John Gardy has a suggestion:
. . . the NFL should assume responsibility for the administration, conduct and costs related to the development of football players.
It is notable that the United States is the only country in the world in which the responsibility for developing elite athletes and teams rests with the educational system.
From my perspective of total disgust with big-time football, I am confident of one thing. The NFL cannot be more corrupt than the NCAA, so it looks to me like a wash.
Follow the link for his reasoning.
Colbert I. King doesn’t get the fascination with “clean cut”:
Take New England Patriots football player Tom Brady. He’s tied with a chain to those two little words. Encyclopedia.com refers to Brady as a “dimpled, clean-cut quarterback.” Seattle Times writer Larry Stone snarks of Brady: “too handsome, too clean-cut, too aw-shucks.” Sky News mentions the “clean-cut brand of America’s sporting idol ‘Tom Terrific.’ “
Oh, I get why a guy with a clean-shaven face might be called clean-cut. And surely short hair, neatly combed, might fit that description.
What I don’t understand is why it should be assumed that because someone has a neat appearance, is well-groomed and has fresh breath, he is somehow beyond breaking the rules or getting into trouble.
That phrase, “clean cut,” also cropped up in this little item several years ago.
Der Spiegel interviews Patrick Venzke, a German who played in the NFL before returning to Europe to play in the European league. Here’s a bit, in which he responds to questions about Chris Borland, who retired from the NFL after two seasons because of concerns over long-term damage to his health from playing.
Venzke: It’s such a courageous decision. He’ll be mocked because NFL players don’t usually talk about their problems. They sweep them under the carpet.
You play for the glory, the fame, the status. But if you win the Super Bowl and get inaugurated into the Hall of Fame only to forget you were a footballer by the time you’re 60 because you have Alzheimer’s, it’s just not worth it. Players still put up with broken bones, but not with a destroyed brain.
In reference to “Deflategate,” the father of Boston Patriots quarterback Tom Brady says he has no doubts about his son’s integrity.
Neither do I.
In the Sacramento Bee, Andy Furillo argues that UC-Davis needs to forego its “inviolate principles” of athletic competition, at least as regards to Big-Time Football. As near as I can make out his argument, it’s this:
But an alloyed hope: As the NCAA basketball circus draws to an end and big league baseball starts up, my local rag yesterday chose to remind everyone of football uber alles by covering the top half of the front page of the sports section, extending all the way to the fold, with a picture of a local college football player.
Twits who prove that men are pigs.
Kudos to Curt Schilling for ensuring that these snivelling twits got a comeuppance.
It’s about time.
Major League Baseball on Friday announced significant rules changes intended to speed up the pace of the game, moves that will revamp the instant-replay process and address the steady increase in average game time.
The changes, announced jointly by MLB and the Major League Baseball Players Association, will require hitters to keep one foot in the batter’s box, create a time limit for breaks between innings and streamline the process of challenging a call on the field. MLB, the MLBPA and the World Umpires Association have agreed on the changes, which will begin in spring training, and they will evaluate the results after the season.
My brother has long thought that the “one foot in the box” rule would be the easiest way to speed up the game in the Bigs; he tells me the rule is common in the Minors. He will be surprised, though, to see that a limit is being placed on
commercial breaks time between innings.