The vote for succession cast by the southern Sudanese is a historic occasion. After a decades-long civil war with the Arab north, southern Sudan will is one step closer to independence. It is a joyous moment.
Yet, it is also cause for concern. Often when states are born from autocratic forbearers, they themselves exhibit governmental repression. This has been the case in Eritrea, which gained independence after a long struggle with Ethiopia.
Sudanese leader Omar al-Bashir certainly fits the label of an autocrat. His regime has instituted Sharia law, despite the fact that southern Sudan is largely Christian and animist. He has imprisoned his friends and those he views as a threat to his leadership. His government also has ties to the Janjaweed militia, which massacred millions of black people in the western region of Darfur.
Thus, the situation for repression against the southern Sudanese people is ripe. The hope is that they are not simply exchanging one dictator for another. This can be avoided in part with the help of the international community. One election is not enough. Parties must be created on the basis of issues. This means that Western institutions such as the World Bank and IMF should not be allowed to dictate policy in Southern Sudan, because that takes the freedom of choice, the true root of democracy, away from the southern Sudanese people.
Instead, the Western community needs to foster local entrepreneurs with the help of subsidies provided by donors. The Western powers can also donate materials and expertise to create school and universities. However, if the Western powers keep course, they will force southern Sudan to be a free market and turn a blind eye to human rights abuses, which will leave the people of southern Sudan in the same predicament that they've been enduring.
(The HQT-IE)
Sunday, January 23, 2011
Friday, January 21, 2011
Beards are In!
Beards have become "in". It seems like every American man now dons one. The NBA is filled with players with hair lining their faces, meeting at their chin, and swooping around their mouth.
I've had the same type of beard since late 2003. This isn't the first time I've set the trend. Far from it. But this one took a little longer to catch on. But it's finally been caught.
Today, most American men appreciate the power of the beard. What's more, they like it. Beards are in! Now we just need is someone to tell the ladies.
I've had the same type of beard since late 2003. This isn't the first time I've set the trend. Far from it. But this one took a little longer to catch on. But it's finally been caught.
Today, most American men appreciate the power of the beard. What's more, they like it. Beards are in! Now we just need is someone to tell the ladies.
Thursday, January 20, 2011
America's Quick Fixes
In America, we legislate to the last tragedy. After the underwear bomber attempted to blow up a plane by placing explosives in his pants, the U.S. devised a plan legalizing sexual harassment of air passengers. Airport security personal were required to feel a passengers genitals in order to determine if they had a bomb in their pants.
The argument goes that if security is not increased in this way, a plane full of people could die. Are liberties more important than 200 people's lives? It is a difficult moral question. Nominally speaking, American principle falls on the side of freedom. Think of the number of wars and the millions of lives lost in the name of freedom. But in reality, it's a false dichotomy.
It seems a bit excessive to invade people's privacy in such an egregious manner because one person in the history of humankind attempted to blow up a plane with an underwear bomb. There have been countless billions of people who have graced the Earth; only one has made this attempt. No one will ever try again.
When every man heard about the underwear bomber, none thought about him as a vicious terrorist. Instead, we all thought of him as a nutjob. As a 1980s stand up comic might argue, For every other man their penis is the end, while for the underwear bomber, it was a means.
That takes us to the recent Arizona killings. The instant reaction is that politicians should tone down their exaggerated rhetoric. For once, the quick fix discussion revolves around something noble. Politicians should not associate policy disagreements to a life or death struggle. But the American media and government are still viewing a tragedy through a narrow lens. Instead of hard discussions about the state of mental health or the culture of violence that is the result of America's wars rather than of video games and movies, we get more quick fixes.
The argument goes that if security is not increased in this way, a plane full of people could die. Are liberties more important than 200 people's lives? It is a difficult moral question. Nominally speaking, American principle falls on the side of freedom. Think of the number of wars and the millions of lives lost in the name of freedom. But in reality, it's a false dichotomy.
It seems a bit excessive to invade people's privacy in such an egregious manner because one person in the history of humankind attempted to blow up a plane with an underwear bomb. There have been countless billions of people who have graced the Earth; only one has made this attempt. No one will ever try again.
When every man heard about the underwear bomber, none thought about him as a vicious terrorist. Instead, we all thought of him as a nutjob. As a 1980s stand up comic might argue, For every other man their penis is the end, while for the underwear bomber, it was a means.
That takes us to the recent Arizona killings. The instant reaction is that politicians should tone down their exaggerated rhetoric. For once, the quick fix discussion revolves around something noble. Politicians should not associate policy disagreements to a life or death struggle. But the American media and government are still viewing a tragedy through a narrow lens. Instead of hard discussions about the state of mental health or the culture of violence that is the result of America's wars rather than of video games and movies, we get more quick fixes.
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
Top 10 NBA Players Now
While this list consists of the top 10 players now, the past is taken to account, but it is not a list of the best players who happen to be active. In parentheses is the player's previous rank posted on June 19, 2010.
# David (PR) - Mike (Previous Rank)
1. Kobe (1) - Kobe (1)
2. LeBron (2) - LeBron (2)
3. Howard (6) - Wade (5)
4. Wade (3) - D. Williams (NR)
5. D. Williams (5) - Howard (3)
6. Dirk (8) - Durant (6)
7. Paul (NR) - Rondo (NR)
8. Duncan (4) - Duncan (4)
9. Pau (NR) - Dirk (9)
10. Rose (NR) - Ginobili (NR)
# David (PR) - Mike (Previous Rank)
1. Kobe (1) - Kobe (1)
2. LeBron (2) - LeBron (2)
3. Howard (6) - Wade (5)
4. Wade (3) - D. Williams (NR)
5. D. Williams (5) - Howard (3)
6. Dirk (8) - Durant (6)
7. Paul (NR) - Rondo (NR)
8. Duncan (4) - Duncan (4)
9. Pau (NR) - Dirk (9)
10. Rose (NR) - Ginobili (NR)
Monday, January 17, 2011
Remembering MLK
Martin Luther King Jr. is remembered as a man who was able to look past racial bigotry and espouse a gospel of love. One of his most quoted lines is to judge others by the content of their character and not the color of the skin.
But we forget the political side of King. And in forgetting his fierce criticism of American foreign policy, we create a false dichotomy. There weren't two sides to King. King's criticisms of American foreign policy were rooted in his profound love for humanity.
King believed that America was increasingly on the wrong side of history. The United States was responsible for perpetrating unjustified violence against people of other nations. But because King's criticisms speak directly to today's condition, those in power wish to separate the two sides of Martin Luther King and downplay his political philosophies.
In a small way, I hope to make a similar statement against my country's role in the world. I have been sitting down for the national anthem because I resent the mindset that views the dissenter as an outcast. I reject the violence committed by the United States and the arrogance with which it's carried out. I see the national anthem not as a symbol of the equality but as a song of imperialism.
But we forget the political side of King. And in forgetting his fierce criticism of American foreign policy, we create a false dichotomy. There weren't two sides to King. King's criticisms of American foreign policy were rooted in his profound love for humanity.
King believed that America was increasingly on the wrong side of history. The United States was responsible for perpetrating unjustified violence against people of other nations. But because King's criticisms speak directly to today's condition, those in power wish to separate the two sides of Martin Luther King and downplay his political philosophies.
In a small way, I hope to make a similar statement against my country's role in the world. I have been sitting down for the national anthem because I resent the mindset that views the dissenter as an outcast. I reject the violence committed by the United States and the arrogance with which it's carried out. I see the national anthem not as a symbol of the equality but as a song of imperialism.
Sunday, January 16, 2011
How Tough Is Paul Pierce?
Recently, I was thinking about Boston Celtics forward Paul Pierce and his lack of toughness. I thought of comparing his toughness to my grandmother. Then I remembered my grandmother survived the Holocaust. So, I can't say, "Paul Pierce is as tough as my grandmother." My grandmother is much tougher than Paul Pierce.
Paul Pierce is not as tough as my brother. When my brother fell out of a second story window as a 4 year old, he walked it off. He didn't need a wheelchair. He didn't roll around on the floor. He just walked it off.
My little cousin is tougher than Paul Pierce. My little cousin has brittle bones. He fractured his wrist as he fell on the grass picking up a ball. His eyes didn't water. He didn't take off school for 2-3 weeks.
My mom is not very tough. She's a ham and milks any slight injury she gets. She cries at the drop of a hat. My mother is about as tough as Paul Pierce.
Paul Pierce is not as tough as my brother. When my brother fell out of a second story window as a 4 year old, he walked it off. He didn't need a wheelchair. He didn't roll around on the floor. He just walked it off.
My little cousin is tougher than Paul Pierce. My little cousin has brittle bones. He fractured his wrist as he fell on the grass picking up a ball. His eyes didn't water. He didn't take off school for 2-3 weeks.
My mom is not very tough. She's a ham and milks any slight injury she gets. She cries at the drop of a hat. My mother is about as tough as Paul Pierce.
Friday, January 14, 2011
An Evisceration of Bill Simmons's Book
I picked up Bill Simmons's The Book of Basketball (the paperback version) because I wanted Team of Rivals but didn't want to pay for shipping. In the prologue, Simmons writes passionately about his childhood, spent with his dad at the Boston Garden. It was effective and made me excited for the rest of the book. The next 670 pages were quite a disappointment.
Simmons's arguments throughout the book are often hypocritical and rarely convincing. He argues that Bill Russell was better than Wilt Chamberlain. I disagree, but I can respect the point. It's not tough to argue that either was better. Russell was the best player on 11 title teams. Do you value that over Wilt's astonishing individual domination? Somehow, Simmons manages to make an extremely weak case for Russell.
Russell or Wilt?
He poses 6 myths about the Russell-Chamberlain debate. Four of them are inane; as a Chamberlain proponent, I wouldn't have argued them. Let's take his "debunking" of the other 2 myths. He describes Russell's and Chamberlain's supporting casts. Simmons only disparages Russell's teammates. K.C. Jones is considered to be a weak HOFer. Certain Celtics are "faded". Yet, Wilt's teammates are never categorized. We don't learn that Billy Cunningham was young when he teamed with Wilt. You never read that Paul Arizin was over the hill when he played with Wilt. He doesn't mention that Baylor had lost 1/8th of his kneecap and West's body had been beaten like a casualty at the Battle of the Bulge when Wilt joined the Lakers.
It gets worse. On page 62, Simmons says, in 1963, "Cousy and Ramsey are slipping and rookie Havlicek wasn't Hondo yet." But on page 631, in an attempt to praise the all-time credentials of the 1963 Celtics, he says, "Cousy and Heinsohn are still thriving... Ramsey and Havlicek coming off the bench." Cousy, Ramsey, and Havlicek's 1963 talents just magically improved in 569 pages, because Simmons argument depended on it.
Simmons mentions Sam Jones (his 33rd best player ever) twice during his dissection of Russell's and Wilt's teammates. In 1959, Jones was "promising" and in 1969, Jones is "running on fumes." What happened to the interim 10 years? It doesn't help Simmons's case, that's what.
Simmons tries to dismiss Wilt's statistics by saying that Wilt played for statistics. He manipulates the numbers, only counting certain games, to make it seem close. It's not. Wilt averaged 30.1 ppg for his career. He averaged 50.4 (18.8 ppg more than 2nd place) and 44.8 (10.8 more than 2nd and 16.4 more than 3rd) a game in successive years. In Russell's best year, he averaged 18.9 ppg (or 0.1 more than Wilt's per game scoring advantage over the NBA's 2nd highest scorer in 1961-2). Stats aren't everything, but when it comes to them, Wilt crushed Russell.
Facts
In the intro, Simmons claims "[I] fixed every factual error." Then I guess Isiah Thomas is the only player ever to play on a champion and a runner up in the same season (1988). Tim Duncan won the 2006 Finals MVP despite the handicap of getting bounced in the 2nd round. Michael Jordan played in more all star games than seasons. And the 1984 Philadelphia 76ers lost in the 1st round to Philly in 5. So, maybe not "every factual error."
The Secret
The theme of the book is The Secret, which is basically when a player sacrifices stats for the good of the team. He rates players based on The Secret (among other criteria). But his system is wildly inconsistent. Robert Horry makes the top 96 based on his perfection of The Secret. Big Shot Bob was a team player who came up big when it counted. But not once does Simmons mention Horry throwing a towel in the face of his coach, Danny Ainge, during the 1996-7 season. He was suspended and traded to the Lakers. It's conveniently left out.
Scottie Pippen also knew The Secret. Simmons does talk about the time Scottie quit on his team in the 1994 playoffs when his number wasn't called for a game-winning shot. Simmons, who kills other players for much less, defends Pippen. His argument? Pippen resented Kukoc's presence. Plus, Pippen apologize and his team forgave him. Then, we learn that Pippen was the best player on the '00 Blazers, which was news to me and everyone else who watched that team. But if you don't buy Pippen's greatness, Bill Simmons saw him play well in a regular season game against the lowly Celtics in 1996. So, you know, you're wrong.
The Celtics
Every Celtic, save Bob Cousy, is wildly overrated on his list. Simmons bases his list on hypothetical criteria such as: would the player succeed in different eras? He doesn't account for a player being an innovator to the NBA, as Cousy was. He also rates a player's peak instead of quality throughout the length of his career. Potential is privileged. It's the "What if?" factor. The problem is that it's easy to dismiss by simply saying, "Yeah, but it didn't." What if David Thompson stayed clean? What if Bill Walton stayed healthy? Yeah, but they didn't.
Getting back to the Celtics, Simmons expresses a homoerotic obsession with the Celtics (not that there's anything wrong with that). Each Celtic gets far more words than the other players. The tone often becomes sappy and drifts to corny (in contrast to the prologue). About Kevin McHale, "I miss those armpits." About Dave Cowens, "Now that's a guy I want in my NBA Foxhole." About Bill Walton, "And I don't even need to rewind the tapes to picture it."
About Paul Pierce, "In Pierce's case, he became everything we wanted him to be." What aggravates me more than the blatantly and homoerotically overrating of every Celtic is that he claims Paul Pierce is just about the toughest player to ever live. When Pierce read that, he probably pumped his fist, felt a tingle on his side, collapsed in a heap, started writhing around in pain, and had to be wheeled out of the Borders.
Then he came back in, over-dribbled at the top of the key and shot way too much while he was double teamed.
Period Contradictions
If Simmons wants to tout a 1950s/'60s player, the player endured long bus rides and a more competitive league with fewer teams. If he wants to skewer them, then the 1950s/'60s had a dearth of black (read talented) players and statistics were inflated due to style of play. As for more modern players- touts them: more talent in the league, a more competitive league. Skewers them: charter flights, expansion, better doctors and diet.
Race
In Bill Simmons's mind, black people are better than white people at basketball. It's just a fact to him. Being black is a natural advantage. He thinks he's being liberal and sensitive. But the implication is that black men's bodies are better designed for basketball than white men's. Conversely, white men shouldn't be playing ball, they should be in an office somewhere using their minds. Simmons would never explicitly agree with this. But, by claiming that basketball is a black man's game, that's what he's implicitly saying.
The reality is that black players make up a majority of the NBA because of nurture, not nature. Otherwise, Africa would have the greatest players. Listen, if your friends play ball, then you'll probably play ball. Since America is still socially segregated, and because of current cultural conditions, more black players play more basketball than white players and, thus, tend to be better. There's nothing biologically racial about it. In 50 years, the league could very well be majority Mexican.
Life
The book is filled with crude porn jokes and drug lingo. Simmons mocks the drug era and the players who used cocaine. He constantly talks about banging chicks. If he was 25 years old, you could forgive it. But he's a middle aged man with a wife and kids. It's just, well, sad. It doesn't help that he's a less handsome version of me, with an ever-so-slightly more annoyingly nasal voice than mine, and, strangely, does not possess a chin.
So, I wouldn't recommend the book.
Simmons's arguments throughout the book are often hypocritical and rarely convincing. He argues that Bill Russell was better than Wilt Chamberlain. I disagree, but I can respect the point. It's not tough to argue that either was better. Russell was the best player on 11 title teams. Do you value that over Wilt's astonishing individual domination? Somehow, Simmons manages to make an extremely weak case for Russell.
Russell or Wilt?
He poses 6 myths about the Russell-Chamberlain debate. Four of them are inane; as a Chamberlain proponent, I wouldn't have argued them. Let's take his "debunking" of the other 2 myths. He describes Russell's and Chamberlain's supporting casts. Simmons only disparages Russell's teammates. K.C. Jones is considered to be a weak HOFer. Certain Celtics are "faded". Yet, Wilt's teammates are never categorized. We don't learn that Billy Cunningham was young when he teamed with Wilt. You never read that Paul Arizin was over the hill when he played with Wilt. He doesn't mention that Baylor had lost 1/8th of his kneecap and West's body had been beaten like a casualty at the Battle of the Bulge when Wilt joined the Lakers.
It gets worse. On page 62, Simmons says, in 1963, "Cousy and Ramsey are slipping and rookie Havlicek wasn't Hondo yet." But on page 631, in an attempt to praise the all-time credentials of the 1963 Celtics, he says, "Cousy and Heinsohn are still thriving... Ramsey and Havlicek coming off the bench." Cousy, Ramsey, and Havlicek's 1963 talents just magically improved in 569 pages, because Simmons argument depended on it.
Simmons mentions Sam Jones (his 33rd best player ever) twice during his dissection of Russell's and Wilt's teammates. In 1959, Jones was "promising" and in 1969, Jones is "running on fumes." What happened to the interim 10 years? It doesn't help Simmons's case, that's what.
Simmons tries to dismiss Wilt's statistics by saying that Wilt played for statistics. He manipulates the numbers, only counting certain games, to make it seem close. It's not. Wilt averaged 30.1 ppg for his career. He averaged 50.4 (18.8 ppg more than 2nd place) and 44.8 (10.8 more than 2nd and 16.4 more than 3rd) a game in successive years. In Russell's best year, he averaged 18.9 ppg (or 0.1 more than Wilt's per game scoring advantage over the NBA's 2nd highest scorer in 1961-2). Stats aren't everything, but when it comes to them, Wilt crushed Russell.
Facts
In the intro, Simmons claims "[I] fixed every factual error." Then I guess Isiah Thomas is the only player ever to play on a champion and a runner up in the same season (1988). Tim Duncan won the 2006 Finals MVP despite the handicap of getting bounced in the 2nd round. Michael Jordan played in more all star games than seasons. And the 1984 Philadelphia 76ers lost in the 1st round to Philly in 5. So, maybe not "every factual error."
The Secret
The theme of the book is The Secret, which is basically when a player sacrifices stats for the good of the team. He rates players based on The Secret (among other criteria). But his system is wildly inconsistent. Robert Horry makes the top 96 based on his perfection of The Secret. Big Shot Bob was a team player who came up big when it counted. But not once does Simmons mention Horry throwing a towel in the face of his coach, Danny Ainge, during the 1996-7 season. He was suspended and traded to the Lakers. It's conveniently left out.
Scottie Pippen also knew The Secret. Simmons does talk about the time Scottie quit on his team in the 1994 playoffs when his number wasn't called for a game-winning shot. Simmons, who kills other players for much less, defends Pippen. His argument? Pippen resented Kukoc's presence. Plus, Pippen apologize and his team forgave him. Then, we learn that Pippen was the best player on the '00 Blazers, which was news to me and everyone else who watched that team. But if you don't buy Pippen's greatness, Bill Simmons saw him play well in a regular season game against the lowly Celtics in 1996. So, you know, you're wrong.
The Celtics
Every Celtic, save Bob Cousy, is wildly overrated on his list. Simmons bases his list on hypothetical criteria such as: would the player succeed in different eras? He doesn't account for a player being an innovator to the NBA, as Cousy was. He also rates a player's peak instead of quality throughout the length of his career. Potential is privileged. It's the "What if?" factor. The problem is that it's easy to dismiss by simply saying, "Yeah, but it didn't." What if David Thompson stayed clean? What if Bill Walton stayed healthy? Yeah, but they didn't.
Getting back to the Celtics, Simmons expresses a homoerotic obsession with the Celtics (not that there's anything wrong with that). Each Celtic gets far more words than the other players. The tone often becomes sappy and drifts to corny (in contrast to the prologue). About Kevin McHale, "I miss those armpits." About Dave Cowens, "Now that's a guy I want in my NBA Foxhole." About Bill Walton, "And I don't even need to rewind the tapes to picture it."
About Paul Pierce, "In Pierce's case, he became everything we wanted him to be." What aggravates me more than the blatantly and homoerotically overrating of every Celtic is that he claims Paul Pierce is just about the toughest player to ever live. When Pierce read that, he probably pumped his fist, felt a tingle on his side, collapsed in a heap, started writhing around in pain, and had to be wheeled out of the Borders.
Then he came back in, over-dribbled at the top of the key and shot way too much while he was double teamed.
Period Contradictions
If Simmons wants to tout a 1950s/'60s player, the player endured long bus rides and a more competitive league with fewer teams. If he wants to skewer them, then the 1950s/'60s had a dearth of black (read talented) players and statistics were inflated due to style of play. As for more modern players- touts them: more talent in the league, a more competitive league. Skewers them: charter flights, expansion, better doctors and diet.
Race
In Bill Simmons's mind, black people are better than white people at basketball. It's just a fact to him. Being black is a natural advantage. He thinks he's being liberal and sensitive. But the implication is that black men's bodies are better designed for basketball than white men's. Conversely, white men shouldn't be playing ball, they should be in an office somewhere using their minds. Simmons would never explicitly agree with this. But, by claiming that basketball is a black man's game, that's what he's implicitly saying.
The reality is that black players make up a majority of the NBA because of nurture, not nature. Otherwise, Africa would have the greatest players. Listen, if your friends play ball, then you'll probably play ball. Since America is still socially segregated, and because of current cultural conditions, more black players play more basketball than white players and, thus, tend to be better. There's nothing biologically racial about it. In 50 years, the league could very well be majority Mexican.
Life
The book is filled with crude porn jokes and drug lingo. Simmons mocks the drug era and the players who used cocaine. He constantly talks about banging chicks. If he was 25 years old, you could forgive it. But he's a middle aged man with a wife and kids. It's just, well, sad. It doesn't help that he's a less handsome version of me, with an ever-so-slightly more annoyingly nasal voice than mine, and, strangely, does not possess a chin.
So, I wouldn't recommend the book.
Thursday, January 13, 2011
New Football Format
Seattle's foray into the playoffs is utterly frustrating. They finished the regular season at 7-9. They would have to make the Super Bowl just to clinch a .500 record and they'd have to win it to finish with a winning record. Meanwhile, you have 2 10-6 teams sitting at home watching. It's not fair. Shouldn't sports be as fair as possible?
The argument for including Seattle is that they won their division. But each team only plays 6 of their 16 games against their division. You play a majority of your games against teams outside of your division. If you were in a historically great division and everyone beat each other up and ended with 3-3 division records, wouldn't they cruise against other weaker divisions? If not, then the division isn't that good. So any division winner with a poor overall record necessarily won a weak division.
Seattle went 4-2 in the division and 3-7 outside of it. The NFC West finished with a 13-27 record against teams in other divisions. All 4 teams had losing records outside of the division. So winning the NFC West isn't much of an accomplishment. It isn't worthy of a playoff spot.
So here's my change:
Let's have 2 super divisions in each conference. In the NFC, we'll put the East and South together and the North and West together for geographic reasons. In the AFC, we'll put the East with the North and the South with the West. We'll also create sub-divisions, which are simply the divisions that we have now. You play everyone in your sub-division twice (6 games). You play the other teams in your division once (4 games). That way you're playing a majority of your games in the division. You keep the best part of the current set up (the rivalries- and even adding new ones) and getting rid of the worst part of the current set up (7-9 teams winning divisions).
For now, you'd lose the Patriots-Colts game (or would we? Wait for it), but you'd get a Pats-Steelers game every year, a Pats-Ravens game every year, a Jets-Ravens game every year, and they'd all be division games! You'd also get the Colts-Chargers every year. Plus, the likelihood of one team running away from the other 7 in the division is much less likely than it is now. So those painful final weeks won’t be so painful.
As for the other 6 games, you'd play a new sub-division in the other conference every year like they do now (4 games). Then you'd play 2 games against the other division in your conference. If the NFL moves to 18 games, then you play half of the division in your conference. You can either play a schedule based on where everyone finishes the previous year or rotate from year to year (and there’s your Pats-Colts game, at least every 2 years).
As for the playoffs, the division winners all get byes. Then, you can either guarantee each second place team a home game in the Wildcard round or just have it so the next 4 teams in each conference are ranked according to record (I like the latter).
So, basically, this new format keeps all of the good things about the way it is now, but adds more rivalries, makes sure only teams with good records make the playoffs, and gives real meaning to winning a division. The NFL would either be stubborn or stupid not to do it!
The argument for including Seattle is that they won their division. But each team only plays 6 of their 16 games against their division. You play a majority of your games against teams outside of your division. If you were in a historically great division and everyone beat each other up and ended with 3-3 division records, wouldn't they cruise against other weaker divisions? If not, then the division isn't that good. So any division winner with a poor overall record necessarily won a weak division.
Seattle went 4-2 in the division and 3-7 outside of it. The NFC West finished with a 13-27 record against teams in other divisions. All 4 teams had losing records outside of the division. So winning the NFC West isn't much of an accomplishment. It isn't worthy of a playoff spot.
So here's my change:
Let's have 2 super divisions in each conference. In the NFC, we'll put the East and South together and the North and West together for geographic reasons. In the AFC, we'll put the East with the North and the South with the West. We'll also create sub-divisions, which are simply the divisions that we have now. You play everyone in your sub-division twice (6 games). You play the other teams in your division once (4 games). That way you're playing a majority of your games in the division. You keep the best part of the current set up (the rivalries- and even adding new ones) and getting rid of the worst part of the current set up (7-9 teams winning divisions).
For now, you'd lose the Patriots-Colts game (or would we? Wait for it), but you'd get a Pats-Steelers game every year, a Pats-Ravens game every year, a Jets-Ravens game every year, and they'd all be division games! You'd also get the Colts-Chargers every year. Plus, the likelihood of one team running away from the other 7 in the division is much less likely than it is now. So those painful final weeks won’t be so painful.
As for the other 6 games, you'd play a new sub-division in the other conference every year like they do now (4 games). Then you'd play 2 games against the other division in your conference. If the NFL moves to 18 games, then you play half of the division in your conference. You can either play a schedule based on where everyone finishes the previous year or rotate from year to year (and there’s your Pats-Colts game, at least every 2 years).
As for the playoffs, the division winners all get byes. Then, you can either guarantee each second place team a home game in the Wildcard round or just have it so the next 4 teams in each conference are ranked according to record (I like the latter).
So, basically, this new format keeps all of the good things about the way it is now, but adds more rivalries, makes sure only teams with good records make the playoffs, and gives real meaning to winning a division. The NFL would either be stubborn or stupid not to do it!
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
The Top 10 NBA Players Ever - #10
This is the final installment in my list of the top 10 NBA players of all time. It is admittedly a subjective list. Are individual statistics more important than the number of championships a player led his team to? Admittedly, these types of lists will always be contentious.
#10 Elgin Baylor
Elgin Baylor took the NBA to another level. He was the forerunner to Julius Erving and Michael Jordan in terms of his artistry in the air. He brought a high wire act to the offensive side of the ball. He was an incredible scorer and rebounded far better than his 6'5" inch frame would suggest.
Baylor averaged 27.4 points a game over his career. That's good for the 4th highest average in league history. He played 14 seasons (the final two he played just 2 and 9 games respectively) and finished in the top 5 in scoring 9 times. From the 1960-1 season until 1962-3, Elgin averaged at least 30 points per game each season. He put up 38. 3 ppg in 1961-2, despite splitting time between the NBA and the military.
In 1960, Baylor scored 71 points in a game against the Knicks, a record for a single game. In Game 5 of the 1962 NBA Finals, he scored a postseason record 61 points against the Boston Celtics. He scored over 30 points a game in 4 consecutive postseasons, including averaging 38.1 in 1961 and 38.6 the next year. He led all postseason players in scoring for those 4 years. His final playoff scoring average was 27 ppg.
During the 1965 playoffs, he destroyed his knee. Ligaments and tendons were ruptured. Part of his kneecap had to be removed. Contemporaries agree than Baylor was never the same after the knee injury. He struggled the next season, but then came back to post 4 straight campaigns of at least 24 ppg. And that was post-injury Baylor!
Elgin cracked the top 10 in rebounding 8 times. In 1960-1, he averaged 19.8 boards per contest, his high watermark. Baylor's career 13.5 rpg is the 9th highest average ever. Remember, he was a small forward. He grabbed just under 13 rebounds a game in the playoffs. Baylor also sought out his teammates with a 4.3 career apg average (4 in the playoffs).
But the two knocks on Elgin are his lack of an MVP award and a title. The Lakers made the Finals 8 times while Elgin played and lost all of them. He played in the same era as the Boston Celtics dynasty, which were just too strong for the Lakers year in and year out. While he never won an MVP award, he finished in the top 6 in the voting 8 times. During an 11 year span, he made the All-NBA 1st team 10 times (only missing in 1965-6, when he was coming back from that devastating knee injury).
In conjunction with the laudatory stats and the plethora of All-NBA 1st teams, Baylor's place in history is predicated on his offensive repertoire. No player before him took to the skies like Baylor. Not only would he score two points, but he would yank momentum to his team's side with his magical moves. He was a pioneer when it came to dunking with flare. He helped pave the way for the game we know today.
#10 Elgin Baylor
Elgin Baylor took the NBA to another level. He was the forerunner to Julius Erving and Michael Jordan in terms of his artistry in the air. He brought a high wire act to the offensive side of the ball. He was an incredible scorer and rebounded far better than his 6'5" inch frame would suggest.Baylor averaged 27.4 points a game over his career. That's good for the 4th highest average in league history. He played 14 seasons (the final two he played just 2 and 9 games respectively) and finished in the top 5 in scoring 9 times. From the 1960-1 season until 1962-3, Elgin averaged at least 30 points per game each season. He put up 38. 3 ppg in 1961-2, despite splitting time between the NBA and the military.
In 1960, Baylor scored 71 points in a game against the Knicks, a record for a single game. In Game 5 of the 1962 NBA Finals, he scored a postseason record 61 points against the Boston Celtics. He scored over 30 points a game in 4 consecutive postseasons, including averaging 38.1 in 1961 and 38.6 the next year. He led all postseason players in scoring for those 4 years. His final playoff scoring average was 27 ppg.
During the 1965 playoffs, he destroyed his knee. Ligaments and tendons were ruptured. Part of his kneecap had to be removed. Contemporaries agree than Baylor was never the same after the knee injury. He struggled the next season, but then came back to post 4 straight campaigns of at least 24 ppg. And that was post-injury Baylor!
Elgin cracked the top 10 in rebounding 8 times. In 1960-1, he averaged 19.8 boards per contest, his high watermark. Baylor's career 13.5 rpg is the 9th highest average ever. Remember, he was a small forward. He grabbed just under 13 rebounds a game in the playoffs. Baylor also sought out his teammates with a 4.3 career apg average (4 in the playoffs).
But the two knocks on Elgin are his lack of an MVP award and a title. The Lakers made the Finals 8 times while Elgin played and lost all of them. He played in the same era as the Boston Celtics dynasty, which were just too strong for the Lakers year in and year out. While he never won an MVP award, he finished in the top 6 in the voting 8 times. During an 11 year span, he made the All-NBA 1st team 10 times (only missing in 1965-6, when he was coming back from that devastating knee injury).
In conjunction with the laudatory stats and the plethora of All-NBA 1st teams, Baylor's place in history is predicated on his offensive repertoire. No player before him took to the skies like Baylor. Not only would he score two points, but he would yank momentum to his team's side with his magical moves. He was a pioneer when it came to dunking with flare. He helped pave the way for the game we know today.
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
The Top 10 NBA Players Ever - #9
This is yet another installment in my list of the top 10 NBA players of all time. It is admittedly a subjective list. Are individual statistics more important than the number of championships a player led his team to? Of course, these types of lists will always be contentious.
#9 Jerry West
Jerry West was a splendid scorer, a good passer, and a stellar defender. His nickname was Mr. Clutch for all of his big game performances. He epitomized the NBA to the point where the league's logo was made in his likeness.
West's teams only won one title during his 14 year career. But they won the Western Conference title 8 other times. The problem was that those Lakers teams ran into two of the better clubs ever, the Boston Celtics of the 1960s and the New York Knicks of the early 1970s. The Lakers lost 4 Game 7s in the Finals during that stretch. Still, West is the only player to win the Finals MVP award while playing for a losing club. That happened after the 1969 finale, the first year of the award.
Throughout his career, West poured in buckets at a 27 a game rate, good for the 5th highest average in NBA history. He put up over 30 ppg 4 different seasons, winning the scoring title in 1969-70. He played even better during the playoffs. His postseason average was 29.1 a game. He led all postseason players in scoring 4 times and averaged over 30 a game 8 times, including in 1965 (40.5 ppg).
In Game 3 of the 1970 NBA Finals, with the Lakers down to the Knicks by 2, Mr. Clutch heaved a prayer from the other side of the midcourt line. It went in and sent the game into overtime. But he wasn't merely a legendary scorer. He averaged 6.1 assists per game (6.3 in the playoffs) and led the league in 1971-2 (9.7 apg). Jerry finished in the top 10 in the category 6 more times. He even rebounded at over 5 boards a contest.
West's remarkable numbers came despite the battering his body took. He was often injured, which also hurt his team's chances at the title. Despite the pain, Jerry was one of the NBA's best defenders. The All-Defensive team didn't come into existence until his 9th year, but he still made the 1st team 4 times and the 2nd team once. The league only kept tabs on steals in West's final season. In 31 games, West averaged 2.6 a game during that 1973-4 season.
West never won an MVP. That's partly due to the presence of Wilt Chamberlain and Bill Russell in the league at the same time as Jerry. But it was also because his teammate was the renowned Elgin Baylor; both seemed to cancel each other out. West made 10 All-NBA 1st teams. He made the 2nd team 2 other times. West was the only guard of his era who could possibly be compared to Oscar Robertson. He was the best shooting guard in history until a man named Michael Jordan took the court. He scored at an alarming rate, was a great defender, and excelled during pressure situations.
#9 Jerry West
Jerry West was a splendid scorer, a good passer, and a stellar defender. His nickname was Mr. Clutch for all of his big game performances. He epitomized the NBA to the point where the league's logo was made in his likeness.West's teams only won one title during his 14 year career. But they won the Western Conference title 8 other times. The problem was that those Lakers teams ran into two of the better clubs ever, the Boston Celtics of the 1960s and the New York Knicks of the early 1970s. The Lakers lost 4 Game 7s in the Finals during that stretch. Still, West is the only player to win the Finals MVP award while playing for a losing club. That happened after the 1969 finale, the first year of the award.
Throughout his career, West poured in buckets at a 27 a game rate, good for the 5th highest average in NBA history. He put up over 30 ppg 4 different seasons, winning the scoring title in 1969-70. He played even better during the playoffs. His postseason average was 29.1 a game. He led all postseason players in scoring 4 times and averaged over 30 a game 8 times, including in 1965 (40.5 ppg).
In Game 3 of the 1970 NBA Finals, with the Lakers down to the Knicks by 2, Mr. Clutch heaved a prayer from the other side of the midcourt line. It went in and sent the game into overtime. But he wasn't merely a legendary scorer. He averaged 6.1 assists per game (6.3 in the playoffs) and led the league in 1971-2 (9.7 apg). Jerry finished in the top 10 in the category 6 more times. He even rebounded at over 5 boards a contest.
West's remarkable numbers came despite the battering his body took. He was often injured, which also hurt his team's chances at the title. Despite the pain, Jerry was one of the NBA's best defenders. The All-Defensive team didn't come into existence until his 9th year, but he still made the 1st team 4 times and the 2nd team once. The league only kept tabs on steals in West's final season. In 31 games, West averaged 2.6 a game during that 1973-4 season.
West never won an MVP. That's partly due to the presence of Wilt Chamberlain and Bill Russell in the league at the same time as Jerry. But it was also because his teammate was the renowned Elgin Baylor; both seemed to cancel each other out. West made 10 All-NBA 1st teams. He made the 2nd team 2 other times. West was the only guard of his era who could possibly be compared to Oscar Robertson. He was the best shooting guard in history until a man named Michael Jordan took the court. He scored at an alarming rate, was a great defender, and excelled during pressure situations.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)