar in recent decades was the National Hockey League, which went to its present 82 games a team from 84 in 1995-96. The reason for the move was obscure, as is the reasoning behind much of what the NHL does.
        
            Professional athletes are paid to do things other people do for fun so it’s hard to gin up much sympathy for claims they are overworked, but one can make that case nonetheless. Athletes are bigger, faster and stronger than they used to be, and while they get paid more they work harder, too, following the year-around training schedules they need to maintain their places.  It’s a sports paradox that the closer an athlete comes to peak fitness the more susceptible he is to injury and the less it takes to push him over the edge. The wise trainer includes a good amount of rest in his regimens but athletes are as likely as not to ignore it. The motto “no pain, no gain” still resonates despite being largely discredited.
            
             It’s ironic that the sport that has the biggest injury problem has been least amenable to making schedule changes to address it. That would be football, where after the second or third week of the season every player hurts some place all the time. The National Football League went to a consistent 12-game regular season in 1947, to 14 games in 1961 and to the present 16 games in 1978, and while it cut its summer training-game schedule to four games from six in that last year it’s budged no further since.

 The discussion about cutting football players’ workload has of late focused on cutting the so-called preseason, which almost all observers agree is too long. The owners resist, mostly because they charge their season-ticket holders full price for the two exhibitions each hosts annually. That embodies the “because we can” philosophy that rules the league.

The NBA’s regular-season schedule has stood at 82 games since 1967-68, a time when, in retrospect, the players looked smaller and the games were run at slower-mo. This season’s early start hasn’t seemed to have had much effect on contending teams’ practice of sitting healthy veterans (and, thus, shortchanging fans) to preserve them for the playoffs, Nor has it noticeably affected the injury rate; in one recent game the defending-champion Golden State Warriors sat their four best players (Steph Curry, Kevin Durant, Clay Thompson and Draymond Green) for various causes. The league is coming to rival the NFL in the role injuries play in determining playoff outcomes.

Baseball is the least strenuous of our major sports but it’s also the one with the longest regular season– a 26-week, 162-game grind before this season’s one-week extension.  A little math shows that worked out to 20 days off a season for each team, or less than one a week, and the numbers were worse when you note that four of the days off came together, at All Star Game time.

 Between about 1920 and 1960 the baseball regular season was 154 games, with each team in the 16-team, two-league setup playing each of its seven league rivals 22 times. The 162-game format was established when the Majors expanded to 20 teams in 1961 and 1962, with each team playing its nine league foes 18 times. Now, with 30 teams and interleague play, the neat arithmetic has been scraped, but the number 162 has become sacrosanct, as do most baseball numbers that have been around for a while.

Baseball players stand (and sit) around a lot during their games, but between the contests their exercise routines are far tougher than they used to be, and their body shapes show it.  Add the facts that pitchers throw harder than they once did, and batters swing harder, and you have a physically more-demanding game than in years past.

 Adding a few more rest days to the schedule is a plus, but a better answer would be to also increase each team’s in-season roster size to 27 players from 25.  Baseball managers tend to use their benches more than other sport’s coaches and dressing one more pitcher and position player would spread the work around more, to the benefit of all. One reason sports schedules never contract is that the players, through their unions, won’t abide the salary cuts that might result, but they’d be sure to like the extra jobs larger rosters would create.  The owners would have to pay two more guys (probably at MLB minimums), but, heck, a 10-cent increase in ballpark beer prices probably would cover that.                           

Thursday, March 15, 2018

TRYING HARDER


                The Chicago White Sox and Los Angeles Dodgers share a spring-training complex in Glendale, Arizona, and during the first week of March I drove across Phoenix to watch them play each other there. The White Sox were the designated home team on a sunny weekday afternoon, yet my eyeball assessment of the crowd favored Dodger blue over White Sox black by a margin of three or four to one. That was business as usual, because spring training in low-rise, red-roofed Glendale has been a horse-and-rabbit stew since the facility opened in 2009, with the White Sox always playing the lesser role.

                But maybe that’s just as well because the Sox are used to being No. 2, not only in the spring but also during the regular season in their Windy City domicile. First fiddle there is played by the Chicago Cubs, who for reasons many and varied have held that status since about 1985. In 2005, when the Sox broke Chicago’s epic, 88-year baseball-championship drought, they were outdrawn at the gate by a Cubs’ team that went 79-83 in the won-lost column. An attendance spurt that accompanied the opening of the Sox’s new ballpark in 1991 gave the team some earlier spark, but it lasted a brief few seasons. Now that the Cubs are riding high off their 2016 World Series win their recent box-office edge of roughly two-to-one seems carved in stone.
    
            In recent years the Sox’s bid to stay relevant in the Chicago-baseball conversation has consisted of making band-aid fixes in hopes that a few more victories would produce enough juice to avoid a full-fledged gate collapse. That didn’t work, and four straight losing seasons beginning in 2013—with annual sub-2 million home attendance figures—convinced the team’s ownership that a thorough, lose-on-purpose revamp was in order.

That was hardly a novel conclusion since teams like the Washington Nationals, Houston Astros and, yes, the Cubs, had done the same thing in recent memory, but the White Sox had avoided it because of fears its place hold might not survive three or four more years in the dumpster. But, finally, things got so bad that no other path presented itself.

The process started last year when the team traded its best pitcher, Chris Sale, for prospects, and did the same with Adam Eaton, its center fielder and lead-off man. As the season progressed it traded its No. 2 starter, Jose Quintana, for more youngsters, and did the same with relief closer David Robertson, veteran third-baseman Todd Frazier and much of its functional bullpen.  The trading pace has slowed this year but probably will pick up again as the 2018 race unfolds.

 The team’s current main bargaining chip is Jose Abreu, the first baseman it spirited out of Cuba in 2013 and who, with 124 home runs in his four seasons in Chicago, has stamped himself as a certified big-league power hitter. At age 31, and with two more years left on his contract, he would fetch a good price from any team with title hopes.

In its talent dump the Sox have aped what the Cubs did when Theo Epstein took over their front office in 2012, and also in other ways. To manage the revamp on the field the Sox hired the amiable Rick Renteria, who Epstein picked to lead the Cubs in 2014 and who might be leading them still if Joe Maddon hadn’t become available the next year. Further, the Quintana trade was with the Cubs, and in return the Sox got outfielder Eloy Jimenez, the top position-player prospect in the Cubs’ chain and, now, the best in the White Sox’s system.

The Sox have deviated from the Cubs’ model in one important way: to date they have concentrated on pitching in their young-player acquisitions, while the Cubs went after young bats and then shopped for established hurlers. Young pitchers are iffier so this is a more-hazardous course, and it remains to be seen how it will pan out.

The best pitching prospects the White Sox have acquired are Lucas Giolito and Reynaldo Lopez, in the Eaton trade with the Nationals, and Michael Kopech, in the Sale deal with the Boston Red Sox. Giolito, a jumbo, 23-year-old right hander, looked good when he was brought to the Majors late last season, and is in the team’s projected starting rotation. So is Lopez, 24, also a righty, although his star shines a bit less brightly than Giolito’s.  Right­-hander Kopech, 21, an off-beat fireballer who sports flowing, golden locks, might be the best of the three but he’ll start this season in the minors, perhaps to extend the team’s contractual control.

The top everyday player the Sox got was second-baseman Yoan Moncada, 21, from Boston. He hit only .231 in 54 games after his 2017 call up, but got better as his stay progressed and is expected to continue the improvement. He’s the kind of player who can help a team in a lot of ways; in one spring game I saw this month he walked twice in three at-bats, stole a base and scored from first on a single when the right-fielder bobbled the hit. And at 6-feet-2 and 220 pounds, he has power potential.

To succeed the Sox will need their prospects to avoid injury, and this has been a problem in spring training. Third-baseman Jake Burger, the team’s top pick in the 2017 free-agent draft (and 11th choice overall), already has been lost for the season by an early-spring Achillies tendon tear, and both Jimenez and Luis Robert, a 20-year-old Cuban outfielder whom it paid $26 million, have been in and out of the lineup with various ills.

Mostly, though, it’ll have to be shown that the team’s front office, led by general manager Rick Hahn, knows talent. If it does as well as the Cubs’ Epstein, an all-Chicago World Series could be more than a pipe dream. If not, Las Vegas or Portland might be in the cards.
                   

Thursday, March 1, 2018

WINTER O's CLOSE; BASEBALL'S SLOWS; COLLEGE HOOPS' WOES


                NEWS: Winter Olympics end.
               
                VIEWS: Finally.

                I covered three Winter Olympics—in Calgary in 1988, Albertville in 1992 and Lillehammer in 1994—but didn’t especially enjoy any of them.  The weather was one reason, of course, even when the problem was too warm (in Calgary) rather than too cold, but the real rub was that I had no affinity for winter sports. I never skied and wasn’t much of a skater on the ice rink created during the winter by flooding the playground behind my Chicago grammar school. As a kid I played a lot of ping pong in friends’ basements when the weather was cold, and racquetball was my winter sport of choice as an adult.

                 I had nothing against the athletes at the Winter O’s, who possessed the same virtues as other top-level jocks, but I did have quarrels with some of the games they played. Most winter-sports races are staged as singles or pairs against the clock rather than the line-‘em-all-up-and-see-who’s-best formats of, say track and field or swimming. Thus, they lack dramatic impact or a satisfying conclusion.

   Further, too many winter sports involve judges, which is to say they’re inherently open to bias. That’s especially true of figure skating, the Winter Games’ marquee events. Yeah, the figs are beautiful, and the skaters are terrific, but if it’s a sport so is ballet.  As for the TV commentary, it’s set me to giggling ever since I saw “Kentucky Fried Movie” (remember?).

                With only nations with the requisite frosty climes participating, the Winter Games are less universal than the summer ones, and because their overseers have dictated that both follow the same, 17-day schedule the winter calendars were much sparser than the summer ones at the Games I attended. The skeds have been beefed up for recent Games, mostly with X-Games daredevil stuff I can do without, but also by the addition of curling, that cross between bowling and shuffleboard that defies any definition of athletic endeavor. The revelation that a Russian curler was caught doping at Pyeongchang was one of the oddest sports stories ever. A curler doping? What in the world for?

                Wife Susie loves the figs, and because we were traveling for much of the recent Winter Games I was forced to watch quite a bit of them in our hotel rooms. Thus, I found the end of the competition especially welcome. It’ll be four years until the next one, not enough time to recover but almost.

                NEWS: Major League Baseball moves to speed games by limiting pitcher’s-mound conferences.

                VIEWS: The devil is in the details.

                The new rule, just announced, places a limit of six on mound visits by managers, coaches, catchers or other players during a nine-inning game, plus one for each extra inning, but it contains so many exceptions that it’s impact should be minimal. To wit:

                --Visits to check out possible pitchers’ injuries aren’t counted, nor are visits after an offensive substitution.

--Catchers still can talk to pitchers from the infield grass.

--Positions players can come to the mound to clean their spikes on the mound board (and whisper messages).

--Visits over the limit to correct pitch-sign cross-ups are permitted if the home-plate umpire agrees.

                The trouble with all the above exceptions is that each could be subject to umpire interpretations that will lead to arguments. MLB has tested a 20-second pitch clock during the last couple of Arizona Fall League seasons, and in the few instances umps invoked it they had to weather managers’ beefs that more than negated whatever time savings the rule might have brought. Look for a repeat of that this season.

                NEWS: More shoes drop in the FBI’s investigation of college basketball.

                VIEWS: There’s a centipede out there.

                The probe, which in September resulted in indictments of assistant coaches from Arizona, USC, Auburn and Oklahoma State, plus player agents and executives of the shoe company Adidas, rattled college hoops to its core, especially because the agency hinted there was more to come. Nothing further has been announced, but last week Yahoo Sports reported that some 20 more schools have been caught in the G-men’s net, including perennial powerhouses Duke, North Carolina, Kentucky, Michigan State and Kansas. It also identified a half dozen current or recent college players who received payments in the scheme, in which the coaches funneled money to the kids to attend certain schools, wear certain sneakers and, later, employ certain agents.

                That only assistant coaches were named initially made it look like your typical NCAA enforcement charade, but big cheese Rick Pitino of Louisville quickly got fired when his school was implicated (it was a last straw thing; he’d more than deserved firing for things he’d done previously) and Sean Miller of Arizona was benched a week ago when it came out he’d been taped discussing with one of the indictees paying $100,000 to a coveted recruit, Deandre Ayton, who wound up at Arizona.

The Yahoo piece, and one by ESPN’s excellent websight, said that about 4,000 phone calls, emails and other documents were seized during a two-year investigation, including a pile from Andy Miller, a well-known player agent. Some of the college game’s sainted head coaches, including Bill Self of Kansas and North Carolina’s Roy Williams, have issued “not me” statements, indicating, at least, that some “You too’s?” have been whispered in their presence.

                The main reason the coaches are squirming is that this is an FBI probe, not one by the toothless NCAA. That means that penalties can include prison time, not just some BS loss of scholarships or post-season-game ban. It’s more than a little ironic that the federal criminal laws the agency is seeking to enforce were enthusiastically supported by the NCAA in its never-ending quest to keep money from so-called student-athletes.  It’s a classic case of watching what you wish for, because you might get it.

Wednesday, February 14, 2018

FOOTBALL FOR GIRLS

                If you’ve been around sports as long as I have it’s tough to be shocked by anything that happens, but the sex-abuse story involving Larry Nassar, the osteopath who preyed on young female gymnasts, is appalling by any measure.
          
                The amount of time covered by his crimes—24 years (from about 1992 until he was arrested in December, 2016)—strains credulity, as does his number of victims—265 girls and young women, by one estimate presented at his trial. Worse, he was able to do what he did under the noses of a well-known Michigan gymnastics club, Michigan State University (where he was a team physician and faculty member) and USA Gymnastics, the national governing body for the sport, all of which were responsible for looking out for the best interests of their athletes.

                When serial sex abuse surfaces it’s always asked why the victims didn’t speak up sooner. In Nassar’s case they did. According to published reports gymnasts had complained about him to their parents, coaches or others as early as 1994, but their claims were disregarded. At least twice—in 2004 and 2014—charges were brought to the attention of police agencies, and investigations were launched, but nothing came of them. According to one account Nassar showed one group of police a power-point presentation showing that his predations had a legitimate medical purpose, and the cops backed off.

                But while the Nassar case was horrific it was not surprising to anyone who’d followed youth sports in this country or abroad, or gymnastics in particular. Charges of sexual abuse against prominent gym coaches date from at least the 1980s involving such figures as Don Peters, coach of the 1984 U.S. silver-medal-winning women’s Olympic team, and are as recent as last week’s news, when John Geddert, coach of the 2016 U.S. women’s team, was implicated in the Nassar mess (he denies any involvement).  

                In 2016, before the Nassar story broke, the Indianapolis Star, which follows Olympic sports closely, looked at records dating back a dozen years and counted sex-abuse claims by 368 girl gymnasts against more than 50 coaches, gym owners or other adults involved in the sport. Many of the charges were reported to USA Gymnastics but only a few were sent on to the attention of police. Further, coaches against whom charges had been levied often hopped from job to job without the allegations being resolved or following them, much in the manner of Catholic priests who were transferred but not punished for such transgressions. One coach worked at six different clubs in four states before his past came to light.

                Gymnastics isn’t the only sport in which children are abused, nor is the U.S. the only country. A piece in the New York Times in December of 2016 detailed investigations then current in England in which 83 possible suspects on 98 youth soccer teams were suspected of having assaulted as many as 350 victims, all boys.  In the wake of the inquiries several English professional players came forward to assert they’d been victimized by coaches when they were younger. The charges have resulted in shakeups in the organization of youth programs run by several Premier League clubs.
                
                What soccer and gymnastics, and some other sports, have in common is that their upper reaches are populated solely by athletes who have been dedicated to them since early childhood, to the expense of other activities (such as education) usually deemed essential to their development. In Europe and South America the recruitment and winnowing of soccer-playing boys begins at around age six and continues through the teens, with the best prospects typically enrolled in academies devoted exclusively to the sport. In women’s gymnastics, dominated by tiny, flexible teens, the process begins earlier, with kids as young as 10 shipped from home to work full time with coaches and trainers who, necessarily, also assume parental roles.  The professionalization of childhood, one response to an increasingly competitive world, has no purer examples.
            
              The gymnastics model is that of the East European nations that made success in Olympic sports an ad for their Communist systems beginning with the Cold War 1950s. Schools there were sifted for young talent that was then honed to shine for the Motherland, whatever the cost. In gymnastics the process’s epitome was Nadia Comaneci, the fairy-like Romanian whose victories in the 1976 Montreal Olympics, at age 14, captivated the world. Her coach since age 7 was Bela Karolyi.
               
              Big, bluff Bela always had been a poor fit for Communist conformity, and after Comaneci repeated her Olympic triumph in 1980 he defected to the U.S., landing in his spiritual home of Texas. By 1984 he’d done in America what he did in Romania, grooming bouncy Mary Lou Retton for Olympic glory at age 16. What he couldn’t get from the government in his adopted land he got from ambitious American parents, who turned their daughters over to him for training. He was the sport’s dominant U.S. figure for almost 40 years, either from the stage or the wings.
               
                Karolyi’s gym near Houston has been an Olympic training center for some years. Nassar practiced there and the place been closed as a result of the revelations about him. Karolyi says he knew nothing of those. I hope he’s right because I liked him. Gymnastics has been called “football for girls” because of the fearsome and sometimes lasting physical toll it exacts; Mary Lou Retton’s main public exposure now (she’s 50) is as a TV spokesperson for an arthritis-pain cream. Karolyi always acknowledged the sport’s dangers as well as his own, hard-driving coaching methods, but countered that they were necessary for victories in an exacting pursuit. He used to liken himself to a piano teacher working with elite young students; the pieces he taught were the toughest but they were the only path to Carnegie Hall, he’d say.

                
               The rub, of course, is that the gym tots are sent off to battle before any reasonable age of consent by parents who put their children’s bodies and futures in the hands of others. It’s almost inevitable that a deranged few will betray that trust.  

Thursday, February 1, 2018

? ? ?

                My birthday is tomorrow—the big 8-0—and I still have more questions than answers. Here are some of them:

--When did so much packaging become impenetrable? How do people without well-equipped workshops, including power tools, get some packages open?

               --Why does cold or snowy winter weather in the North regularly rate featured treatment on national newscasts?

                --Do those who favor abolishing EPA-enforced protections have private sources of water to drink or air to breathe?

                --Does anyone claim he reads the Sports Illustrated swimsuit edition for the stories?

                --Why is “automatic renewal” permitted by law?  It makes you stand on your head to prevent being charged for things you no longer want.

                 --When did men’s hairstyles get sillier than women’s?

                --Why do many motorcyclists eschew helmets? In any contest between their skulls and the pavement the pavement is sure to win.

                --If Major League baseball really wants to streamline its games why does it permit all those committee meetings on the mounds, or playing catch between outs?

                --Relatedly, why does it persist in chalking first- and -third-base coaches’ boxes? The next time a coach steps in one will be the first.

                --Will anyone be using Facebook a year from now if every third entry still is an ad? And when did Google become primarily an ad vehicle instead of a search engine? I now mostly use Yahoo for that.

                --Is there any reason to be polite to unwanted sales callers? Cursing out those pests is therapeutic.

                --In yearning for the “good old days,” does anyone wish to trade today’s cars for the ones we had then?

                --Has Lincoln’s line about fooling some of the people all of the time ever applied better than to Trump and his “base”?

                --How many hundreds of times do I have to X out the box to install Internet Explorer 11 before it goes away for good?

                --Are you pleased when a phone query to an American company is answered by a call center in the Philippines? At least you can learn how the weather is in Manila.

                --Haven’t you had it with all those gunky corporate names on ball parks and arenas? The Chicago White Sox’s Guaranteed Rate Park takes the cake.

                --As an older person, aren’t you offended by those TV ads for such oldster-aimed dodges as reverse mortgages or investments in gold baubles? Henry Winkler and Tom Selleck should be ashamed of themselves for appearing in them.  

                --Why is it that when you have a 20-minute doctor’s appointment the doctor spends 15 minutes looking at his computer and five minutes looking at you?         

                --When did “less” become the all-purpose word for reduction? Does anyone still know the difference between “less” and “fewer”?

                --Is it possible to open one of those foil butter packets in a restaurant without getting the butter all over your fingers?

                --Why can you instantly e-message anyone overseas but international mail has only about a 50% chance of arriving intact 10 days later? I’m talking about Europe here, not Timbuktu.

                --Doesn’t it seem like the New York Yankees and Boston Red Sox play each other about 30 times a season and every one of the games is on ESPN?

                --Is there a dumber TV cliché than broadcasters sending their reporters out into the tempest to show the ferocity of a storm? Sticking their cameras out the window would convey the same info with much less risk.

                --Don’t those “save the date” cards for coming events make you a bit uneasy? Doesn’t it seem like you might not make the cut to get an actual invitation?

 --Have you noticed that American college-football fans have taken to wearing team scarves, just like the supporters of British football (i.e., soccer) teams?  Is there any better evidence of the impact that Premier League telecasts are having on these shores?

-- How many people have to die before our legislatures decide that allowing just about anybody to purchase the equivalent of machine guns is a bad thing? What “right” is involved in permitting individuals to have personal arsenals that could supply an infantry company?  

                --Is any industry in America more hated than cable-TV providers? In my last phone call for technical assistance it took 40 minutes and four “technicians” to find a cure that involved punching single button on my remote. FYI, my provider is Cox.

                --Why do people bother watching the scores of NBA games? They should be regarded as performance art, like ballet or Cirque du Soleil.

                Just askin’.


Monday, January 15, 2018

TURNING AWAY

                You’d think that a retired guy like me would have lots of time to watch sports on TV, and I do. I choose, however, not to give much of that time to professional football.

                I used to be a big fan of the National Football League, sitting transfixed in front of my tube for hours on Sundays, and on Monday nights. Hooked by a point-spread system that makes every contest an intriguing proposition, I bet on many of the games and won enough to maintain my interest. I could chat knowledgably about things like the West Coast offense and the Tampa 2 defense. I chuckled at the witticisms of Johnny Madden and wished that Dennis Miller would take his act elsewhere.

                I still watch some NFL games but fewer than before, and with less interest. When I watch now I almost always have a newspaper or crossword puzzle close at hand. I don’t think I’ve seen a half-dozen games beginning-to-end all season.  There are whole teams of which I can’t identify more than three or four players—or coaches, for that matter. I no longer bet on the games, saving the money for losing on the horses. Call it a reordering of priorities.

                It’s no news that I’m not alone in my change of heart. The NFL’s television ratings—the league’s bread and butter in what is basically a made-for-TV sport—have been down for two years now, with about a 9% overall ratings drop this season from last following an almost-identical result in 2016 from 2015. The league still is a TV powerhouse, outdrawing all other programming categories, but added up that’s an almost 20% decline, one that you can bet has rattled boardrooms on Madison Avenue and vicinity.

                There are reasons for the slump that have little to do with the game on the field. One is the fractionalizing of the TV audience that’s been in progress for decades. Another is the addition of Thursday- and Sunday-night games in recent years, which may have oversaturated the market. A third is the abandonment of regular TV by people wanting only the sort of quick updates and highlights they can get on their cellphones (I’m told—I don’t use one). Concentrating on one subject for more than a few minutes seems to be beyond many nowadays.  That doesn’t seem like a good thing, does it?

                Our president, Mr. Trump, takes credit for the trend because of his criticism of some NFL players (read that “black athletes”) for being insufficiently patriotic when they knelt during the playing of the national anthem during some early-season games to protest police brutality toward black suspects. He may have a point, but I suspect that his motive (beyond stirring up his “base”) stemmed mostly from personal pique against the league for rebuffing his team-ownership overtures over the years and embarrassing his old U.S. Football League in the courts in the mid-1980s. For more on the latter subject see Jim Byrne’s book, “The $1 League.”
       
         I’m generally for what Trump is against (and vice versa), so his barbs didn’t affect my thinking. My quarrel is with football itself and how the NFL presents it. Specifically, the league’s mulish insistence on “getting things right” through its endless reviews of game officials’ rulings has ruined the game’s continuity and, often, produces more questions than answers. Further, and more important, recent revelations about football’s physical toll on its players has mixed my admiration of those rugged guys with a big dose of pity. That feeling doesn’t make for happy viewing on a Sunday afternoon.

If you’ve followed my writings you know how I feel about video reviews of field-officials’ calls: I don’t like them. Sports are contested by humans and should be judged by them, period. If mistakes are made, too bad—everyone makes them—and in the long run they balance out.
            
            I know that technology isn’t going away and will forevermore be part of our games, but in its self-importance the NFL has made much too much use of it, abandoning its product to Talmudic discussions of its rules and their microscopic application. Better than any academic experiment the NFL’s multi-angled replays illustrate the elusive nature of truth.

 Making this exercise worse is the stupidity of some of those rules. A ball-carrier is awarded a touchdown if the nose of the ball grazes the end line, even if it’s immediately fumbled away, but to score a pass receiver not only must catch the ball securely and come down with it in the end zone but, it seems, take it to the sideline and turn it over to an equipment manager. It’s no wonder that every week some fans go away muttering that their teams were robbed.

Football always has been physically dangerous to its participants—more dangerous, I think, than non-players realize. To best appreciate its level of violence an NFL game must be viewed from the sidelines, where the sounds and the very feeling of its collisions can be experienced up close. The central fact of life in the league is that after the second or third week of a season every player plays injured, and few men escape even a short professional career without permanent damage to at least one bodily part. Add in the extra weight many of today’s players must carry to maintain their positions (300-pounders were all but unknown in the game 30 years ago) and you increase the possibility of heart problems.

 And in the last few years, despite the league’s camouflage efforts, the real dangers of head injuries have become clear, upping the ante many fold. Investigations into the subject are just beginning but I think it’s already evident that between a quarter and a third of NFL vets will have cognitive difficulties, i.e., scrambled brains, down the line.  

Yes, NFL players are volunteers, and well-paid ones, but one can only shake one’s head at the risks they run in the name of entertainment. That alone is enough to cause a change of channel.