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?

All-Time Great Scouting Reports

On Eddie House: "Won't shoot it unless he has it in his hands." (Page 74)

On Jerry West: "Okay guys, West can only go right. But don’t concern yourself with that because you can’t stop him anyway. He’s been going right for twenty years." (Page 197.)

From Seven Seconds or Less, by Jack McCallum.

Mid-Major, Go Home?

The following is co-posted on TNR's March Madness blog, Posting Up:

CBS needs to make up its mind about how it feels about mid-major schools in the NCAA Tournament. CBS paid $6 billion in 1999 to extend its then-current contract with the NCAA to broadcast the tournament for 11 more years, or until 2014.

A year ago, controversy erupted during the Selection Show when CBS color commentator Billy Packer challenged then-Selection Committee chair Craig Littlepage over the inclusion of so many mid-majors, including the Colonial Athletic Association's George Mason University. Packer, who played and coached for Wake Forest of the ACC, cited the poor record of the CAA and the Missouri Valley Conference in the preceding years, in contrast to power teams like Cincinnati and Florida State, that were omitted from the 2006 event. (Packer had previously raised the ire of mid-major fans with his criticism of St. Joseph's #1 seed in 2004.)

Littlepage responded after the show by citing Packer's own admission that he had seen few of the mid-major teams actually play that year, and was relying on past performance. Littlepage remarked, "Facts, instead of opinions, would be helpful." Packer, of course, ended up calling the Final Four games that included George Mason, the lowest-seeded team to make it in twenty years.

This year, CBS turned to facts. About halfway through the Selection Show last night, the following graphic flashed:

Number of Mid-Major At-Large Bids Awarded:

2003 10
2004 12
2005 9
2006 8
2007 6

As CBS commentator Seth Davis noted, the trendline since 2004 is down. More interestingly, Davis commented that the trend was bad for the Tournament, and bad for college basketball, because the Mid-Majors give the tournament its "charm."

There was a theory a year ago that the NCAA, having acquired the rights to the NIT in late 2005, would be tempted to send a power team, with its well-established fan base, to the lesser tournament and keep a few extra mid-majors in the NCAA mix. Despite the protestations of Packer--and to the chagrin of Davis--it appears that the rich keep getting richer in the NCAA tournament.

Or maybe the execs at CBS just believe that "any publicity is good publicity."

NFL's No. 1?

Discussion about the NFL draft centers around which quarterback will go first - LSU's JaMarcus Russell or Notre Dame's Brady Quinn. Quinn appears to be the more-finished product, although Russell has more "upside potential." SI's Peter King writes in the magazine this week:

The top of this draft looks a lot like 1998's. That year Washington State's Ryan Leaf was the big, strong guy with a great deep arm; Tennessee's Peyton Manning was the heady passer who hadn't won the big game in college. Manning went No. 1 to the Indianapolis Colts, Leaf No. 2 to the San Diego Chargers. Nine years later Manning sits atop the football world, and Leaf is a college golf coach in West Texas. "The repercussions of this pick will last for years," said Browns general manager Phil Savage. "You're picking a flavor, basically. Brady's probably the safer pick. He's been so well-schooled in every aspect of quarterback play, and we've had three or four years to evaluate him because he's played so much college football. And people in this league respect [Notre Dame] coach Charlie Weis. They'll listen to him about Brady. Maybe there's more upside with JaMarcus because he's so physically gifted. It's a tough call."

But a better analogy might be the 1993 draft, where the Patriots used the first pick to pick the bigger, stronger, Drew Bledsoe, and the Seahawks chose Notre Dame's Rick Mirer at #2.

While Bledsoe went to one Super Bowl by himself, and helped the Patriots get to Supe XXXVI, it's fair to say that he will ultimately be seen as a disappointment. Mirer, in contrast, lasted just 3+ years as a starter, and was a bust.

Bend It Like Beckham

The NASL/Cosmos documentary this summer ("Once in a Lifetime") was like a trip down memory lane for 'sports-fans-of-a-certain-age.' Now, with the imminent arrival of David Beckham on US shores next year, perhaps our children will be exposed to the celebritization of the "beautiful game."

While the World Cup last summer showed that Becks has lost a step (or two), he still remains one of the most recognized athletes in the world. And he will put soccer (er, football) back on the map in the US for a while.

When does the Galaxy come to Foxboro?

A.I. vs. Philly

Earlier this week the Philadelphia 76ers played their first game against Allen Iverson and his new team, the Denver Nuggets. Although A.I. wasn't awful (30 points on 10-24 shooting, 9 assists and 5 rebounds in 44 minutes), his evening came to a halt with 1:44 when he was ejected. The Nuggets also lost, 108-97.

Before the game, at the morning shootaround, A.I. was critical of the way that his tenure in Philly ended. "When you're losing basketball games, 12 of 14, 18 of 20 basketball games, you should listen to somebody because something obviously isn't working," he said.

Denver had already played its only regular season game in Philly prior to the trade (back in November).

Knicks/Nuggets Brawl

The NBA suffered a black eye over the weekend, with the ugly Knicks/Nuggets brawl. Suspensions are expected today. Knicks Coach Isiah Thomas was involved in the atmosphere that led to the brawl, and even warned Carmelo Anthony and Marcus Camby that they 'shouldn't have been in the game' at the late stages of the blowout. The NBA's treatment of Thomas and the others will indicate how seriously the league takes fighting in the post-Pacers/Pistons era.

The Knicks have struggled through several difficult seasons and with their current roster and salary cap limitations, there appears to be little light at the end of the tunnel. Isiah, the man who as GM put the team together, and is now also coaching, has been criticized on all fronts. His frustrations may have boiled over on Saturday, and he did not apologize yesterday (unlike Denver's Carmelo Anthony.)

The prediction: Thomas gets a suspension as long as any player who threw a punch. Best guess: 8 games.

The NBA's New Coke

This morning brings the somewhat unsurprising news that the NBA has decided, effective January 1st, to return to its traditional leather ball, ending a three month experiment that was thoroughly criticized by NBA players.

Interestingly, if the goal of the new ball was to increase scoring, it seems to be working. Scoring is up about 4.1 points per game so far this year, based on numbers availale on the NBA (2006-07, 97.99 ppg so far this year) and ESPN (2005-06, 93.83 ppg) sites. While the current seasons' stats are only partial, anecdotal evidence also supports the arugment that the new ball is easier to shoot (or at least it goes in more often).

On a personal level, having played with the new ball a couple of times, I can confirm a definite difference in the "feel." The new ball seemed a little deader, and the channels seemed to be both narrower and shallower than on the traditional NBA leather ball. That being said, the old NBA ball, with the deeper grooves, always required an adjustment from the college or other leather balls we used.

So say 'Goodbye' to the microfiber NBA ball. It seems destined for a place in the sports trivia hall-of-fame, next to Charlie O. Finley's orange baseballs.