I hope you have listened to our latest podcast on fandom. It was one of the most fun podcasts we've done in my opinion. I think I talked about rooting for underdogs. Paul texted me yesterday and said that was actually called being a hater, but he forgot to say it on the podcast. He's probably right. My brothers and I used to joke about how we were born haters. If there's any thoughts you have on fandom, let us know. We'd love to hear.
0 Comments
Paul and I gave our playoff predictions and opinions of the NBA recap of Bubble play so far. Paul used our updated predictions after the first weekend, but I like our initial predictions. I think they are less biased. I'll put a snapshot of them in this post. My picks are in black, and Paul's are in blue. For the Western Conference, I got the top 2 seeds, Rockets at 4th, and Mavs at 7th. I got that messy jumble between 3 and 7 mostly wrong, but it's been pretty fun with all the chaos. I got the Spurs correct, but that was luck considering how well they played and how well the Suns played. I was disappointed in the Pelicans, and they were disappointed enough in themselves that they fired Alvin Gentry. We can probably talk an hour about that situation, and we might do that sometime. In the Eastern Conference, I got the top 3 and 7 and 8 places right. I did not think the Pacers would jump up to 4 or Philly stay at 6 though that conference was a little more predictable. Our playoff predictions are below scribbled by Paul. My picks are in pink. My Clippers-Mavs pick isn't clear on the picture. I have the Clippers in 5. In the end I have Clippers beating Raptors in 5. Paul has Lakers beating Raptors in 7. The rest you can work through.
One last thought. Paul and I wondered if home-court was even a real thing anymore. The common-sense answer is no, but I check anyway. Right now ,according to my bookkeeping, the home teams are 49-39 for a winning percentage of about 56% in the 88 seeding games. That seems a bit higher than it should be if home-court were not an advantage, but 88 games isn't really a large sample. If we flipped a coin 88 times, we might get 49 heads, and I'm sure there's a real statistical analysis I could run that would prove what I'm saying, but I'm not skilled in that area. 538 published an article in 2017 that said NBA teams won 60% of their home games over a 16 or 17 year sample, which is significant and not that much greater than 56%. Do the virtual fans, simulated crowd noise, and home team-inspired music be enough to give the home team a slight advantage? What we can do is come back to this after the playoffs. There are a maximum of 105 games by my math, which would give us a lot more data to work with then we can see what happens and have a little more faith in whatever the numbers tell us. We'll keep you posted and hopefully come up with a few more researched conversations since we've been doing more live content recently. Let us know what you think. -Jeremy Friday this week marks the end of the seeding games. Paul and I are trying to decide which game to watch as our final live stream for the restart, and the good games are getting harder and harder to choose. For one, most teams know if they are in the playoffs now. All eight Eastern Conference teams are in, and the Wizards know they are eliminated. Western Conference teams are being eliminated daily. As of right now, the Blazers, Spurs, and Suns have a chance to make the play-in series as likely the 9th seed, though Memphis could take the 8 or 9 seed depending on everything shakes out in their next two games.
I think predicting these games has been a small disaster. In my original picks, I was more conservative, but Paul suggested we pick again after 2 games, and those are pretty bad for me. I had the Pelicans winning the 8 seed outright and going into the play-in series against the Grizzlies. I might be right about the Grizzlies playing to get into the playoffs though. I'm really rooting for the Suns to win out just to see a team go undefeated. That might be nice symmetry with the Wizards, who might lose all their games in the bubble. I had the Rockets taking the 3 seed in the West, which could happen if they win out, and the Nuggets lose two of three, or some other combination of events I'm probably unaware of. The East has been so much more predictable, so any predictions I get right there, I'm gonna brag about. It's not an easy thing to predict games, especially when you have to take motivation into account. We haven't seen anything like the NBA bubble before, so it's no surprise things are a bit wacky there. The NBA is officially back. We've had almost two games from each team in this period of 8 seeding games, and here are some of my initial thoughts.
First and foremost, I did pick the Rockets to win almost all of their seeding games (7-1) and improve their seeding, but I have watched their first two games, and I really am not a fan. I didn't watch much of them during the regular season, I just followed the developments of their playing style from regular small ball to the new and improved microball. I don't care for their playing style, which is unfortunate because I thought I'd be rooting for them during this time, but I can't with this playing style. I don't really care for the number of 3's they shoot. It's not really bothersome or anything to watch. I'm not personally offended, but it's annoying that their style is so one-dimensional in a sense. They have been taking so many FT's that it does offset any misses they have at the 3 point line, which is good because it can help them if they get cold from 3, but it's just not pleasing to me. I do think getting out-rebounded but still being able to win is really impressive, and it's kinda funny seeing how they deal with bigger teams, which is to annoy them and be pesky on defense. They might very well win 7 of their 8 games as I guessed they would, but all in all I'm not super excited when I watch them play. The Mavs are putting up points, giving up points, and not closing out games. Paul has me convinced that the Mavs are up next, and not finishing games is not a huge deterrent to their winning in the future. It's a sign of their youth, so I'm not too worried about it. It's been a issue for them since before the restart. What both Paul and I are looking to see is that they are competitive and can use their likely exit as a springboard to future success. I have them as must-see TV right now, though I missed their game against Phoenix. Speaking of Phoenix, they are 2-0, and I had them going 2-6 in the seeding games. Unless they totally collapse, I'm going to be wrong about them. I'm interested to see if the Suns can translate that to more than 35 wins in a full regular season. They have played the Wizards and Mavs so far, a bad team without its best player and a team that struggles to win close games. But the Wizards do look spirited, so I can't say they aren't playing well for the struggles they've had this year. I'm also wrong about the Spurs already, who I thought would go 1-7 in the restart, and they are already 2-0. I'm not claiming to know what I'm talking about when I do my predictions, so I'm humbly admitting I was wrong there. I might not get a chance to see the Spurs live, but the highlights are telling me that a system with veteran players can get a team a lot of wins, which is pretty much how the Spurs do things. My final observation is about Giannis. Paul and I talked about his 3-point shooting and said he would be next to impossible to guard with a reliable 3-point shot. But I feel different about that now. What I think now is that he could stand to get a nice mid-range/post game. If he got the Kobe/Jordan-esque post game, great footwork with his back to the basket then I think he'd be unstoppable. His 3-pointers did not seem impactful when he hit them over the past few games, and I think his scoring does not come easy enough, almost like Brandon Ingram in my opinion. Giannis could really increase his usage in the half court and not have to barrel into the lane or get stuck in between deciding to pass or drive if he was confident in the mid-range game. I would like to see that more than the development of his 3, and I'd definitely like to see him control the team's offense in the half court. Right now, he's kind of a very athletic center, and he needs to emulate Kevin Durant. -Jeremy Our podcast premiering on August 2 will feature our predictions for the NBA seeding games and the NBA playoffs. We did not take the 8-9 seed play-in series into account, which goes into effect if the 9th seed is within 4 games of the 8th seed, In my prediction, the Magic will win the 8th seed in the Eastern conference, 7.5 games ahead of the Wizards. In the Western conference, the Grizzlies will win the 8th seed, but they will be in a virtual tie with the 9th seed Pelicans, which will require a play-in series. I'll stick with the Grizzlies for the sake of simplicity, but I have to acknowledge that it will most likely have to be done in the West but not in the East. Paul didn't put records for his teams, so I'll leave his predictions intact. I wanted to get that out in the open though so we don't look even worse after our predictions.
Our most recent podcast was about Cam Newton and his new contract with the Patriots. I personally love the idea that Cam is getting another chance because his time with the Panthers ended poorly in my opinion. I didn’t really hear anyone in management stand up for Cam and say they would bring him back or that they would try to help him land somewhere nice, but I could have missed all of those statements if they did happen. We had some conversation about how Cam compared to other QB’s around the league, and we hit a little sticking point when we got to Andrew Luck.
We recorded this a few days before the news of Patrick Mahomes’ new contract came out, and the difference between his contract and Cam’s is glaring. Of course, Mahomes is the heart of his team’s identity, really offensively and defensively, so it is not surprising he got such a large contract. What is surprising is that Cam did not get the same type of love from his original team. I wouldn’t expect $500M kinda love, but more than his whimper of an ending. To me, Cam is the best QB in Panthers’ history, and he should’ve gone out that way, with some fanfare and thanks from the Panthers. Toward the end of our talk, I got a little heated about the thought that Cam got poor treatment while QB’s with similar accomplishments are doing fine and riding out their large contracts. Maybe durability is the issue. Maybe if Cam hadn’t been hurt off and on since his MVP and Super Bowl appearance year of 2015, he would still be a Panther and maybe even have had his contract extended. Matt Ryan and Matthew Stafford are QB’s that come to mind when I think of this, though Matt Ryan has won MVP and gotten his team to a Super Bowl, as Cam did. But I don’t think injuries are the deciding factor because I do think Andrew Luck would be a hot commodity if he unretired today, though injuries led him to retire. In all, I would like to see more consistency in how teams treat QB’s. Cam should have been able to leave Carolina as he wanted with great fanfare, and I hope other QB’s who have sacrificed their bodies and career longevity for their teams are treated better. I think Lamar Jackson will be a good test case for this. I think if he doesn’t get to the Super Bowl within two years, or at least win one playoff game, he will be released and have a difficult time getting another team. He deserves a contract like Stafford or Ryan too because he is his team’s offense and brought them back to being a contender after they had sunk to mediocrity, but we will see in a few years. One of the most interesting points that came out of our conversation about the NCAA and amateurism is that the NCAA should formally be a minor league system. Why should anyone care that the players on their favorite college team are college students? The NCAA wouldn’t even have to change its name. Nowhere in the name of the National Collegiate Athletics Association is there any hint of amateurism, which is good in this case. Colleges could openly pay athletes and use monetary compensation (not endorsements) to recruit players. The NIL rules would then apply automatically because there would be no amateurism. Our idea of relegating poorly performing professional teams or allowing college to purchase professional teams would also apply. The worst professional teams could be moved down to the college minor league ranks and be energized by the addition of talented college-aged students or hungry veteran players who want to prove themselves. Later, the NCAA could send up their champions to play in the top levels of professional sports. This came out of the conversation we had with John and his talk of the Browns and Alabama playing each other. In this new scenario, the Browns and Crimson Tide might be in the same division and play regularly.
This plan would keep everything about the NCAA intact including its hallowed March basketball tournament for its highest division, its College World Series, and its College Football Playoff. Those signature events do not have to change, and the methods for deciding champions in lower divisions can remain intact as well. The only difference would be that the winners could move up to a higher division, replacing the lowest ranked team or teams in the next highest division. Coaches could still make the salaries that they make now if revenue stays the same, and colleges choose to allocate their money that way. In basketball, the professional ranks would have a clear advantage over college teams because the best players would go straight to the NBA from their early teens, and only the marginal players would go to college. The same would apply for Major League Baseball. The NCAA might have to change its economic model, as the NFL and MLB operated as a nonprofit for years with its teams paying taxes on their income and not the leagues themselves until recently. A change of the NCAA to professional status would likely necessitate a similar change in nonprofit status, but there are many talented people who could help this transition. A major advantage to this system, in my opinion, is that colleges would still get players who want to play there. If I were almost good enough to play for the college of my choice, but not good enough to play at the highest level of professional sports, I would definitely play for that college. I would even take some classes in the off-season, which would be provided for free as part of my compensation. I think that deal would work out well for everyone involved. There will be a point when the entire NCAA is re-evaluated. It would be great to be out in front of that change and have a plan for when that happens. Our conversation with John made its way to foosball, which I knew would eventually happen, and we should probably do a podcast on that as a bonus episode just for fun. I’ll give my take on our foosball story. My roommate from freshman year until junior year had a foosball table in his parents’ basement. He offered to bring it sophomore year, and I think he brought it after Christmas break that year. We had the typical dorm room setup, a bed on each side of the room with about 3 feet of space in between. That was the perfect spot for the foosball table, so we put it right there. When we got up or went to bed, we had to slide past the poles of the foosball table. It immediately became the most important fixture in our room. We really loved playing though, and I learned how to play a game that suited my abilities. I was a defensive player, which mirrored how I played all sports, basketball, football, you name it. Defense was my favorite part of any game/sport. My specialty was blocking a goalie shot back into my opponent’s goal as he was trying to clear it. I think I scored most of my goals that way. I had to really because I could not play offense. I worked on it when I played, but ball control was not my strength. We had next-door neighbors who came in and played as well, and soon we had small tournaments. Flash forward a semester, and we had a new setup to our room. We combined our two rooms and put all the games and televisions in one room and the beds and desks in the other. One of our neighbors officially moved out, which introduced another person into our living situation, but the old guy still came around, which gave us five players. Every week we would log our games against each other and have a tournament on Wednesday. The bes record would get the top seed, and on down. Fourth and fifth place would play a single game play-in. Every other round was single elimination, and the final, called the Full Monty was a best of 7. I used my defense to win the full Monty three times, and at one time I was the most decorated foosball player in our room. But one of my roommates wanted to be the best, and he didn’t let anything stop him. He watched videos on how the pros played and practiced in his down time to get good at foosball. He developed the snake shot that you see players use all the time in the pro ranks. None of us was ready for his new game, which consisted of gamesmanship and a near unstoppable offensive weapon.
During this, our roommate who brought the table from his home, and was considered to be the godfather of our foosball games, left for a study abroad, after which he would be graduating. That shook us because he was the glue guy in our group. He leveled out the roommate who was so fiercely competitive that he practiced to be the best. Eventually that roommate did become the best, and he overtook me as the winningest player in our room, but it was joyless. Without our glue guy, it felt oppressive, and we eventually stopped playing foosball altogether. I really haven’t played foosball more than once or twice every few years since then honestly, but we play as a group when we can. It still brings back the complicated history I have with the sport, the joy of playing against friends and the frustration of losing to what I thought was shady playing style. I told him a few days ago that I realize how that he was just playing the pro style, but we all played like amateurs, and that was kind of an unwritten agreement that we’d play for fun. Even the winner wouldn’t gloat or act like he was better because it was just fun. I think had we all been as competitive, the game would have stayed fun for me. I’ll still play anyone one-on-one if I get the chance, and I see how that there are many ways to play, you just gotta fight to win and keep your left hand strong. We had a fun chat with John about Major League Soccer. A lot of what he said extemporaneously was information I had researched a bit from Wikipedia and other sources, so he was definitely well informed on the topic. Scheduling the conversation with John prompted me to read as much as I could about MLS before we talked to John. I was surprised to learn a general overview of MLS and how it was started. The MLS was formed because FIFA wanted the U.S. to have a high-level soccer league if the U.S. was awarded the 1994 World Cup. I think this is an interesting concept. Before this, there were a few professional leagues in the United States, such as the United Soccer Association and the National Professional Soccer League, both of which played one season in 1967 before merging in 1968 to form the North American Soccer League. The merger was probably smart at the time to help strengthen the financial base of the league in a country which had not supported soccer strongly up to that point.
The United Soccer Association imported its teams from Europe or South America, a practice which I’ve never heard of. They brought entire existing teams to the U.S. to play their season starting in May and lasting until July. John confirmed that the seasons for European teams end in late winter, which means they would be available to play in the spring and summer in America. The NASL was a popular league at times during its run from 1968 until 1984, specifically during the years 1975-1977 when Pele played for the New York Cosmos for three seasons. That move was an early precursor of European stars coming the U.S. during their final years to mutually benefit them and their leagues. We made light of that a little during our conversation (you’ll hear that in part two), but it was and might still be a viable business strategy for any American soccer league seeking credibility. I imagine Pele was a hair more popular than David Beckham at their respective peaks, but I think those of us who remember Beckham coming to the U.S. experienced something similar to what soccer fans experienced during Pele’s tenure in the NASL. The NASL, at 24 teams, overexpanded and lost money for a number of reasons, mostly overspending for players and to keep a competitor league from taking their fans. The league suffered from wealth inequality that led to its richer teams spending lots more than the poorer teams. Those poorer teams lost money trying to compete. What’s worse is that they failed to develop U.S. players in the NASL in their rush to sign famous foreign players. It is clear from this historical example that the MLS is right to centralize ownership until they are stable so that they don’t have a group of “haves” and a group of “have-nots”. They are also smart to develop American players in their youth academies. It looks to me like they are using the past as an example of what to do and what not to do. I’m hoping that they don’t try to expand too much and stay patient even if viewership or attendance numbers start to decline. What I find most interesting about American soccer popularity is that it spikes during major soccer tournaments. The popularity of the 1966 World Cup gave investors hope that soccer could be popular, which led to the development of the USA and NPSL. Though tier 1 professional soccer went away because of the NASL’s folding in 1984, the 1984 Olympics in Los Angeles drew large crowds for its soccer events. FIFA took notice and used this attendance as a part of the reason why they award the 1994 World Cup to the U.S. That World Cup was hugely popular as well and is the reason why the MLS was founded, as I mentioned earlier. In my experience as a fair-weather soccer fan, the World Cup and Olympics bring Americans together to root for all of their sports, including soccer. It makes perfect sense that Americans love seeing their soccer team play the world’s best teams, which can lead to a high that can help push the sport to new heights in America. We will know that the sport is sustainable in America when that high lasts between Olympic and World Cup cycles, especially if our team doesn’t quality. I’m not sure if the MLS has developed players like they want to just yet, but there is time, and the groundwork is there. I think in a few years, if teams can withstand this downturn, American soccer can be high quality and competitive on the international stage. When that happens, we will know soccer has truly arrived in America. -Jeremy We published a conversation we had recently as two separate podcasts. The first was called “The NBA is Coming Back,” and the second was called “Athletes as Activists.” We thought they were better suited as separate conversations due to the gravity of the second topic. Since we recorded the podcasts, I have been thinking about the topic of athletes as activists, and I had planned some thoughts to write in this blog. Predictably, things changed during the week, and my ideas for this blog post changed as well. It came out a few days ago that Kyrie Irving was a leading voice for the NBA players not to come back to the pod in which they will finish the season in Orlando. He is injured for the rest of the season, and his team might not be a contender for a championship, but his views are not about NBA competition. His opinion, which is supported by other players as well, is that the NBA will profit from the labor of the players, but the social unrest in the United States will still be ongoing. The players will not be seeing any tangible changes before they restart the season, in their opinion, and restarting the season will allow people to forget the social issues that they have been trying to highlight. I think it is an interesting thought. If America starts having fun again because there is a distraction like the NBA, it is possible that America will have an excuse to ignore the pleas of those who want change. Thinking about that perspective for a few minutes leads me to think that it is a valid point, and I would completely understand if a small group of players chose to sit out. I have heard that the NBA will be allowed to sign any number of players that they need to sign so that they have full rosters because they do not know which players will actually show up to the bubble. This is a fluid situation that I’m sure will be resolved with everyone following their moral convictions. The NBA will not be hurt severely by some players not returning, thought the players themselves might, but it is important that every player be given the freedom to do what puts him at peace.
I really did not think we would get an intersection of the two podcast topics that we shared this week, but looking back, it might have been inevitable. Activism can spread in a way that energizes many people that were not previously primed to stand up for issues that matter to them. The NBA players that marched against police brutality in the wake of George Floyd’s murder have caused ripples throughout the country and the NBA. We are now seeing what those NBA players and their colleagues want, and they are not standing by idly. As Paul and I said in the athletes as activist podcast, we are fully in support of athletes using their influence for positive change. I think not restarting the season so that social issues are properly addressed is a good use of that influence. Kyrie also reportedly said that he was willing to give up everything he has for social reform. That is an even stronger statement that would be a sacrifice at the level of Kaepernick if true, in my opinion. Kyrie is a max-contract player, who has a team that some think can make the NBA finals next year. He had enough personal capital to get a movie made from a series of commercials he did through his endorsement deal with Pepsi. He was marketable enough for Pepsi, and he was marketable enough to star in a movie (which I think should be this current generation’s Space Jam), so he does have a lot to lose beyond the obvious financial implications. I think Kyrie gets a bad rap for his contrarian views, and I’m not sure if his flat Earth take was real or not, but I don’t think his past mistakes or strange opinions matter if the issue he wants to focus on right now has merit. I think players will listen to him and agree because he is speaking for a lot of them. The man who has not been afraid to say what he believes is standing up as the voice for a group of NBA players who are thinking about more than just basketball. It’s a great development in the current NBA saga, and it’s what Paul and I love to think about. I hope Kyrie and his group get what they want, and I hope the NBA is OK to play without those other players in its return. |