NBA: Phil Jackson

History

Phil Jackson is an 11 time NBA champion coach and 2 time NBA champion player. He has been associated with the Chicago Bulls, LA Lakers, New Jersey Nets and New York Knicks. He has become the modern day "Zen Master" and patriarch of the triangle. Last spring he was signed as the GM and President of operations for the New York Knicks.

The Problem

The Knicks finished 17-65 and last in the NBA. Their team is Melo and a bunch of D leaguers. No one is willing to play for them or watch them. To top this off Melo finished the with a season ending knee surgery. He is under contract for the next 3 years. 

The Solution

Start by firing Phil Jackson. He should of coached this season and Fisher should have been associate coach but instead Phil through Fisher right into the line of fire without setting up a culture beforehand. He has made all the wrong roster moves and has botched the team budget. The Knicks need to let him go and pick a new path to rebuild on. 

They need to find a new star to build around. Melo is a one dimensional score only player. He does not lead a team or facilitate an offense. He's not the guy you give over 100 million too. 

NBA Trade Deadline

With the NBA trade deadline officially over, this year will go down as one of the more interesting and exciting deadlines in recent memory.  The biggest news coming out of the NBA today is the trade between the Miami Heat and Phoenix Suns that sent veteran guard Goran Dragic and his brother Zoran to the Miami Heat for for 2 first round draft picks. Phoenix also gets swingman Danny Granger and the New Orleans Pelicans acquired point guard Norris Cole, forward Shawn Williams and center Justin Hamilton.  Although Dragic is a free agent at the end of this season, he immediately makes the Miami Heat a contender in a weak Eastern Conference.  Needless to say I hope we can see a Cleveland, Miami match up in the playoffs this year. 

 Next, we stay in Phoenix as the Suns also traded point guard Isiah Thomas to the Boston Celtics.  Boston gets Thomas for Marcus Thornton and a first round pick in 2016 from Cleveland.  The Celtics also sent NBA veteran Tayshaun Prince back to Detroit.  Prince spent the best years of his career in Detroit and won an NBA Title in 2005.  The Pistons weren’t done dealing there, the Oklahoma City Thunder sent Reggie Jackson to the Pistons in a three team deal that would see the Thunder acquiring Utah center Enes Kanter, forward Steve Novak as well as Kyle Singler and D.J. Augustin. Kevin Durant and D.J. Augustin were teammates in 2007 and it will be interesting to see how they play together again a few years older. In return the Utah Jazz acquire center Kendrick Perkins who is rumored to be bought out and then pursued by the Cleveland Cavaliers and Los Angeles Clippers. 

 In what might be the most surprising news of the day the Philadelphia 76ers completed a three team trade with the Milwaukee Bucks and Phoenix Suns that sends former rookie of the year Michael Carter-Williams, Miles Plumlee and Tyler Ennis to the Milwaukee Bucks.  The Suns get Brandon Marshall and Kendall Knight whereas the 76ers, who seemed to give up a lot in MCW only get a draft pick in return.

 In the Western Conference, the Portland Trail Blazers acquired hardened shooting guard Aaron Afflalo and Alonzo Gee from the Denver Nuggets in a five player trade.  Denver recieved Thomas Robinson, Will Barton and Victor Claver as well as a first round draft pick in 2016.  Finally, in our feel good story of the day, veteran power forward Kevin Garnett will return to his roots in Minnesota.  Garnett, who jumped to the NBA right out of high school and spent his first 12 seasons with the Timberwolves dropped his no trade clause with the Brooklyn Nets and will likely finish his career in the city where it all began.  The Brooklyn Nets add Thaddeus Young to a roster that has been plagued by injuries and lack of team chemistry.  What marked one of the busiest days in NBA history saw more than 30 players change teams with moves that made sense and some that don’t (I’m looking at you Philidelphia).  Check back soon for an update on the NBA and how things seem to be shaping up for the playoffs.

-Derick Riggs

Pete Rose in the HOF?

"Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played."

These are the considerations made upon inducting a baseball Hall of Famer, and have deserved a little more scrutiny after recent talks about a re-induction of Pete Rose. After all, Pete Rose's stats are good. Very good, and this has become a question of Ethtics vs. Forgiveness. The romantic in my heart has an ear for hearing the underdog's side, but my conclusion stands that Pete Rose has no place in the Hall of Fame.

Shortly after the recent Hall of Fame induction, a discussion arose (no pun intended) about Pete Rose meeting with MLB Commissioner, Rob Manfred to discuss reinstatement for the Hall of Fame balloting. This perhaps may have been sparked by Rose's Sketchers commercial where he claims "I can't catch a break". You can watch the video at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYEGUzV-tOs

You can also find a great discussion by Skip Bayless and Stephen A. Smith on ESPN's "First Take" here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FklZ0xEXuZA. 

They talk about various considerations that need to be made when deciding if Rose should be reinstated or if he should never have a place in the Hall of Fame. The important points to take from it is Pete Rose's character by betting on baseball while managing the Reds and the comparisons to steroids.

Admittedly I didn't live through the Pete Rose era, so I have less context then perhaps another commenter but I did live through the steroid era which I think is an important contribution to the way people feel about this subject.

Pete Rose made a mistake when he decided to bet on the Reds. He decided to try and make money through betting while he was a manager. The argument has been made that he bet on his own team exclusively (although unproven), so it wouldn't make sense for him to be trying to throw games. Skip Bayless brings up a good point though in questioning "What about the games he didn't bet on?" as they mean he was in a way, guessing they wouldn't win. Having that sort of mentality questions his efforts as a manager. Did he try harder in the games he bet he would win? 

This remains important because it gives enough reason for the him to be kept from the Hall of Fame, independent of outside variables. A lot of questions come up however when it's compared to the players who have controversy surrounding their PED (Performance enhancing drugs) abuse.

In 1991 PEDs were placed on the banned substance list for the MLB, and with the continuing of PED abusers, the testing for PEDs began in 2003. It has been alleged that there were many players who continued to use PEDs between 1991 and 2003, and some have been found to use even after 2003. So the conversation becomes "if all these players used steroids, but were put on the ballot, how come Rose can't be inducted?" and there's an answer to that question.

Pete Rose's mistake was made from being selfish. After receiving 24 years of baseball stardom, he wanted more. He decided to embarrass a sport that has been called classy and old school minded for years. However you script it, Pete Rose did things to get more after already being given so much. This is why the steroid era isn't a fair comparison.

What's not being talked about is that a lot of athletes admit to using PEDs. In fact they would say "everyone was doing it". So the unfortunate truth, is that many of them had already started their careers in the majors or minor leagues using PEDs before it was illegal. 

Does that make it right? No. But when your job is on the line, sometimes right doesn't matter. Players are paid to be the best at their position, and when you're asked to stop doing what's making you good, but have no one testing you or the people competing with you for your job, you better believe you are going to assume the other people competing for your job that are on the cusp of succeeding are going to be taking those PEDs.

So when considering the ethics of betting on the team you're managing vs. cheating to keep your job, I don't think they're completely the same thing. One is trying to compete with players who may be putting you in the minor leagues where you make a fraction of your pay, not to mention the embarrassment of losing your job, while the other is trying to put more coin in your pocket after a career where he probably made more then most people reading this will make in a lifetime.

These two problems are not the same. Even with that, I'd say those who partook in steroids, particularly after 2003, should never reach the Hall of Fame either. But there's also the question of if they'd actually taken steroids. It's a lot easier to prove someone was betting on a sport, because there are usually many other people involved in a sports bet. Taking steroids can take as few as two people, and not to be too 'merican, but in America, people are innocent until proven guilty. So those who haven't been proven guilty can't be held out of the Hall of Fame until their infraction has been proven. Many of the players who are highly suspected of using PEDs have been held out of the Hall of Fame anyway, as even though they are on the ballot with eye popping numbers, they've been passed over time and time again. As they should be.

Pete Rose doesn't deserve to be in the Hall Of Fame. That's a privilege, not a right (just like driving a car). Pete Rose doesn't deserve a job as a manager. I can't imagine wanting to hire someone who may be trying to sabotage my business for a highly sought after job with lots of qualified people without that looming over their head. 

When you read those six prerequisites for becoming inducted to the Hall of Fame, Pete Rose doesn't meet all of them. He meets some exceptionally, but that doesn't qualify him completely. There have been questions about players who have been 'good guys' that weren't extremely talented stats-wise entering the hall of fame, but at least they were above average talent players. Pete Rose's character and integrity were bottom of the bucket. I can see the view that others in the Hall of Fame, shouldn't be in there, but it shouldn't be a qualification to allow us to place people like Pete Rose in.

By Alan Clark

Will Tom Brady Surpass Joe Montana?

If Tom Brady wins another ring he would become more than a five-time Super Bowl Champion, he would become possibly the greatest quaterback to ever play the game. He can surpass Terry Bradshaw and most importantly he could surpass the quaterback that most people consider the greatest to ever play the position, Joe Montana.

As we wait for that to happen, today Tom Brady has tied Joe Montana for most Super Bowl wins.

Julian Edleman wide receiver for the Super Bowl winner New England Patriots, discussed in a post-Super Bowl interview that It's more impressive what Brady has done since he did it in a current league where there's a salary cap. He went on to say that because of this the San francisco Forty-Niners had a bigger advantage because they could just buy any player at any cost. I don't know if many people remember San Franciscos golden days because they had a free for all no salary cap era, instead they remember Montana's pass to Clark in the championship game to beat Dallas, the Super Bowl drive to beat the bengals, Montana's elegant footwork and the four Super Bowl championships.Tom Brady has a lot of these same achievements and he now holds a lot for the records that Montana once held, however when Brady is remember they will also remember "Spygate" and "Deflategate." Even though Tom Brady will go down as one of the best Quaterbacks ever, he will always be haunted by these three words, "Did he cheat?"

This season will be remember for Tom Brady's and Bill Belichick's resilience, much like Joe Montana and Bill Walsh they re-invented themselves when a lot of people were already counting them out. You can't downplay how amazing Tom Brady is and how important he has become to this modern day NFL era. Today Tom Brady is a champion and none of the extra stuff matters to Patriot fans, you could even argue that every team does what it can to get any sort of slight advantage on the field, but my humble opinion is that when it comes to comparing the two quaterbacks, Tom Brady will always be the second best QB to play in the NFL.

-Alex Maldonado 

Sensationalized Media

“That’s a clown question bro.”



Athletes are the dumb morons who shoved our friends into lockers, made us eat our boogers in front of our crushes, craned us, beat us up. And if those jocks ever "go pro", they grow up to be just another man child with little or no intelligence... right? That seems to be the overarching theme that is the stereotypical jock, and the media isn’t helping. A lot of the stereotypes about jocks stem from 80s movies and stories passed down, some of which possibly have truthful origins. It doesn't help that there are plenty of intelligent athletes who have to play the dumb jock in interviews. This isn’t being written to befall the poor multi-million dollar, superstar athlete. The real victims are us as unfortunately the public is missing out on some great insight due to the media’s sensationalism.

“But bro. These jocks just say ‘uh huh. Give my team 110%, gahuck’. What’s there to sensationalize?” That’s just it. I don’t say it metaphorically that these athletes are taught how to interact with the media. They are told not to make any controversial statements because their job is to win games, and even if controversy about their words don’t affect the way the team plays, if the team coincidentally starts to do bad, the management will blame the players.

If a player says “we’ve played well every game against this team  I have no doubt with our defense and their injured offense, we have a good chance of beating them” but they lose, what's usually the media's reaction? Headlines often looking like “Overconfident team sleeps on weak opponents” followed by an article questioning the club's character. Next the head coach will be inspected on how he practiced and let this happen, and he’s going to have to demonstrate that he’s making changes so it won't happen again.

If a player is already struggling or at any odds with his job security already, that could be the straw that breaks the camel’s back for him. That's why players usually just can't take the chance. Being open and honest just isn't accepted. Many of these players are intelligent people as well. Bryce Harper was a straight A student through high school. There have been questions about maturity for him, but before pro ball, he had a very good track record as a student. Robert Griffin III was on pace to go to Law School in college, with a 3.67 GPA according to "http://lsatwiz.com" and was a consistent honor roll student who also earned a Bachelors degree in Political Science and a masters degree in Communications in four years. Ben Watson of the Saints – A Duke transfer and graduate of Georgia University – recently weighed in on the recent Michael Brown shooting and was so insightful yet tactful, that his response went viral and can be found here "https://www.facebook.com/BenjaminWatsonOfficial/posts/602172116576590".

What’s worse is once the media finds someone open enough to speak their mind, the media immediately asks loaded questions meant to trap those athletes. Bryce Harper responded to an interview question saying “That’s a clown question bro.” and it became an instant hit! Articles and memes were everywhere surrounding the teenager. Known as the bad boy, controversial jerk, Bryce had just said another silly catch phrase and was too cool to answer the interviewers question – but the thing is, it WAS a clown question.

Bryce was about to take a road trip with his team to Canada where the legal age to drink was 18, so after the Nationals had just finished their game, a reporter decided to ask Bryce – a 19 year old mormon who isn’t allowed to drink in the U.S. or for religious reasons – “Bryce you know, of course in Canada, you are of legal drinking age, a celebratory Canadian beer would seem to make sense after a hit like that. Favorite beer?”. Bryce had already struggled with being called immature and a brat all year, so to ask him something like that clearly, was a ‘Clown question’. We see this all the time with celebrities as well. No one wants to be the next Kanye West.

There is the rebuttal that “if these people are so smart, why can’t they just say smart stuff without putting their foot in their mouth?” and it’s true. Some can, and do speak intelligently without putting their foot in their mouth, but usually it’s players who are super stars that aren’t at risk of losing their job or becoming a free agent. Why risk it? These players are paid to win games, not give sports analytics and while I’ll be the first to admit, there are plenty of athletes who seem to have dumb stuff come out of their mouth every opportunity they get (Charles Barkley, you’re doing no one any favors) it’s a shame that intelligent athletes don’t get to speak their mind without a real risk of brush-back. It's a real shame because I hear people say, "I can't stand listening to those dumb interviews". Whenever I do hear a player talk about their game - and I mean REALLY talk as most are aware when they're being vague - they’re usually the most insightful because their on the field, closer then any broadcaster every will get. So by censoring them, we’re the ones who lose out on knowing what’s going on, on the field.

The problem is that the media isn't being objective with their analysis of player’s interviews. This will
never change obviously however, because without the subjective opinions, the media would be out of a job. The -Bryce Harper of the Washington Nationals sensationalized, over the top reports, grasping at straws where there are none, these can go though. With the problems with Adrian Peterson, and Ray Rice among others, there are plenty of worthwhile stories that don't need to be blown out of proportion.

-Alan Clark

College Playoff

  

For years there has been an ongoing debate about how the participants that play in the national championship game should be chosen. From 1998 to 2013 we had the Bowl Championship Series (BCS), which used computer rankings to determine the teams that would play in each bowl game. Teams would be ranked based on their record and strength of schedule, but each year seemed to end in controversy. Major conference schools who would have one loss still always seemed to be favored over small non-BCS schools that would go undefeated. Many teams always felt left out so that’s when the NCAA developed the idea of a four-team playoff system beginning this season.

The playoff system received mostly positive reactions from the schools, media, and fans. Each week throughout the season a committee of 13 members consisting of athletic directors along with former coaches, players, and administrators release their rankings. The top four teams at the end of each season will play in a tournament style playoff; win and you’re in the championship game. This seemed to be the solution to the problem of teams feeling left out and having a fair chance at getting to the championship, but already we’ve seen some controversy.

This season the committee decided on Alabama, Oregon, Florida State, and Ohio State. #1 Alabama plays #4 Ohio State and #2 Oregon plays #3 Florida State. Florida State was the only team to finish the season undefeated, which has everyone questioning why they aren’t ranked first. Also, just like the BCS system, teams like Baylor and TCU feel left out because they aren’t in a major conference like Ohio State. They all had one loss and TCU was even ranked third before winning their last game by more than 50 points, but surprisingly got dropped to sixth when the final rankings were released. Baylor beat TCU, completely dominated teams and led the nation in total offense so they have a great case for why they deserve to be in. Ohio State did have an impressive season while using their second and third string quarterbacks, but maybe their history and conference gave them a slight advantage over Baylor and TCU.

With so many teams in college football the NCAA may never find a system that pleases everyone, but it’s obvious they’ve made strides in the right direction. The four-team playoff will be around for years to come and we’ll most likely have more controversy, but hopefully it’ll expand in a way that gives every team an equal chance at winning the national championship.

-Cody Williams

Why BYU is irrelevant in college football

Coaching staff
The BYU coaching staff lead by Bronco Mendenhall deserves credit for digging the program out of the Crowton years, but has yet to reach fan or school expectations in years. Bronco has coached this team to back to back years of 8 and 5 with this year looking to be more of the same. That record is horrible but the fact that the team's expectations had gain national exposure to go undefeated and win a title they have failed. To top that off since the team left the Mountain West Conference in 2010 the strength of schedule has just barely cracked into the top 50 twice. Which means they are struggling against average to below average programs every week. With the consistency in BYU's struggles you can start classifying them as a week program too. That is not even close to  undefeated or winning a title.

Also under this coaching staffs watch the BYU recruiting classes are an average rank of 56th. That's nowhere near number 1. You don't expect to gain a top 10 recruiting class however when you exclusively recruit out of the rocky mountains. They have little to no talent on the team thanks to Bronco. instead Bronco has taken a player development approach but since they have fallen to back to back years of 8 and 5 it's save to say Bronco hasn't developed the players that well.

Lastly BYU is a LDS church school with a very intense honor code and with high moral expectations for all it's students including athletes. However BYU has had their national media exposure I mentioned earlier with reports of players receiving gifts, players drinking in clubs with boosters, players vandalizing property and a myriad of other improper acts by athletes and representatives of an "example program". This team has brought more negative coverage in the last 3 years than positive.




Fans, Alumni and Lack of Media
Even when the BYU athletic department is average the fan base praises them like they are number 1 and when they mess up they cry foul on others. This is  hypocrisy and they need to get realistic. Every year they have hype and fail. The school in general needs to fix it's image and operations.

As for lack media coverage. The fans make the ESPN contract out to be that ESPN chose BYU for the strength of the program. In reality they did choose BYU but only because BYU has a broadcasting network that has a strong presence in the rocky mountains. They are not elite. Almost every team in the country has signed a contract with either ESPN or Fox. So, BYU was actually late to the party.  Furthermore ESPN has actually hurt BYU. They have given BYU all the first game slots and on a secondary channel. BYU is getting the short end of the stick.



Suggestions of what to do
1-Fire Bronco and his entire staff.
2-Join a conference and change your TV deal to match the conference.

3-Erase the unwarranted BYU pride.
4-Recruit some real athletes and get competitive.
5-Lastly put more time on actually being an "example program" and not just saying you are.




-Chris Schlierman