Month: August 2013

soccer

American Outlaws and old-school U.S. soccer collegiality

Posted on by Beau Dure

The controversy about the American Outlaws and the upcoming USA-Mexico game in USA-Mexicoville (also known as Columbus) has gone through three stages:

1. Multiple reports said Outlaws from Seattle had basically taken over planning crowd activities for the USA-Mexico game. Columbus fans, who take special pride in their quadrennial duties of welcoming Mexico to a stadium with a history of inglorious moments for the visitors, were miffed. Many other U.S. fans were miffed on their behalf.

2. The Outlaws, backed by U.S. Soccer, said it was all much ado about nothing. All incorrect. Internet rumor and hearsay.

But before you could say “This reporter promises to be more trusting and less vigilant in the future” (a Simpsons quote I swear I almost tweeted as soon as I saw the denials), people were calling b.s. That leads us to …

3. “Hey, if you’re going to deny something, you’d better be sure you took care of the witnesses.”

Dan Loney has summed up the situation quite well, and Bill Archer chimed in with some informative comments from his own digging around.

So as you’ve probably guessed, I’m a bit skeptical about the conclusion that this was all misinformation. Perhaps it was a misunderstanding, inasmuch as Columbus fans could reasonably be expected to interpret the conference call and other communications of the past month as anything other than, “Yeah, we’re going to tell you guys how to do things.”

And I’m with Dan in the sense that the whole notion of having “capos”  feels artificial to me. Maybe I was harsh when I suggested that it was one step away from having cheerleaders. Maybe I wasn’t.

I can draw one parallel to college basketball. The crowd at Duke’s Cameron Indoor Stadium went significantly downhill when it started to rely on “cheer sheets.” Sure, a few things were pre-planned — the Twinkies tossed on the floor upon Dennis Scott’s introduction didn’t magically appear in the ancient arena. But the best cheers sprang organically from the crowd, and Duke fans of my (long-ago) era took pride in that. Funneling a crowd’s creative power through a handful of know-it-alls in the crowd just dulls the creativity.

But something else is getting lost — something more specific to soccer.

In the mid-90s, soccer fans in this country were all in the same boat. The sport was derided, and supposedly intelligent media folks would all tell you this country would never support legitimate pro soccer.

The Internet was helping fans come together. My first experience meeting serious soccer fans was on the North American Soccer mailing list, where people shared A-League and USISL match reports along with some debate over the issues of the day.

And yes, we had plenty of issues. U.S. leagues were experimenting with every manner of rule change under the sun. Teams that fouled too much in the USISL would concede an in-game shootout attempt. Kick-ins, bigger goals and incomprehensible bonus points in the standings were all on the table.

We also had a couple of agitators, most notably the guy who ran a site with the novel concept of rounding up satellite TV listings so people could actually find soccer games to watch — maybe an A-League game on a regional network or Kyrgyzstan-Uzbekistan on some obscure channel. Valuable public service, but it’s safe to say he made his share of enemies on the list.

The reason he stands out is that the rest of the conversation was collegial. People argued rule changes — and, yes, promotion/relegation came up. But we knew we were all trying to maintain a foothold for the sport in a hostile environment. That was a group effort. List members would argue for traditional European systems, then drive to an Atlanta Ruckus game.

Perhaps I’m overromanticizing, or perhaps I’m channeling Grumpy Old Man. But I think we’ve lost a bit of our belief in common goals. And our sense of history. Or perhaps our sense that supporter culture should debated and discussed among the grass roots, not enforced from the top down.

1
olympic sports

Woly Award: Gwen Jorgensen, triathlon

Posted on by Beau Dure

Gwen Jorgensen didn’t take up triathlon until 2010. She took to it rather quickly, qualifying for the 2012 Olympics. She was unlucky there, suffering a flat tire on the bike stage.

This year, she became the first U.S. woman to win a World Triathlon Series event in April. Then she did again. And again, over the weekend in Stockholm, where she blasted her way through the 10k running phase to win by 49 seconds.

That’s three wins and the No. 1 overall ranking headed into the series finale. And she’ll take this week’s Woly Award, given to the best U.S. performance in Olympic sports.

The playlist includes Jorgensen’s win, Lashawn Merritt and David Oliver (but not Francena McCorory, for whom I couldn’t find video) winning in their penultimate Diamond League races, a bit of archery and rugby, and a surprising amount of winter sports. Yes, it’s beginning to look a lot like Sochi. New Zealand welcomed a lot of skiers and snowboarders last week, including such snowboard dignitaries as Kelly Clark and Gretchen Bleiler.

[iframe src=”//www.youtube.com/embed/videoseries?list=PLWAQzaiNbismdPMRGBc1z_eTZIjaM1aYE”  width=”560″ height=”315″]

Other items you’ll find in the Team USA roundup: a medal for the U.S. slalom kayakers, AVP beach volleyball, U.S. short-track speedskating qualifiers, and a fifth-place mixed-relay finish in modern pentathlon.

World Championships this week: Rowing, judo, mountain bike, rhythmic gymnastics, more modern pentathlon. Also half of the Diamond League track and field finals. Yes, half. I don’t make the rules. I’ll have a preview of sorts later in the week.

0
track and field

Testing a hypothesis on running

Posted on by Beau Dure

I think there’s a relationship between the amount of running someone does in high school (and earlier) and the amount of running one does as an adult. This is an obviously unscientific survey to test that hypothesis.

Defining the question: If you ran for your school cross-country team (or track, 800 meters and up) or ran regularly for exercise, you DID run in high school and should answer this:

[poll id=”6″]

Otherwise, you did NOT run in high school and should answer this:

[poll id=”7″]

3
soccer

Washington Spirit vs. Sky Blue: Amen

Posted on by Beau Dure

Sometimes, progress is measured in small steps for individuals. That was the case in the Spirit’s season finale, where Stephanie Ochs at last got on the scoresheet.

I had seen Ochs twice in practice during the week, working various finishing scenarios with both feet. While the rest of the team stretched, Ochs made run after run onto Lloyd Yaxley’s crosses. Mark Parsons told me Ochs had been begging for this sort of extra practice for a while, but the schedule just wasn’t conducive to it. With a rare eight-day gap between games, the coaching staff was happy to oblige.

But it’s been more than this week. Parsons has been working hard to improve Ochs’ tactical sense. It hasn’t always been fun. I’ve seen Ochs’ face awash with frustration and despair as Parsons once again yells out instructions.

Ochs is talented and athletic. No one who has seen a Spirit game will deny that. But like a lot of young players, she came out of college with a lot of bad habits. She would take several more steps than she needed to approach the ball. Her decision-making in the offensive third wasn’t quick enough for the pro level. It worked for her in college, and the Western New York commentary team had high praise for her season in the WPSL Elite.

She didn’t give up. Nor did the coaching staff give up on her.

And so if nothing else happened on Sunday, the mere fact that Ochs efficiently and effectively blasted a shot into the back of the net would give the Spirit staff and fans much to cheer.

And there wasn’t much else to report. The offense keeps getting better — with another five weeks to the season, they would have been formidable — but the timing is slightly TWEET … yep, Conny Pohlers was offside again. Sometimes, it was the pass that was a hair late. Sometimes, it was Pohlers surely seeing blood in the water. Or merely excited that she found some space among Sky Blue’s defenders, who have the size to blot out the sun, let alone stop a short-ish forward from taking more than one touch on the ball.

The Spirit defense bent a few times. No one is going to complain about the effort of the back five — Julia Roberts spent so much time deep on the field that she was almost a fifth defender — but scrappiness isn’t always enough to get the ball clear. After a long bout of pressure, they finally conceded an equalizer.

Parsons said the Spirit was more dangerous, and I agree. But the result was just.

I stayed out of the pressbox for this game, though I did have a chance to catch up with USA TODAY colleague Christine Brennan. And I was on the field briefly, with just enough time to chat with Sky Blue coach Jim Gabarra. I’ve never seen him so devoid of optimism. Soccer karma owes Sky Blue a win over Western New York in the semifinals, but soccer karma doesn’t exist.

But at least hard work can occasionally pay off. And so Ochs’ finish can provide a great bit of inspirational history for future Spirit teams.

Other random thoughts:

– I thoroughly enjoyed sitting in the stands for one game. The view of the game is better than it is in the pressbox. I can hear Ashlyn Harris. I can hear the fans, though I wish they’d learn to wait for a stoppage in play before meandering around. One large group arrived 15 minutes into the game and was surprised to find most of the general admission seating full. Fan education is a process. The Spirit Squadron and company are helping.

– Danielle Grote posted four postgame interviews. The one you really want to see is the Ashlyn Harris interview. I still sense some detachment among national teamers when things go astray, as if it’s not really happening or is something from which they can just walk away. Not Harris. She’s determined to learn from the losses. She embraces the bad with the good. That’s a soccer player. Excuse me — footballer.

– I had time to make one quip on Twitter during the game, and of course, it was about the ref. She seemed to be enjoying herself, but I think she occasionally forgot that it was her job to call fouls, keep the official time, etc.

Still hoping to have the book done by the end of September. Watch for updates, and thanks for reading this summer.

2
olympic sports, track and field

Woly Award: LaShawn Merritt, track and field

Posted on by Beau Dure

LaShawn Merritt won the 2008 gold medal in the highly competitive 400 meters. He followed it up with a world title in 2009.

Then the troubles began. He tested positive for a substance that he attributed to the drug ExtenZe. He returned with a second-place finish to Grenadan sensation Kirani James in 2011, then injured his hamstring in 2012 and didn’t make it to the Olympic final.

So he’s done, right?

Wrong. Merritt blew away the field at the World Championships in Moscow with a world-leading and personal best 43.74 seconds. Then he anchored the dominant U.S. men to victory in the 4×400 relay.

And he’ll take this week’s Woly Award for the top U.S. performance in Olympic sports.

Also in the playlist this week: David Oliver and Brianna Rollins win the world titles in the hurdles; winter sports season starts with slopestyle, halfpipe and cross-country; U.S. volleyballers and wrestlers win; and the USL’s Richmond Kickers try to play racquetball with no hands.

[iframe src=”//www.youtube.com/embed/videoseries?list=PLWAQzaiNbislzoUM-egKxRmf2cKZCrGAN”  width=”560″ height=”315″]

0
soccer

The NASL and the periodic restatement of facts on promotion/relegation

Posted on by Beau Dure

prorelHow did a three-part Empire of Soccer interview with NASL Commissioner Bill Peterson start an epic Twitter beatdown?

Well, it helped that in the first part, he talked about promotion/relegation, the concept that governs most soccer leagues (and other leagues) worldwide, including a lot of U.S. amateur leagues. (I still don’t know whether my indoor team was relegated last season.)

Dan Loney responded with the blog post “Not a Sane League.” That brought out the usual mix of people with an interest in promotion/relegation — some well-intended dreamers who are curious to see if it could work here, plus the people who think promotion/relegation has been kept down by an evil mix of MLS executives, journalists paid off with access or possibly money, and possibly the NSA. I don’t know — I’ve lost track.

That led to the epic Twitter match between Loney and the leader of the accusatory gang. It was mostly off-track, centering on the assertion that the U.S. soccer community has covered up a colorful history in which the old ASL was bigger than American football. Loney showed evidence to show otherwise and demanded that his combatant defend his point, which he completely failed to do.

All of this demonstrates two seemingly contradictory things:

1. There are a handful of somewhat reasonable and capitalized people who think promotion/relegation may be possible in our lifetimes.

2. The people who make the most noise about promotion/relegation online make it really difficult to have a reasonable discussion about it.

For those who are new to the discussion, welcome. Please allow me to bring you up to speed. Read this post for some prior talks, and then please consider the following:

1. Bids for Division I sanctioning were taken in 1993. I have done a fair amount of research on this period for my book and out of curiosity. I know of no effort to have promotion/relegation at that time.

I do, however, know of a bid that had multiple-point scoring like indoor soccer on steroids, and it would have limited players to specific zones and then shuffle them around between periods. This is where soccer stood in the USA in 1993.

2. MLS owners have sunk billions of dollars into this league as it stands now. Municipalities have helped MLS teams build stadiums. The team values and revenue projections that convinced them all to invest in this are predicated on the notion of being in the first division. Many of these investments have been made in the past 10 years — in 2002, the league was down to three owners and had few facilities. People tend to get angry, maybe even litigious, when you get them to pony up tons of capital and then change the rules.

So if you plan to take over USSF and force leagues to have promotion/relegation, bring the lawyers.

3. I have spoken with many team owners and officials in lower divisions. Many of them have relegated themselves. Many owners prefer to play in the fourth-tier PDL than the third-tier USL PRO or second-tier NASL. Why? It costs a whole lot less.

A couple of organizations — Seattle, Portland, Vancouver, Montreal, perhaps Orlando down the road — have made the leap from lower divisions to MLS. They did so over the course of a few years. They brought in owners with deep pockets. They worked out stadium deals. They built up a front office staff. These are not things you do in three months.

4. Promotion/relegation developed in other countries when they had too many teams for one division. In England, the Football League went through its early years occasionally kicking out and adding a new team or two, but a second division wasn’t added until it merged with the Football Alliance. In England and many other countries, leagues developed after clubs had already built their names through Cup competitions.

5. Soccer history in this country has not been ignored as part of a conspiracy to … um … I don’t know exactly how this conspiracy is supposed to work. Seems to have something to do with trying to make people think nothing existed before MLS. Strange argument to make when a bunch of MLS teams are named after their NASL predecessors, or when U.S. Soccer is devoting a lot of resources toward celebrating its centennial this year. (Bill Clinton wrote the preface to the book, so if you like broadening your conspiracy theories, you can now include Whitewater.) Personally, the only reason I don’t often wear my Fall River Marksmen shirt (from Bumpy Pitch) more often is that I’m fat and I don’t fit into it that well.

Several people have made extraordinary efforts to keep U.S. soccer history alive through many dark decades. It’s not as if the NASL of the 70s paid tribute to the ASL of the 20s and 30s. We needed the efforts of Colin Jose, Roger Allaway, Sam Foulds, Jack Huckel, David Litterer and David Wangerin to bring it all to life, even as the National Soccer Hall of Fame ran out of money. (This was all summed up in a terrific story this week.)

The main lesson that can be drawn from those histories: Soccer has had a couple of opportunities to gain a firm foothold in the USA, and it fell apart through in-fighting over petty crap. Kind of like we could end up doing now if we try to upend 20 years of progress in pro soccer.

6. This might be the most important point: There is no evidence whatsoever that a lack of promotion/relegation is what’s holding back pro soccer in the United States.

The point gets muddied here because promotion/relegation is sometimes considered part of an “open system” in which clubs are free to spend what they want. That’s what we see in Europe, though “Financial Fair Play” rules may introduce some limits, and Germany’s Bundesliga is having tremendous success while refusing to break the bank.

But most soccer owners in the USA in recent years have set out to minimize risk. The NWSL, USL, NPSL, WPSL and APS are designed to keep costs down, and they’re not running the risk of losing revenue by being kicked down the pyramid against their will. That’s why MLS had such rigid cost-containment rules for its first decade and change. Only now, in the post-Beckham era, is that starting to change.

If you’re looking for the NASL to change all that, you may be disappointed. For all the bluster of the New York Cosmos and the lack of an official salary cap at the moment, they aren’t spending crazy money. I’ve been told by an insider (anonymous source alert, though maybe he’ll step forward) that the NASL is operating with “less risk, lower operating costs.”

Meanwhile, MLS is spending with confidence — on stadiums, on youth academies, on players like Clint Dempsey. And the league has managed to do so even as the explosion of cable and new media has made it possible for U.S. fans to see every English/Welsh Premier League game (I plan to make “Ew-pull” stick) and every trick Lionel Messi has at his feet.

Would an “open system” help U.S. (and Canadian) teams develop into superclubs that can hold their own with the Man Uniteds and the Barcelonas of the world? Maybe when MLS and NASL owners have seen enough returns on their investments that they’re willing to risk spending more and seeing their teams relegated. The best-case scenario for the NASL, which is probably not the most probable scenario, is that the league thrives to the point at which it, too, meets the criteria for a Division 1 league. And then — maybe — we could talk about merging MLS and the NASL as the Football League and Football Alliance did in England.

Is that likely? Probably not.

But it’s more likely than creating a thriving U.S. league system by taking over U.S. Soccer and starting an “open system” from scratch or trying to force existing leagues to abide by drastically different rules.

And by pointing this out, I’m part of the conspiracy. And I’ll surely attract obnoxious comments. I’d encourage people to ignore those comments and relish the fact that, this weekend, you can see European games on several networks and then check out your local MLS, NWSL, NASL or USL team. If you’re over age 25, you remember when soccer was something that barely existed above the college level, and you have to marvel at the progress.

Simply put: There’s never been a better time to be a soccer fan in North America. And it’s all been done without telling people who step up to risk their money that they need to take risks that are even less likely to pay off than the ones they’re already taking.

38
mma

UFC: Your unofficial guide to survival as a reporter

Posted on by Beau Dure

Dana White can make things very difficult for those who cross him in any way. Rival promotions are left in the dust. Fighters are cut. And reporters, even entire news organizations, can be tossed into the cold.

The funny thing is that I still like him on a personal level, and I respect what he and the Fertitta brothers did to build MMA from a sideshow to a main event. Had the UFC folded circa 2004 when the brothers were losing a ton of money, I doubt MMA would ever have risen to anything resembling the prominence it has today. The Friends episode in which Monica’s boyfriend is beaten up might have been the peak of the sport.

I don’t blame him for playing hardball with other promotions. Most of the cuts from the UFC’s oversized roster are justifiable, and they let a fighter go off and headline a smaller show instead of taking more lumps in the Octagon.

The attitude toward reporters, though, is an issue. I’ve told Dana before that I don’t think it’s fair to keep out Loretta Hunt, Josh Gross and others who have fallen afoul of the UFC’s good graces.

So today, Deadspin got a tip — a note from Bleacher Report/Houston Chronicle MMA writer Jeremy Botter to other writers, explaining What Not To Do To Piss Off Dana.

(Disclaimer time: I’ve written for Bleacher Report. Most of you know that already. Yes, I was paid. Moving on.)

The fact that it was at Deadspin should set off some alarm bells. Writer Tim Marchman seems to be casting himself as the MMA-community equivalent of the guy who says, “Fine, I don’t want to go to your stupid party, anyway.” He notes with pride that Deadspin itself is blacklisted from the UFC. But … it’s Deadspin. Deadspin has always taken the stance that it doesn’t WANT credentials because its brilliant bloggers might meet actual athletes and come to consider them as human beings rather than fodder for their snark cannons.

But the funny thing is that Botter’s note — not really a memo — is mostly spot-on.

The exception is the mention of Loretta Hunt. She wasn’t actually banned for her reporting on UFC backstage access. At the time of the backstage access story, she was working for Sherdog, which was already banned. And her previous employer fell out with the UFC, too. The details in each case are rather arcane.

(Yes, I know the “official version” UFC drones post to impress basement-dwellers on the UG is vastly different, but that just shows how effective the unofficial UFC spin machine can be. One of the UFC drones on the UG is female, and I think a lot of people in that community are just excited to be speaking to a girl.)

In any case, Sam Caplan backed up Hunt’s story. And to this day, I think it’s a story that would’ve been forgotten if Dana hadn’t responded on video in a way that forced him to reconsider his language. The fact that Dana responded so harshly makes me think Hunt was on to something. Why else would he care?

In any case, it’s worth remembering here that Botter never intended for this to be public. If he was writing this for publication, he’d be a little more careful with the research.

With that out of the way, let’s look at just how accurate this note really is:

1. Nothing pisses Dana off more than people talking about Zuffa’s financials and getting everything wrong.

True of nearly everyone in the news. The UFC (Zuffa) is stingy with details, sure. But reporters can’t try to fill in gaps in their knowledge with flimsy information.

2. Don’t “report” things unless you have two very credible sources.

Basic journalism there.

3. Don’t be a mouthpiece for a manager who may be feeding you false information.

Hunt was used as the example here, and that’s inaccurate. But the point is correct.

4. Don’t be a mouthpiece for a fighter who may be feeding you false information.

Frankly, if Bleacher Report lives up to this, they’ll be ethically ahead of a lot of major news orgs.

5. Don’t talk about Dana’s history with his mom.

I didn’t know about this, but it never occurred to me to ask. Not sure how it’s anyone’s business unless his mom starts a rival fight promotion.

6. Don’t mix rumors with opinion.

Funny — people loved it when William Safire did it. But again, it’s good basic journalism here. You’re entitled to your opinion. Dana may tease you about it, but I don’t think he has banned anyone simply for an opinion. He doesn’t like inaccurate reporting about it. (The problem comes when the reporting is accurate, and he insists it’s not.)

7. Don’t be negative just to be edgy.

Well, no wonder Deadspin thought this was amusing. That’s their entire business model.

7a. Wait until the media scrum after an official press conference to bring up controversial topics.

People in the news often have their idiosyncrasies, and this is one. I don’t think a reporter is bending to Dana’s will by waiting for the media scrum to ask about fighter pay or something like that. If you know you’re going to get a better answer then, why not wait to ask it until then? Reporters want answers, not pointless confrontations.

8. You’re being watched. They pay attention to all media reports.

They most certainly do. Some in the sports world say they don’t read the papers or pay attention to the news. Dana doesn’t say that. He knows people would just laugh. The UFC is image-conscious to a fault.

So there’s really nothing controversial (other than the Hunt comment) in this note. I could write something similar about nearly everyone I’ve covered.

The larger issue is the UFC’s insistence on vindictive bans against Hunt, Gross, Sherdog (off and on), etc. It actually puts those of us who are “in” the UFC media circle in a tough spot. We seem compromised. I see people accuse credentialed reporters of being UFC mouthpieces all the time, and it’s usually unfair.

In that context, it probably doesn’t help that Botter’s note went public. People with an unflattering view of the UFC’s media relations may see it as a guide to genuflection toward Dana White and company. But it’s nothing more than a reasonable piece of advice for dealing with an oft-unreasonable community.

0
olympic sports

Woly Award: Miles Chamley-Watson, fencing

Posted on by Beau Dure

World Championship season is tough for those of us who try to pick an award winner. What do you do when you have someone who has won three straight world titles (plus the Olympics, plus two world indoor titles) in the women’s long jump, like Brittney Reese? Or an Olympic decathlon champion who repeated the feat at Worlds, like Ashton Eaton?

You give it to the fencer, of course.

Miles Chamley-Watson was just outside the top 16 seeds coming into the men’s foil competition at the World Championships, so he had to work his way through pool play before reaching the knockout rounds. Then he won his first bout 15-12. Then he came from 10-6 down to win 15-14 in the round of 32. Down 11-6 in the round of 16? Came back to win 15-14. Down 12-5 in the quarters? Oh, that has to be it — oops, he came back and won 15-14 again.

The semifinals and the final were comparatively easy. Watch his final performance in the playlist below.

He also picked up another medal today, earning silver in the team competition. That’ll be in next week’s playlist.

So Chamley-Watson is this week’s Woly Award winner, given to the best U.S. performance in Olympic sports this week.

The full list of highlights in the playlist here:

  • Fencing: Chamley-Watson, world men’s foil champion
  • Track and field: Reese, world women’s long jump champion
  • Track and field: Eaton, world decathlon champion
  • Beach volleyball: Jennifer Fopma and Brooke Sweat win first FIVB medal
  • Volleyball: Young U.S. team wins epic match with Serbia
  • Track and field: Usain Bolt isn’t American, but he’s in the highlight reel anyway — besides, Justin Gatlin was the only person anywhere near him
  • Fencing: Team bronze for the U.S. women in sabre
  • Fencing: One for the blooper reel
  • Track and field: Mo Farah at least trains in the USA, and he’s too good to ignore
  • Swimming: Thomas Shields wins 100-meter butterfly in World Cup
  • Swimming: Tyler Clary wins 400-meter butterfly, same meet
  • Badminton: Surreal end to a classic World Championship final between men’s singles legends Lin Dan and Lee Chong Wei

Video ahoy:

[iframe src=”//www.youtube.com/embed/videoseries?list=PLWAQzaiNbisnUbuvswLTLQIMI7Uoiacn7″ width=”560″ height=”315″]

0
college sports, olympic sports

College sports: End “shamateurism” but don’t pay players

Posted on by Beau Dure

Jay Bilas, with whom I’m proud to share an alma mater, stirred things up recently when he exposed the NCAA for selling shirts with athletes’ names on them. Bilas is a thoughtful guy, not a rash flamethrower, so his interview with Richard Deitsch is worth a read. He distinguishes between bad policy and bad people.

Key quote:

This is about NCAA policy, and a small part of the larger, overall point that the NCAA’s policy on amateurism is unjustifiable in this multi-billion dollar commercial enterprise of college sports.

He’s right, but that shouldn’t lead us into “pay the players” territory. Here’s why:

1. College athletes already get something substantial out of their playing careers. Here’s another Dukie, Seth Davis:

Davis took some criticism on Twitter, but he also heard from someone who pointed out that college loans are crippling a lot of people these days. Athletes have a little less to worry about on that front.

2. Most college sports programs aren’t profitable.

Granted, colleges sell a lot of merchandise on the backs of their sports teams. Merchandise isn’t always easy in accounting terms. When I buy a Georgia sweatshirt, the football team plays a big role in my purchase, but so does the fact that my father was on the faculty there for 40 years. When I buy an MIT shirt for my kids, a smaller percentage of that purchase reflects my admiration that so many smart kids at the school participate in sports. (It was 20 percent until a few cuts were made a few years ago. Cal Tech, by the way, is on probation. Seriously. And yes, it doesn’t make the NCAA look good.)

3. Nonrevenue sports shouldn’t just be collateral damage as colleges ramp up spending wars in football.

I have another idea, and it’s related to what I’ve discussed in the past on getting the NCAA to drop the ridiculous regulations and focus on actual cheating.

Let players make and keep outside money.

EA Sports wants to use current player likenesses in their games? Fine. Pay them. (Obviously, they should also pay former players like Ed O’Bannon, whose lawsuit should have settled long ago.)

Someone wants to pay Johnny Manziel $1,000 to sign autographs? Fine. Let him keep it.

Katie Ledecky breaks a world record and is eligible for bonus money? Are you kidding me? What organization in its right mind would say she’s not eligible for it? (As Philip Hersh points out, swimmers who have turned down the money and gone to college have had better careers, which just adds fuel to the question of why people have to choose.)

The NCAA, for its part, says the following:

The NCAA membership has adopted amateurism rules to ensure the students’ priority remains on obtaining a quality educational experience and that all of student-athletes are competing equitably.

But how does “amateurism,” defined by NCAA practice as not making a dime off one’s rare talents, achieve either of the underlined goals?

If Katie Ledecky takes her world record bonus, does that mean she won’t study hard? Will swimmers who otherwise would have been able to keep up with a world record-holder somehow be disadvantaged if the record-holder collected her money?

The point we can’t stress enough: That money isn’t coming from a college that’s trying to recruit Ledecky. No college is gaining an unfair advantage.

And if she’s a student in good standing, who is the NCAA to say she’s not receiving a “quality educational experience”? My “priority” my senior year wasn’t the handful of classes I needed to graduate — it was the newspaper. I saw Seth Davis in the office a good bit as well. That’s how we got employed after graduation.

I’ll repeat from posts past: The NCAA’s enforcers should be concerned with two things:

1. Making sure schools aren’t paying players.

2. Making sure players are students in good standing.

And that’s it.

3
soccer

Washington Spirit vs. Seattle: The final whistle

Posted on by Beau Dure

Wednesday’s game against Chicago was, by all practical measures, the Spirit’s first win since May 16. The league rules are clear. Washington was the better side in the 77 minutes played before the first lightning delay. As cruel as it was for the Red Stars to have their playoff hopes officially extinguished without even being on the field, the Spirit won fair and square.

But it was incomplete. Wednesday night/Thursday morning, Mark Parsons talked about not being able to hear the final whistle in front of the dozens of fans who had stuck it out through nearly three hours of stopping and starting.

Perhaps that made the Spirit hungrier. Parsons and Diana Matheson both talked afterwards about wanting to hear that final whistle. And this time, they did — in front of more than 4,000 fans. (Only a handful of the 4,549 got out to beat traffic.)

Several of us have said over the course of the season that the Spirit, beset by bad karma all season, just needed a little luck to get a good result or two. You could say they got it Wednesday, though it’s worth reiterating that the Spirit played well enough to win.

Saturday night, no luck was needed. It wasn’t a dominant performance, of course, but the Spirit created the better chances. Seattle coach Laura Harvey cited the long road trip for her team’s disappointing performance, but she wasn’t making excuses or disputing that Washington deserved the result.

The Spirit did with a lot of heart, certainly, but also with some tactical and technical shrewdness. Parsons’ formation was described several ways — 4-2-1-2-1, 4-2-3-1, 4-3-3. The bottom line was that the Spirit used two holding mids, Lori Lindsey and Julia Roberts, instead of one. Between their efforts and a solid back line, with Marisa Abegg more than justifying her late-season addition, the Spirit held Seattle to very little. Some of the Reign’s shots were from distances that would challenge field-goal kickers. In a bright start to the second half, Jessica Fishlock had a low bending shot graze the post, but Ashlyn Harris otherwise had little trouble.

The formation tweak, Parsons said, helped to free Diana Matheson and Lupita Worbis in the attack. Worbis spent much of the game being roughed up by Fishlock (fans noticed), who came into the game one yellow card shy of a suspension and will play the season finale only through the bottomless benevolence of referee Kari Seitz. But Matheson had a superb game. The Canadian midfielder was a revelation in the early going this season, slowed a bit after the international break, then reasserted her all-league claim in the last couple of games.

Stephanie Ochs and Conny Pohlers weren’t always on the same page, and Pohlers waved her arms so hard to plead for the ball that I thought her arms might pop out. But they combined well in the 32nd minute. A sweet ball from Lori Lindsey hit Pohlers, who played it wide to Ochs. The tall youngster cut toward the center and played the ball back to Pohlers, who had one of the neatest finishes past Hope Solo you’ll ever see. The only problem: She was offside.

“Before I knew it, Lloyd (Yaxley) was jumping all over me,” Parsons said. “I looked for the linesman’s flag. I always do that — everything’s gone against us. Before we scored, I saw the flag going up. Lloyd’s going mental, and I said, ‘Lloyd, no chance. We’ll get it in the second half.’”

Pohlers also was denied by a world-class save from Solo at the left post. Matheson set up that one and another chance late in the half, where Lindsey passed up a shooting opportunity and played ahead in the box to Pohlers, who was wide open but couldn’t control the pass.

Matheson kept making good plays in the second half as the rest of the attacking cast changed. Pohlers departed to a warm ovation, drawing an overhead clap from the German forward in response. Tiffany McCarty played a couple of nice crosses from the right wing. A Robyn Gayle shot was blocked by a probable handball; Seitz kept the whistle quiet there and on a similar scene in the Spirit box.

Maybe Matheson was a little lucky to get the ball for the goal. A loose ball bounced around — as Matheson put it, it took “a few bounces” and went “off a few shins.” But the finish was simply top-quality. From an acute angle, she had only a tiny bit of net at the far post she could hit if she wanted to get the ball past Solo. And that’s what she did.

Solo seemed quite bitter afterwards, but she did talk about a touching moment before the game, when she and Ali Krieger met a young cancer patient whose name, coincidentally, is Hope. Solo said she does a lot of meetings like this, “but this one’s special. Maybe she touched me in a certain way, maybe (because) her name was Hope, maybe it was just a sweet family with three sweet kids. It was very touching.”

It’s not physically possible for Solo and Rapinoe to sign autographs for every single person who asked. But on the whole, I think all the fans went away happy. The low score didn’t do justice to the amount of action in the game. The weather was perfect, which everyone especially appreciated after Wednesday’s annoyances.

And it’s the first crowd this season to see the Spirit celebrate at the final whistle.

2