Sports = Entertainment

From the dawn of history, professional sports was always co-existed with the "entertainment world."

Babe Ruth was either traded so that Harry Frazee could -- or could not -- finance "No, No Nanette." The Celtics usually have a long West Coast road trip in mid-February, so that travelling shows (currently "Disney on Ice") can use the Garden.

But it has only been in the past few decades that sports has morphed into entertainment. Red Auerbach, who was a link to the original NBA of the 1940s, refused to allow danceteams or other "modern" entertainment at the Garden. In 2004, he said: "They're just waiting for me to die so they can get cheerleaders."

(The Celtic Dancers are in their third year, beginning the first season after Red's passing.)

But the point of this post is not to complain about the post-modern "Fan Experience."

Rather, when Big-Time Sports began competing directly for the American consumer's entertainment dollar, a Rubicon was crossed.

Sports heroes have become treated like celebrities, been paid like celebrities, and begun living their lives like celebrities. Salaries followed.

But there's a difference between sports and pure entertainment: we don't care what entertainers have to do to stay at the top.

If Madonna needs a little help to stave off the next generation of teeny-boppers, no one cares. Sure, it's fuel for the tabloids and gossip pages, but no one cares. Her music either sells or it doesn't; in fact, we don't even care what 'post-production' needs to be done on the album to improve her voice.

And it's not just music -- body doubles abound in Hollywood: Julia Roberts got help from a body double in Pretty Woman. Halle Berry has received "double" help from Barbara Alexandre. And of course stunt men -- while being replaced by CGI in recent years -- have been around since the days of Eisenstein.

There's no pretext in show biz -- the entertainment is entertaining. If it's not, we won't watch, and don't care. And if the Big Star needs a little help -- from a surgeon, or a strength coach, or a teleprompter, or even a little pick-me-up in the morning, we don't see it, and we don't care.

But sports is -- or was -- different.

The competitive aspect of sports is what made it compelling. Could one athlete outtrain, outwork, or outlast their opponent?

We measure athletic achievements, both to separate them from one another, but also to show the separation from mere mortals.

The compelling images from our childhood are of superhuman achievement: Dr. J dunking from the foul line. Kirk Gibson limping to the plate, then fist-pumping around the bases. Michael Jordan ripping the heart out of the City of Cleveland.

What does it mean for our children's memories?

Jerry Seinfeld once famously summarized modern sports as follows: "You are standing and cheering and yelling for your clothes to beat the clothes from another city. Fans will be so in love with a player, but if he goes to another team, they boo him. This is the same human being in a different shirt! They hate him now! Boo! Different shirt!! Boo!"

When will we reach the point that we now root for our chemists to whip up better concoctions than the other team's chemists?

And will we pay $100 a ticket to see it?

It's Time for the Feats of Strength

As we await results from Ohio and Texas, the mood among the "Gang of 500" is that the Clinton Machine has found its footing. She has held an "Airing of the Grievances" against the press, and now it's time for her to win the feats of strengths (a.k.a. the Texas Primary (not the Texas Caucus) and Ohio Primary.)

If Clinton can win both states, preferably impressively, the new MSM line has it, she can turn this race around and restore order in the universe.

The reality is that Hillary will wake up tomorrow either (i) facing calls for her to get out of the race (in the worse case, if the polls turn against her), or (ii) facing a virtually insurmountable deficit of 125-150 pledged delegates. Assuming that ratio holds, Hillary will end the primary contests with about 1,552 pledged delegates to Obama's 1,702.(*)

Her only realistic chance to the nomination is to swing close to 500 of the 795 super delegates (or 59.4%) to her side.

How can she do it? Not by competing in every state.

Like in 1960, the remainder of this primary battle (if it goes past tonight) will be fought on 'battleground' states where the Clintons will perform, as the saying goes, additional 'Feats of Strength.'

(In the 1960 primaries, Kennedy was not challenged in every state, but rather a select few, like Wisconsin and West Virginia. By winning those specific battles, JFK was able to convince the other appointed (i.e., super) delegates that he would be the strongest national candidate. In the years since 1960, the Democratic nomination has approached a marathon of states, culminating in 1992 when Bill Clinton bled Paul Tsongas dry over the spring primaries. In 2000 and 2004, the party effectively short-circuited the lengthy primary process by declaring the winner of the Iowa Caucus and New Hampshire Primary, effectively, the nominee.)

The balance of this calendar this month is Wyoming (caucuses on March 8th) and Mississippi (primary on March 11th), with nothing thereafter until April 22nd (Pennsylvania).

With such a sparse calendar, and with Obama having historical advantages in caucuses and primaries in the South, Hillary will likely 'shut down' if she survives tonight, picking Pennsylvania as her next battleground.

Happy Festivus.

(*)- Delegate estimates calculated as follows:
(1) 4,049 total delegates minus 795 superdelegates = 3,254 pledged delegates.
(2) Splitting the balance of the 3,254 pledged delegates (based on proportional apportionment) such that Obama maintains his 150 delegate lead would result in 1702 pledged delegates for Obama, and 1,552 pledged delegates for Hillary.
(3) In order to get to 2,025, Hillary would need 473 of the 795 supers, or 59.4%.