Separation Wars: Rays of Confusion

Just when I thought Major League Baseball was ridiculous enough, I am proven wrong once again. And so I write.

Last week, the baseball world was stirring at reports that the Tampa Bay Rays are going to look to take a vacation from their home stadium. Because 81 home games is "a lot of games" according to Rays principal owner Stuart Sternberg, they're going to split their home games elsewhere starting in 2024. [1]

The location, you ask?

Montreal.

Yes, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

Granted, Montreal had a team up until 15 years ago, when the franchise was moved to Washington D.C. and became the Nationals. They had a pretty solid following before then. MLB Network did a documentary on the history of the Montreal Expos, and you can find it here. For the last several years, especially after Rob Manfred came on board as commissioner of MLB, many wondered if we were going to see another move to bringing a second team back to Canada. Well, you see, with all of the expansions and the status of baseball in 2019, there is a problem with that.

To begin with, there are 30 teams in the league. If you want a singular team, you have to add another to the other league. This would throw off the divisions and more games would have to be added to the season by default. One rumbling over the last two years has been the divisions being reconfigured entirely (4 teams in a North-East-Midwest-West setup) to make way for even divisions, but it would ultimately eliminate the Wild Card. [2] That being said, this ridiculousness ultimately justifies not affecting any teams that exist, and still getting Montreal, as well as other major western markets that MLB has been ogling over, such as Portland and Las Vegas.

When I first read the articles coming forth from the Rays' owners, this looks like a giant case of "we're expanding our 'market,' so we don't have to take the big fall if our market fails somewhere else, and if it succeeds, WOO MONEY!" While they've gone on-record saying that they're not moving out of Tampa Bay entirely, it is probably the absolute dumbest idea to have your team play half of their home games in another location that is over 1500 miles away. You're supposed to develop a knowledge of your field and to develop a faithful enough rapport with your fanbase, so you have, you know, home field advantage. switching your home field halfway through the season is a completely bogus idea in my mind.

Their idea allegedly justifies not needing a new ballpark right now, or using that "time away" to construct a more efficient ballpark that doesn't have low ceiling beams that determine certain extra-base hits. The St. Petersburg area is rather cramped as it is, and the Tampa Bay-metro area doesn't really have the space to construct another stadium right now. Even if there is a spot, freeways are rather bunched together in Western Florida, and you're going to have another Dodger Stadium situation in which you're moving people out of their homes to build a ballpark.

You can see what I mean here. Thanks, Google Maps!

As you can see, there isn't a lot of space to move around, unless you become the innovator of an underwater ballpark in Tampa Bay. [Oh no, please don't let that happen, baseball gods.]

While I can see what the owners are trying to do, it's another thing to pick a location that is not only so far away, but literally in another country. I kind of want to know what kind of mice were running around in the owners' brains in that thought process.


--

Here's a fun little bit that I'll do:  

How would I fix this, despite asking myself, "...and who am I in this situation?"

I'm no expert on the baseball business, but let's give this a go. You have another team in Florida with a fairly new ballpark in the Miami Marlins, right? At the end of, say, the 2021 season, move the Miami Marlins franchise to Montreal to keep a fifth NL East team. Name them accordingly, whether it's bringing back the "Expos" name, or renaming them the "Montreal Grey Jays" (Canada's national bird, and the National League's "Jays" as Toronto is in the American League). Rename the Tampa Bay Rays the "Miami-St. Pete Hammerheads" and use both of their ballparks until 2023, when you'd have to make a final decision on what to do with Tropicana Field. By 2027--which is the original timeline as to when the Rays' deal with Trop ends--you'll most likely have a brand new ballpark by then.

I won't lie, I think I'm a genius with this idea.

But it's never gonna happen, because who am I in this situation?

--

The closest thing I can liken this situation to be is a sports separation, and Tampa is splitting custody of the Rays with Montreal to "strengthen the Montreal market." I mean, it isn't like baseball ever died in Montreal, let alone in Canada. It isn't a full-fledged divorce from Tampa, but they're thinking that business is going to be on the rise once this idea goes into effect.

Much like kids in a separation or divorce, are the players and coaching staff going to have a say in all of this? Of course not, because they're not high enough on the totem pole to really make an impact. If anything, I feel the worst for them, because you have unstable residences for half of your season. Not only that, imagine the fans in the area. It's like one of your attractions seemingly leaves and it cuts out something to do. Meanwhile, in Montreal, it's like you're an NFL fan in London, and the league is going, "Hey! Here's something you don't have! Wouldn't it be cool if you had a team of your own? Here's a free trial!" It seems sympathetic, and at the same time, kind of a cop-out.

It's still rather early in this planning process, so it's difficult to draw any conclusions as to how this is all going to go down. At face-value, this is a ballsy idea that could definitely bomb if it isn't planned from start to finish. Who knows? Maybe this idea will kill itself before it gets any further than this.

Only time will tell.

-- Stephanie

___________________
Other articles referenced:

[1] Rays explain details of Montreal plan: "This is not a staged exit" - Tampa Bay Times - https://www.tampabay.com/sports/rays/2019/06/25/rays-montreal-primer-what-you-need-to-know-before-todays-press-conference/ 

[2] If MLB considers expansion, what would a 32-team league look like? - SI.com - https://www.si.com/mlb/2017/10/19/major-league-baseball-expansion-proposal-realignment

Sportsmanship and the Overkill of Social [Media] Commentary

Shoutouts to all of the "coaches" on Soccer Twitter for truly making this evening a masterpiece for me mentally. You don't know how much your inability to have a discussion is appreciated.

Unless you haven't checked out the news or any piece of social media today, you should already know that the US Women's National Soccer--Football--Team completely destroyed Thailand 13-0 in pool play of the FIFA Women's World Cup. That's right. 13-0. Because Team USA is not only one of the top women's teams in the world, but they're also the defending World Cup champions, it wasn't too surprising for them to take a win in this game. However, it's how much and how it was celebrated that is causing a massive uproar among people.

Basically, the term "unsportsmanlike conduct" is being thrown around.

While it's expected that a lot of people are going to disagree on a subject like this, it's also really telling when you're seeing analysts openly getting into arguments over this debacle and blocking anyone who remotely disagrees with them. It's burtal. Yes, it's pretty clear that there's no such thing as a discussion anymore, but that's an essay for another blog for a much later date.

Because there really isn't much more exposition here, we're going to cut to the chase.

Is scoring a lot on a team a form of unsportsmanlike conduct?
No. You guys. This is the World Cup. This is the absolute highest level a woman playing this sport can take part in. While there is such a thing as goal differentials and how that plays a part in advancing to the knockout stages, let's put this aside for a moment. When you're in a heavily one-sided match like that, one of the last things you can think about doing is taking your foot off of the gas. It isn't just because of pride and integrity, but if I were the other team (in this case, Thailand), I'd be a little angry if the opposing team was playing at anything below 100% because it's like they're spoon-feeding me an opportunity to not embarrass myself. That, and it would also be unsportsmanlike if they just spent the last half hour of the game passing around to each other. There's no integrity in that.

In a situation like this, if you're up by more than, say, five goals, the rest of the game becomes a "practice." You're going to work on different strategies and formations to see how they're going to equate to different squads later on. Sure, you don't want to give a lot of that away, because that can easily show up on a tape later for the team to capitalize on, but every minute is needed to see what works and what doesn't. If they score, that's fine. They're doing their job in their practice. That leads to this next point...

Were the celebrations after the sixth goal unsportsmanlike?
If you don't count Megan Rapinoe's slide--which, yes, I'll give you that one, because that was a bit much--no! Again, people, this is the World Cup. If I scored a goal in the World Cup, I would probably get a yellow card because of the amount of celebrating I would do. Let's just say that I would have been wearing less than what Brandi Chastain did after the '99 shootout.

This is years and years and years of hard work for some of these girls that are making their first World Cup appearance. Heck, I'm pretty certain that their first experience of soccer was watching Mia Hamm and Brandi Chastain and Michelle Akers back during the 1999 Women's World Cup. I was one of those girls too! While my ship sailed many years ago, those other girls wanted that moment too. They have it. Let them be excited over it.

If the next game happens to be a blowout or even a game that shows a lack of competition, we may possibly see a change in demeanor just because the butterflies are out, and most girls who have scored a goal won't have that honeymoon phase about it.

"They can't do that in college!" That's also college soccer. Different world.
"The men aren't allowed to do that kind of stuff!" Oh boy. On that note...

This is hard for me, but at this point in the post, this is my mental process:

Please don't make this a gender issue. Please don't make this a gender issue. Please don't make this a gender issue. Please don't make this a gender issue. Please don't make this a gender issue--

I'M MAKING IT A GENDER ISSUE. FOR ONLY A MINUTE.

Not like we have a major example of this happening, but if the men did something like this, would you respond the same way?

[Yeah. Where were they last year anyway? That's right. Watching the World Cup while sitting on their couches.] 

"Oh, well, that's just the boys being boys! huehuehuehuehue--" NO. Stop right there. If the men did something like that, you would soak in every second of it because there's pride involved. It shows how great we are. Because the women are doing it, we're being overdramatic and unsportsmanlike.

"What does it matter whether a woman or a man does it? It's the same thing!" You say that now because that's never happened with the men. We as human beings enjoy a slaughter every now and again, but you rarely see women take part in that outside of something like UFC. Even then, there's this joke.

I'm done now. You can read the rest of the post.

The last time there was a blowout of this caliber, it was in the 2007 Women's World Cup where Germany beat Argentina 11-0. The highlights, albeit in German, can be watched here. While there wasn't as much in celebration compared to today, they showed absolutely no mercy throughout, and there wasn't a lot of backlash from this. In fact, Argentina, having only qualified three other times for the World Cup since 1995, has only earned a single point in World Cup play, and that was from a tie against Japan yesterday! Twelve years since that game! So now what? Are we going to be quiet now because Team USA weren't the only ones that did something like this? Be serious.

After being accused numerous times of justifying unsportsmanlike conduct during this game today, all I can really do is shrug. I don't see it as such. Were there certain sketchy acts committed during the game? Sure, but it wasn't the amount of goals scored or the first-timers that scored their very own World Cup goal. I understand where other people are coming from with this, but you also have to realize that you're allowed to disagree with somebody without turning into some version of a social justice warrior. We as a society haven't gone entirely berserk, but one thing we have become is overly critical of what is and what should be. They weren't doing anything demeaning in celebration, and to be honest, it doesn't look like the Thai women weren't taking the loss too harshly. Believe me, there are way more embarrassing things going on in this country right now, and today's game couldn't even hold a candle to it even if it was aided by 1000 tons of TNT or the process of how the Chernobyl disaster went down. But hey! We need more things to get upset about and argue about, am I right? We're just an angry, wild, and crazy country!

Best thing I can say at this point is that we're going to see some sort of change on Sunday for better or for worse. However, I can't say that everyone is still going to be a fan of what unfolds. Not everybody can be satisfied today, I suppose.


-- Stephanie

Netting Your Attention

Happy June. The weather is heating up, and so are my typing fingers. Plus, baseball has given me far too much to rip upon this season in a few short months, and for that, I'm eternally grateful. No joke.

This past Wednesday night was a frighteningly worrisome one in baseball. During the Houston Astros - Chicago Cubs game at Minute Maid Park, Cubs outfielder Alberto Almora Jr smacked a line drive foul into the third base line stands. That hot ball hit a four-year-old girl, causing a massive stir in the stands, and physically, psychologically, and emotionally affecting Almora at the plate. He finished the at-bat, but it was clear to tell that he had great difficulty going through with that. On a positive note, the young girl is doing just fine now. [1]

Psychological fallacies aside, we're seeing this all too often, aren't we?

As expected, This is bringing up the conversation yet again of working to expand the netting along all of the stadium foul lines. There has been some expansion in the last year, but it obviously hasn't been enough to guarantee the safety of the fans closer to the action. As of right now, the nets only reach to the ends of each dugout. MLB has what they call a "baseball rule,"a, "warning that they're not liable for risks fans accept by attending the game." [2]

So, basically, kids fall into that category, and they're not old enough to really be held responsible for anything. OK then. Let that sink in. The only thing they should be held responsible for is for the food they hold. That's it.

What amazes me was when there were growing concerns in the NHL about crowd safety and pucks leaving the ice, they had quickly implemented measures to require netting surrounding the backstop areas at all arenas to ensure player safety. Of course, they don't have to be around the entirety of the ice, as most of the shooting will occur around the backstop. They ruled this three months after a young girl was killed by a puck during the 2001-2002 season. [3] Three months, everybody. Three months, and something was done about it. We're talking about a sport that is much more physical and fast-paced than baseball, and as soon as there was a major incident, the correct measures were taken to make sure that nothing like that ever happens again.


You can argue that there are already a lot of nets at ballparks already, and if you're going to sit that close to the action, that you need to pay attention at all times. That's cool and everything, but when a ball or a rogue bat comes flying at you, not everybody that close has a glove, and there's no decent way to defend yourself from a hard-hit ball or a flying bat. A lot of the less-modern ballparks like Wrigley and Fenway also has their baseline stands much closer at some angles than most others. The game has changed a lot since then.

Seriously--what's it going to take? Somebody has already died from an incident like this. What MLB has done is a disgrace and is far from enough of an effort.

Baseball leagues in Japan and South Korea have already taken measures to have extensive netting around the entirety of the infield area. On that note, it hasn't affected the game at all over there. In fact, it gives the fans more of the reason to immerse themselves without any sort of worry. [To be fair, the atmospheres of games out there are literally night and day compared to baseball in the United States.]

I hate to beat a dead horse, but you're so worried about fan attendance this early in the year, and you're not focused on their safety? OK then, Mr. Manfred. Keep on looking at the revenue and gain some liability issues on your hands. Not acting upon what is becoming far too common is putting the fans at risk and putting attendance figures at risk. It doesn't matter that most ballparks are "cultural experiences" nowadays, where instead of watching the game--you know, what you're normally supposed to do at ballparks--you can go to these interactive playgrounds for kids or beer gardens for sportsball supporters. Pardon the strong statement, but when I go to a ballpark, it's because I want to watch the team. If I want to do interactives, I'll go when the ballpark first opens to kick some butt in wiffleball or something. Other than that though? Gimme a scorecard.

With the evolution of the game today, you can't take any chances. With the way the world is today, a sporting event should be fun, relaxing, and free of worry, no matter where you sit.

You can afford to shell out a few thousand dollars for extra netting, MLB. It's time to be smart.


-- Stephanie

___________________
Other articles referenced:

[1] Chicago Cubs batter breaks down after his line drive strikes 4-year-old girl - CBS News - https://www.cbsnews.com/news/girl-hit-by-foul-ball-albert-almora-chicago-cubs-batter-breaks-down-line-drive-houston-astros-game/
[2] After foul ball injures girl, does baseball need to do more? - Washington Post - https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2019/05/30/after-foul-ball-injures-girl-does-baseball-need-do-more/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.4c45b88bc666
[3] HOCKEY; N.H.L. Arenas to Add Netting To Protect the Fans From Pucks - New York Times - https://www.nytimes.com/2002/06/21/sports/hockey-nhl-arenas-to-add-netting-to-protect-the-fans-from-pucks.html

Eight is Enough - Spelling Out Competition

Is this my way of attempting to smite every troll on the Internet? It's probably an ineffective way, but sure, I'll die trying. S-M-I-T-E (9999)

In a historical night in the world of spelling, the Scripps National Spelling Bee saw not one, not two, but eight children crowned Spelling Bee Champions in Maryland. In a night filled with modesty, classic reactions, gutturals, and bee-themed wardrobe, viewers were stunned, and many preferred to watch these kids light up the stage over watching the opener to the NBA Finals. After half of the finalists were knocked out, the remaining eight continued dueling it out for the remainder of what ended up being a three hour broadcast.

Of course, our current competitive society got the best of us last night, as a lot of people cried foul over the results of the Bee. Many had called it proof of "participation trophy culture" and that "they should have kept going until there was one winner." This may also be a sign that those individuals didn't watch the Bee and thought Scripps just gave up and allowed eight kids to share the trophy. Plus, I didn't know it was acceptable to have kids burn themselves out for our pleasure. They're like, 12, and I mean that quite literally.

Once upon a time in 2001, I jumped into the local Bee scene. I took a part in Philadelphia's regional Spelling Bee while I was in the fifth grade. [Side note: There's a part of me in the deepest, darkest depths of my soul that believes that the Philly accent ruined my chances of advancing to a higher round, because tantalize should be pronounced clearer, but I swear that I'm not bitter nearly 20 years after the fact.] I also took part in an unrelated Spelling Bee in the eighth grade (2003) and won a sweet $30 GameStop gift card and a trophy because of it. I'm not an expert, but I can understand the preparations for it and how there are some that have more of a knack (1928 winning word) for studying and spelling than others.

In realization that the kids that are competing today are half my age (and babies/toddlers when the recession began), and seeing the level at which they're competing, there really is no way to stop them or to find a word that can best them. It's a science, a culture, and a religion all in itself. These are a few things that a lot of "outsiders" may not realize about the National Spelling Bee:

1) The national competition is humongous and takes over four days to contest in nearly all-day competitions. There are also a number of competitions countrywide that lead up to this as well.
If it was anything like it was for me nearly 20 years ago, you can't simply sign up for the National Bee. There are a number of regional competitions, typically hosted by major newspapers) that a speller can take part in that can sponsor you on that trip. Once you get there, you have the preliminary tests. The following two days are competitions that challenge spellers even more. On the final day, if you're one of the final spellers, you could be going on a high level for close to 10, maybe 12 hours. Although this includes breaks, there are a lot of nerves and mental work involved otherwise. Dead serious, I thought Shruthika was going to die onstage on two different occasions last night.

It's a long, long process, and I guess for most, it really is that saying of, "it's not about how you start, it's how you finish."

2) The spelling level and the means of studying words have immensly evolved since 1925.
It isn't going to be hard for you to find a list of the "winning words" of each Spelling Bee. You'll notice that the words actually start off, well, surprisingly easy. Then again, I'm a writer, so it may not prove as difficult. There are a few that can easily trip you up in the 1970's and 80's, but then there's "kamikaze" in 1993, which I have no idea what the competition looked like that year. After all of that though? The real fun begins. The culture of spelling and etymology and pronunciations has really been pushed to its limits, and when you start to realize that the ones who are really delving into this stuff haven't fully hit puberty yet, then your brain starts to melt.

3) If it's any sort of competition, it's a friendly one. Everybody knows how hard this can be.
The 2006 film Akeelah and the Bee, aside from the Asian stereotypes, shows a pretty accurate representation of what the competition is like. The kids, in all of what is left of their innocence, are simply happy to be there and to be competing at that high of a level. There may be luck involved, but there is also the awareness of the crafting of a word, and the nervousness that can creep in when you're running out of time. Being cocky isn't going to get you anywhere in this competition, and the kids know that. The parents know how much hard work went into getting there, and they're not going to sabotage their kids while digging deep into the brain grooves to figure out what suffixes to use on a word with Greek parts brought into French and then into English.

4) It is entirely possible to "run out of words" in a competition, especially when there are more than two spellers involved.
I don't think I need to get into this too much. After all, if you keep going into the well and pulling out words just because they sound hard, you're missing the mark. A lot of the words chosen are based on their structure and their roots. It's also obvious that they weren't expecting the kids to really bring it that hard this year. There have been instances where they've run out of "final round words" to the point where they have two champions, but this is the first time they've had more than that, so... Yeah.


(On a sidenote, I noticed that I really didn't see any kids that were considered homeschooled, and that was pretty shocking to me. Back in the 2000's, it was pretty common to see a speller in the top 5 that was homeschooled. I guess that practice is dying off...?)

--

I've been watching the Scripps' [Howard] National Spelling Bee seriously for the better part of 15 years. There were times in the early 2000's where there would be more than three or four spellers remaining in the later rounds. This year was completely different; it was almost as if the final eight spellers (well, nine or ten with those others letting their confidence get the best of them). If you watched any of it last night, you know that the spellers have two minutes to spell the word, and the pronouncer can no longer give you information after 90 seconds. Most of the kids took less than 45 seconds to spell the word, except in the cases in which they had to calm themselves down from excitement in actually knowing the word right off the bat. (Trust me, I lost my mind too when they used the word "seitan" in the nineteenth round, because I eat that stuff all of the time in vegan cuisine.)

It's safe to say that these kids literally broke the system last night. If you've been paying attention to how James Holzhauer is doing on Jeopardy, it's almost the same exact thing. You can see that his methods have ultimately been keeping him on top over the last two months. All of the winners last night were repeat contestants, and there were a percentage of finalists last night that had hired coaches, tutors, and reading materials that could not only expand their vocabulary, but give them a stronger understanding of roots, pre- and suffixes, etymologies, and pronunciations (like the dreaded schwa). They all had methods that helped them decipher a word, or they had it flat-out memorized from a previous practice session. That, my friends, is dedication and a different kind of intelligence right there.

We currently live a society where we have to have one winner, and a final way of determining such. In hearing about these competitions, not everybody realizes the above points. Not only that, pushing those kids any further than they did would have been borderline torture. It's like pushing a racehorse beyond its limits in the mud despite a strained leg. In my time watching these broadcasts, it was becoming clearer and clearer that no matter how tired the kids were, they knew these words or were able to figure them out without any major issue. It was at that point where I didn't really care how many co-champions there were. I was beyond impressed. That kind of work should be commended, no matter how many of them were a part of the spectacle.
(Notice how this is also a culture that doesn't fully accept soccer as a sport and doesn't understand that a 0-0 tie at full time can stand as a result. 'murica)

Oh, and with the way the broadcast was talking--which, by the way, was painful at times--there was a something something of exploits going on there from the get-go. One made a comment that you could make a "drinking game" out of a given statement, and in the beginning, they were talking about "favorites," like they were prized horses. As sad as this sounds, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if people gambled over something like this. Addictions exist, sure, but it's pretty sad when you're betting at the expense of children. Like, that's wrong and you should feel really wrong over that. A lot of the comments made were rather off-putting, not so much in the sake of staying PC, but because they are children. We're not watching a UFC event.

It isn't going to come as any shock if Scripps happens to change the format of the finals next year. We might see that as only having 10 finalists, or even 8. The time limit may even change, or we could see a reduction of how many times certain information can be given. Whatever it is, they'll likely be more than ready for the next batch of kids to come in next year.

These "elite eight," as they're being called, have set a high bar for the ones to come after. Who will be the next to vault over it?


-- Stephanie
________________________


Post-blog note: Although it may be a topic of interest for some, I have obviously decided against speaking about the race or ethnicity of seven out of the eight winners from last night, or even bring to the attention that many of them who have won over the last fifteen years have been a certain race or ethnicity. In my opinion, that does not matter. The kids are intelligent, and they worked harder than anybody else could to get there. I'm pretty sure that people are erroneously making a bigger deal out of it than they should, because that's what hate teaches.

On a more positive note, I'll direct you to this article from the LA Times, which actually shows the pride that Indian Americans have in the spelling bee circuit.

Greener Pastures? The Future of Marijuana Use in Sports

I seriously feel like Tom Hanks in You've Got Mail when he's blowing on his fingers, about ready to type. I haven't been this ready to type something juicy since I ripped Ann Coulter five years ago. Those were some good writing days. Everything else was garbage.


Disclaimer: This is likely to be the most informal post I've ever written. Then again, I haven't written a whole bunch in this blog in a few years. Oh well. We'll see how this turns out.
 

Over the weekend, Chris Long, defensive end for the [then] St. Louis Rams, New England Patriots, and more recently the Philadelphia Eagles (winning back-to-back Super Bowl rings with the last two teams he played for), announced his retirement from the NFL after 11 seasons. Yesterday, news outlets including Reuters released articles revealing that the now-retired Long had partaken in marijuana use for pain management and stress relief, and was able to pass drug tests otherwise because "players knew when it was." This is amid the NFL and NFLPA looking for new means for the pain management and alternative therapies for players on and off the field. [1]

In today's social climate, a rather high percentage of those who have heard the story are in that frame of mind where they're saying, "he was responsible, and still playing at a high level; marijuana should just be legalized by now." However, there is still a number of people stating, "kids look up to him, so what does that mean for them?" On the other hand, there is a lot to be said when the NFL and their Players' Association are taking strides to curb the standard means of pain management, and look for stronger, more effective ways to not only take care of their players, but increase their quality of life after their careers are over. In an era that is riddled with cases of post-concussion symptoms in athletes, and in a sport with a higher percentage of athletes suffering from chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE) late in life, protection and pain management is so important. While the game has changed and evolved over the last 40 years, it may be high time (no pun intended) for medical care to evolve the same way.

However, you have others that want other means instead of something that is still seen by a number of people as "bad." This is where that mental blockage happens.

--

Before I deviate into my own thoughts and commentary, checking out Chris Long's Twitter would be a great thing to do in order to hear his ongoing thoughts on the matter. Something tells me people are going to be attempting to rail him for a while, all while he digitally sacks them.

--

I don't know... What's worse, him "being hooked on marijuana," (which, by the way, nobody's ever overdosed on that), or him taking pain meds and/or taking up drinking. With the overall stress levels and physical demands of the game--especially as a defensive end--doing the latter could result in the  possibility of getting addicted to them long after the game is over. Of course, people are also pointing fingers that his father is Hall Of Famer Howie Long and they're not going to touch him. It's kind of a weak and bogus argument, when you think about it.

Remember prohibition? While alcohol was banned at the time, people still found way to retrieve it and consume/abuse it. The same applies to cannabis; if the benefits have been seen, there won't be any stopping it unless you sanction heavy criminal charges on it.

On that same token, opioids are legal, and because of their accessibility, it's easy to purchase, consume, and overdose it.

It's no secret that the opioid crisis is at an all-time high in the United States, and we're facing a number of casualties from those who not only dealt with physical pain, but mental and emotional pain as well. In an example not related to sports, Austin Eubanks, a survivor of the shooting at Columbine High School 20 years ago, was found dead earlier this week at his home. According to a statement from his family, it may have been due to his known struggles with opioid addiction. After the incident, he opened up about his addiction and later became a public speaker, helping those fight the very issue that he had firsthand experience with. Long after the physical issues had ceased, opioids were used to take the emotional edge off of the struggles of moving forward and existing. It simply became a way to function. [2]

If Chris Long was this open about this after his retirement, and he played at the level he did, he was obviously responsible, and still had a stellar career not only on the field, but off the field. During the 2017-2018 NFL season, he made headlines by donating that season's salary to a different charity each week. He was also the recipient of the Walter Payton Man of the Year Award this past season for his charity work  not only in the city of Philadelphia, but countrywide.

There is still a massive stigma against the use of a substance that was still considered to be taboo up to the turn of the century. Although medical marijuana is becoming more widely accepted, as those versions do not contain THC (the element that creates the "high"), the "street" versions are still seen as a gateway drug, leading to other irresponsibility and mischief. People are more likely to think of Reefer Madness or believe that comedies like the Cheech & Chong films are true-to-life. If all films are actual representations of a product, then Thanos' snap in Avengers: Infinity War should have knocked out half of humanity by now, and even if that half was brought back, those people have probably missed five years of brain cells in the process, which is kind of where the idea of marijuana legalization got lost for most in the logic department.

Marijuana's societal image is in a similar track to how gay marriage and racial inequality are ongoing hot issues. As a kid, you're not going to judge anything unless you see your parents or older family members make a comment about it, because then, it's that mentality that they know best, and disagreeing with them at a young age is a recipe for destruction. When the adults and parents are crying foul over it and completely shutting down the thoughts of benefit, then the "superiors" influence will trickle down to the kids, and the taboo returns. It makes me think of a scene in the film 42 when the father and son attend a ballgame, and when the son sees his father referring to Jackie Robinson as a particular name, the kid thinks it's completely OK to do that because his father is acting that way, so he follows suit. It's painful to watch, but that all happened, and it probably still is...because this is America.

Athletes using marijuana to handle pain and stress is the LEAST of the worries of sports leagues. Back in times' past, there were athletes that not only abused pain medication, but abused alcohol--which, by the way, that's all legal--and the long-term effects of those two substances mentioned are much more damaging than cannabis. (See: A painfully high percentage of professional wrestlers before drug monitoring But hey, opioids are still bringing in revenue to pharmaceutical companies, and cannabis could take that away because it can't be controlled, even if it were taxed.

This is getting ugly now, so this is where I exercise my restraint, because it's all fun and games until somebody reads something, and as soon as they see something they don't agree with--snowflake!

Although many of us are completely aware of the benefits of cannabis, and the benefits of its other forms such as CBD oil and edibles, the "devil's lettuce" is still banned in a lot of regions, and possession could be considered a high criminal offense. One of those regions is Japan. Banned since 1948, you face the possibility of time in prison, regardless of how much is in your possession. The culture and lifestyle difference is a major factor, and their stance probably isn't going to change anytime soon. But then again, they also don't have American football, and they're not undergoing the physical demands that our athletes have to meet year in and year out. Valid logic, I'd say.

We're still trapped in a society where our priorities are still a bit messy. Our health system is still in shambles, and our means of handling addiction--rehabilitation and the subsequent outpatient care--is still seen as something that are only for the worst of cases, not for those who have a growing issue but haven't outright admitted that there's a problem. There are other options, and when done responsibly, you know, the way everything in this life should be done, we're going to see really positive results. Not everybody is going to get that memo, and that's totally normal. Think of it this way: food and exercise are good, but sometimes people can get too much or too little of those, and that can be detrimental to your health if you're not responsible or have an ongoing illness.

The one worry that is possibly going to come from this is whether there are going to be more random drug tests to make sure that players are "keeping clean" from marijuana use after Long had admitted to knowing how to avoid a failed test. However, I don't think it's going to affect anything. Marijuana is not a performance-enhancing drug. It may be a substance that can enhance the body's ability to handle pain and stress, but it doesn't affect overall muscle build/performance, and it doesn't contain the same type of chemical compounds as something like adderall.

Do I feel as though we're making a big deal out of nothing? Yes. We have so much more access to knowledge and case studies, and there's no excuse to ignore how athletes have to adjust to the rigorous careers they have chosen. Let's just be grateful Chris Long is doing as well as he is. The last thing we'd want to see would be more football players becoming casualties because we can't help them out now.


-- Stephanie

___________________
Other articles referenced:

[1] Long admits marijuana use, points to flaws in NFL testing - Reuters - https://www.reuters.com/article/us-football-nfl-long-marijuana-idUSKCN1SS2Y0?utm_campaign=trueAnthem:+Trending+Content&utm_content=5ce5e75272c13d0001ebca69&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=twitter
[2] Columbine survivor and public speaker Austin Eubanks, 37, loses his battle with addiction - CNN.com -

https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/18/us/columbine-survivor-found-dead/index.htm

AmoebaLL: The Business of American Football

It was only a matter of time before we saw something like this. There are times in which I'm glad that I'm still a writer and that I still have this blog. This is one of those times. [hugs laptop]

According to a number of sources, as of this Tuesday, the Alliance of American Football, after only about eight weeks of play, has suspended their operations indefinitely.

Although starting out strong, and really grabbing the attention of current NFL fans and political patriots that are "boycotting" the league, finances and issues involving structure and investment have weighed down the league so quickling to the point of essentially hanging itself. Not only this, there were meant to be two more weeks of games, and then playoffs leading to a championship on April 27. However, with this suspension, this will not come to pass.

In fact, there are already reports filing in as early as a few hours ago that employees are being told that today is their last day in working with AAF. Basically, they're telling them in a nice way that the league is folding, and to take their ball and go home.[1] It's a pretty awful thing to witness, considering that they had a lot of promising talent in the league, and games were even being broadcast on NFL Network, almost in a sign of solidarity of the owner's efforts.

The AAF and NFL already had some striking differences in regard to rules. I liken it to NFL Blitz versus the current Madden games being churned out every year. For example, there are no extra point kicks after a touchdown; instead, every team must go for a two-point conversion after each touchdown. Not only that, player safety was judged by what was called a "sky judge," so based on all of the commotion with what a "roughing the passer" call was in the NFL this year, this was beyond refreshing to see.[2] For example, watch this. Now you know why heads turned toward the league.

Despite the fact that the gameplay was excellent, and the fact that there were people that actually did watch the games, it was accessibility, and of course, the root of all evil, money.

No matter how far along in a league you are, or how shrewd of a businessman you are, it has everything to do with how much money you have, where you got it from, and where it's ultimately going. Plus, it's always a smart thing to actually have full commitment from your owners and operators. In this case with the AAF, the right hand literally did not know what the left hand was doing. According to the Dallas News, Tom Dundon, a local billionaire to them, had recently become chairman and majority owner after pledging that he was going to be putting $250 million of his own money into the league. On one hand, he delivered $70 million of that upfront, but on the other hand, the rest of it was going to come in periodic payments to keep the league alive.[3]

Then it just wasn't happening.

Dundon obviously had the ability to pull funding, and boom goes the dynamite.

Supposedly, there were talks going on between the owners of AAF (well, mainly Dundon) and the NFLPA to make AAF a "launch pad," or in other words, a "minor league" that'll boost AAF players into earning a future deal with the NFL. In the reports that followed, Dundon had stated he considered "folding the league" if those plans did not come to fruition.[4] Pretty gutsy, but I'm sure that it wasn't just the whole idea of AAF being a "launch point," but that the business by itself wasn't ideal for him, and attaching to an even bigger business deal by the juggernaut that is the NFL where he would be more "hands off" would be more beneficial to a bigger-picture guy like Dundon. Think about it--in the business world, it's all about who you know, and it's all about how the bigger suits can help you in your own advancement. Do I think that Dundon was in it all for himself? Sure sounds like it. It's virtually being reported everywhere that Bill Polian, who was co-founder of the AAF and was head of football operations that he's "disappointed" with the announced suspension of the league, and in a decent way, admitted that he and Charlie Ebersol trusted Dundon with towing his end of the line, and it didn't happen. It doesn't particularly sound like blame, but it might as well be.

There's cutthroat business, but then there is also business where the pond is too small, and one fish got really big and fat to the point where nothing else fits into it. In that ideology, I can see where there are investors that think, "why bother," especially if they're investing into a junior version of a complete sports conglomerate that has been such a revenue machine in the last fifty years, despite hiccups here and there.

Is this a sign that the NFL is too big to really have competition going against it?

No. In fact, it has nothing to do with that.

The problem is, there shouldn't be competition for a sport that is considered a "Big 4 Sport." I understand the whole "let's make a minor league for it," but with how physically demanding American football is, it isn't the best decision at all for players to be competing for an NFL contract year-round. Now, if they did it like a promotion-relegation system like a number of European soccer leagues, which is what I had assumed the endgame was for the AAF, then it would be really effective. The schedule would vary slightly--they'd play on Friday or Saturday nights instead--and instead of having playoffs, they would fight for the top positions in the equivalents to the AFC and NFC. Lowest record teams in the NFL would be AAF teams the next season, and top qualifying AAF teams would challenge for the NFL.

Unfortunately, as awesome as that would sound, that would be reinventing the wheel in a business sense, because then you're not only adding more teams and more payroll to what's already a massive, multi-billion dollar business, you're also taking the reins of new investors and media markets, among other things. Imagine all of the TV space, advertising, and branding mayhem with the addition of another branch to the NFL. You would think that it would be too big to fail, but if the Titanic sunk on a tiny iceberg, even the smallest slip-up is going to send Roger Goodell to an early grave.

The saddest part of this whole thing is wondering what will become of the players that have established themselves in the league, and whether they're going to be heading anywhere else. Earning NFL tryouts in training camps are an option since the NFL draft is coming up soon, and training camps are going to start in June. Going to Canada sounds really good, too. However, this is most likely the opening that somebody like Vince McMahon is going to rip apart and drive his XFL wagon into. The XFL is officially returning next year, and considering that this isn't their first time at the rodeo, they're not willing to fail again, and they also have a heck of a lot more money, stock, and investment than ever before. WWE has become more of a global brand since the first XFL incarnation in 2001, so who knows how much momentum is going to be coming behind this returning branch out of the business? Thankfully, they aren't going to be making it a "sports entertainment" kind of deal, provided with characters and "He Hate Me" on a jersey like they did the first time.

In the case of the XFL, I have this slight feeling that they're going to try and be a direct competition to the NFL in a number of ways, not only in rules, but in business politics and investments. If they're smart, they're going to set themselves apart from mainstream football and go in a similar vein to the Arena Football League.

Yeah, they still exist. Strange, right? Starting this year, there will be six teams, as opposed to the four (!) that they've had in recent years. Baby steps, I guess, considering that they once had as many as 19 teams a little over ten years ago.
[How small is their league and budgets, exactly? There was a really awful rumor that when the Philadelphia Soul won ArenaBowl XXX, their championship parade was going to end in the parking lot of the IKEA in South Philly, where they'd have their rallies and speeches. Thankfully, this did not happen.]

However, the reason why something like the Arena Football League still exists is because of how it varies from it's big-time counterpart. The rules and the atmosphere are different. If you replicate something with intent to knock it down and be the big man on campus, you have to re-think your business practices. It has utmost content with being the alternative, and they are mindful of their target audiences and their media markets. That's smart, regardless of the fact that the league was virtually dying within this decade.

Hindsight is 20/20. Both Polian and Ebersol are likely to be learning from their mistakes already, but the sad part is, a lot of money has been lost, and a lot of players and personnel are now wondering, "what's next?"

I wish I had the answer to that question.

-- Stephanie

___________________
Other articles referenced:

[1] AAF 2019: Shutdown nears, with many employees being told Wednesday would be their last day - CBS Sports - https://www.cbssports.com/aaf/news/aaf-2019-shutdown-nears-with-many-employees-being-told-wednesday-would-be-their-last-day/
[2] AAF Rules: What Is the Difference in NFL vs. the Alliance of American Football? - heavy. - https://heavy.com/sports/2019/02/aaf-rules-nfl-difference-explained/
[3] Alliance of American Football shuts down weeks after Dallas billionaire Tom Dundon committed $250 million - Dallas News - https://www.dallasnews.com/business/business/2019/04/02/alliance-american-football-shuts-weeks-after-dallas-billionaire-tom-dundons-250-million-investment
[4] The AAF Can Be 'Invaluable Launching Pad' To NFL, But Needs NFLPA Backing To Survive - Forbes - https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffarnold/2019/04/01/the-aaf-can-be-invaluable-launching-pad-to-nfl-but-needs-nflpa-backing-to-survive/#6ff058ab13c3 

Mascots: Charm, Sorcery, and Furry Giants

This has been a draft for six years. SIX. YEARS. I guess now's just as good a time as any to fill out what I originally had, yeah?

To get started here, I'm going to throw down a statistic here that will aid in my explanation. Outside of sports, there is a huge fact about branding:

"Children ages 2-11 see more than 25,000 advertisements a year on TV alone ... a figure that does not include product placement. They are also targeted with advertising on the Internet, cell phones, mp3 players, video games, school buses, and in school." [1]

This statistic ultimately skyrockets as you age and expose yourself to more advertisements and branding. You think I'm deviating from the actual topic at hand, but I'm not. As a child, you're going to be exposed to a bunch of different things, and the more colorful and cartoonish they appear, the more appealing they'll be to kids, or the more they will induce nightmares. Even so, it makes them memorable.

The main idea you have to think of is this: when children are younger, and their parents or family members take them to games, aside from big-name players, who are they going to remember the most?

The mascots. The big furry buddies that show up during the games and pump up the fans.

What exactly is a mascot? Well, etymology can clear that up for us. The word comes from the French mascotte, ultimately meaning "charm" (the derivative term, mascoto, means witch, but anyway...). In the very early days of baseball in the 1880's, different "charms," or mascots, took the form of children or real-life animals. No, now is not the time to assume the "Curse of the Billy Goat" originated from this kind of mascot, as that's a completely different story.

By the MLB expansion in the 1960's, mascots became more plentiful, as Mr. Met made an appearance, the San Diego Chicken began his legacy, and the Phillie Phanatic hatched his way into the hearts of fans and haters alike. [2]

Professional team mascots are huge instruments in an organization's humanitarian work and their public relations outside of sporting events. They're animated due to their inability to speak, and their warm and fuzzy exterior is usually enough to bring a lighthearted feel to the room they walk into. They may not be actual superheroes, but they're larger-than-life figures that breathe, eat, and sleep energy. Actions speak louder than words, after all. While their purpose is not to convert people to be fans of a particular sport, they're there for physical support as well as giving brand awareness to those to support other causes in their area.

There aren't just mascots at the professional level, but they also exist in high school and college environments. A number of them do crazy stunts during breaks, and they also make appearances at school functions to promote their branding and appeal to other audiences. It usually isn't at the same level as professional mascots, but they're still there for similar reasons.

I was a mascot once for a parade, and it was fun. Like, really, really fun. The kids LOVED me.

This was back in 2008. I missed the NLDS clincher between the Phillies and Brewers that day.

When you think about it, it takes a lot for a mascot of one team to actually be memorable with another city or other leagues. Unless there aren't a number of videos of their antics online or in the news, you're not going to hear much outside of what your local mascots do.

Then Gritty happened.

Photo from Twitter @GrittyNHL - Photo URL: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dn3mx-bXUAInf87.jpg

I remember that morning in late September, when I had another iPhone placed in front of my face to show me the Philadelphia Flyers' new mascot. In a terrified way, I yelled. But because of the initial reception of the big, orange furball, as well as the handling of his social media account, he became hosuehold name not only in the Philly area, but all over the flipping country. From wanting to be the "Person of the Year" for Time Magazine, to getting called out by Bailey the LA Kings Bear, he has the look and the attitude where people are going to remember him.

This is what makes mascots great, especially in the current days of social media. Not only are they still "good luck charms," but they're also a kind of "spokesperson" for the team. They are the prime representatives of a brand. They're also representative of the fans. They show how much heart the fans have, as well as the types of people they represent. There's lightheartedness, there's storytelling, such as how Teddy Roosevelt struggled to win a President's Race at RFK/Nationals Park for a number of years, and there's even competition among rival mascots as well.

Mascots are the extended arm for the team and their fans.
Except if you're Tommy Lasorda. Then they're just nuisances.

The presence of a mascot can greatly enhance the entertainment factor of a game. It doesn't always take much for them to fire up fans with their quirks, and when they get going, it's usually at the best time possible. One thing's for sure, I'm glad that they did away with the olden times of using uniformed kids and real animals to get the crowd into it. Reading about it now, it made sense at that time, but the idea definitely didn't age well, and it would be rather creepy if that held up today.

You'd best believe that when the team energy and the fan momentum falters, the mascots will be there to save you and your sanity.

-- Stephanie

___________________
Other articles referenced:

[1] Marketing to Children Overview - Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood - https://commercialfreechildhood.org/resource/marketing-children-overview
[2] Who - Or What - Was the First Sports Mascot and How Did the Practice Start? - Today I Found Out - http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2016/09/first-sports-mascot/