Photo by ReneS

I have to give full disclosure here (that’s what bloggers do when they don’t know what they are talking about), I don’t like the NBA. I slowly stopped watching when Jordan hit his last jump shot and watched even less and less when Shaq and Kobe became worse than watching Real World/Road Rules Challenge.

Anyway, I digress. For those of you, like me, who are just realizing that the NBA Finals are starting on Thursday, the supposed “Dream” match up will feature the Lakers and the Celtics. Everyone and their brother is talking about how great this is and how this is just the shot in the arm the NBA needs.

I have news for you. Larry Legend and Magic Johnson aren’t playing. Slick Pat Riley and Auerbach are not roaming the sidelines and Kurt Rambis sure is hell isn’t walking out on the court with his kick - ass spectacles. The old match up - the one every one is trying to revive - was great. It was about The Hick from French Lick vs Magic and Showtime. It was East Coast Conservative vs. L.A. Glam. It was Lunch Pail McHale vs…well you get my drift. What I’m trying to say is that those epic battles back in the day were a product of two elite franchises. Teams that met each other year after year, and had some amazing displays of basketball.

The Celtics have been anything but epic. It has taken two transplants and an overhauled bench to get them back to the glory days. L.A. had Shaq and Kobe and some great teams, but they too have had to battle back from obscurity after Kobe shuttled Shaq and Phil (yes, I know Phil came back) out the door to hang his name atop the Staple Center marquee.

Sure this might be a great series, and hell I may even watch, but let’s not fool ourselves and think that this is about Larry Legend and Magic cause it ain’t and I’m not buying it!

What do you think - is this hype worth it or is it Road Rules/Real World esque?

{This is also going up at Nosebleed Radio}

VS

There is an interesting report from the Toronto Star about how the six Canadian teams made up 31% of the league’s ticket revenue last season.

Atop the list of income winners is the Maple Leafs, who nudged out the Montreal Canadiens to lead the league this past season with $1.9 million worth of ticket revenue per game. Based on 41 home games, that’s $77.9 million a year – not counting revenue from pre-season games. A year ago, the Leafs generated $1.5 million a game, according the report obtained by the Star from several league sources.

The report goes on to say that the league, taking out the six strongest Canadian teams, is only growing at about a 2% percent clip. It also showed that:

…eight U.S. teams – the Coyotes, the Florida Panthers, Chicago Blackhawks, New York Islanders, Atlanta Thrashers, Washington Capitals, Nashville Predators and St. Louis Blues – generated less than half the amount of ticket revenue this season of the Edmonton Oilers and Ottawa Senators. At $1.2 million in ticket revenue per game, the Oilers and Senators garnered the least amount of ticket money among Canadian clubs.

I wrote a while back about ways that the NHL could and should manage some of the issues that they have as a league. I think what these numbers support is a reduction/contraction in some of the teams. What I don’t think would be wise, at least for the game in the U.S., is to expand North of the border. But I guess one would have to ask, if there is money to be made in Canada why not move more teams there?

I think the NHL is at a very big crossroads. As a league that, as the Star report points out, is a gate receipt league, they have very little room for expanded revenue streams. They have to decide how and where they are going to market their product.

Canada, is not the answer for a bigger and better revenue generating league. No offense to my neighbors up North but I think if the league wants to be a top tier league they have to figure out how to generate revenue in the U.S. That has to start with a better TV deal than the current one. One of the reason that the NFL took off was because of its lucrative television contracts. It allowed all of their teams to share in a larger piece of the pie…drawing in fans, but also making middle market teams more viable.

Whatever the solution is, the league needs to figure it out quickly. A 2% growth rate with a very limited TV revenue deal does not bode well for the future of the sport. Bettman needs to act now if he is serious about returning hockey to its rightful place at the sporting table.

What are your thoughts? Should the NHL move more teams up North or should they contract and start building a stronger U.S. base?

{This is going up at Nosebleed Radio as well}

Photo by Mifter

I have been catching up on my Sports Illustrated reading and I just came across Dan Patrick’s front page article from last week. For those who don’t read SI, Patrick does a short interview at the front of every issue and has a few short commentaries about sports news.

In last week’s issue he has a quick paragraph about Joba Chamberlain and his recent antics on the mound. Joba has been criticized for celebrating - maybe a little too much - in ordinary game situations. I know a lot of people have been criticizing him, but what gets me is that a few weeks earlier Patrick was celebrating Manny Ramirez for his antics. Essentially he said that Manny shouldn’t get criticized for “Manny being Manny” but we should celebrate him much like folks celebrate Favre and his boyhood enjoyment of the game.

So what’s the deal, a fiery celebration should be derided but silliness and a future hall of famer should be celebrated? We criticize modern day athletes for not caring and for it being all about the “benji’s” but when they show emotion we tell them to shut it down?

Everyone is going to do what they have to get up for games and for tough situations, if a guy needs to huff and puff what’s the issue? Don’t tell me it’s the sanctity of the game because I will fire back that any sanctity in pro sports is pretty much gone (except of course the hockey handshake!).

So what do you think - to celebrate or not - or does it matter. Leave a comment and take this quick FormSpring survey as well!

Photo used with permission by JKHendricks. All Rights Reserved

I actually just wanted to see what Boobs would look like in my title - and I know it’s great link bait :)! This post is actually about Sarah Fisher - you know one of the other women in this weekend’s Indy 500.

For those of you who don’t live in the greater Indianapolis area…or Indiana for that matter, the Indy 500 isn’t just a one day thing, it’s not even a weekend thing. It is a month long festival, sporting event, PR campaign and more. And one of the more intriguing stories has been Sarah Fisher and her fight to not only qualify for the race, but also in her attempt to keep her team solvent.

She had a few sponsors lined up, however, her main potential sponsor ResQ Energy Drink has yet to deliver on their promise of cash money. Fisher, has started her own team with her husband and has pretty much sunk all of her own money into the venture. In the meantime they have been looking for sponsorships to help get her through the month of May and continue the IRL season.

Racing is all about money - the well funded teams have definite advantages. They are the ones who can afford to go into the wind tunnels and other speedways and test. They can afford to try different set-ups with multiple cars. They are the ones who can bring back up cars, letting the drivers go all out during qualifying. The less funded teams are the ones who have to raise their foot off the gas in the corners during qualifying, trying to ensure that they don’t wreck and ruin any chance of running in the race.

Fisher, in my mind, is a solid driver, she has had a second place finish, and a few other top ten finishes all while driving for mid-level teams.

So what does this all have to do with sponsorships? Well, Sarah isn’t a sex symbol like Danica or even the newcomer Milka Duno. Racing is not only about driving well, it is about selling the driver to push the sponsor’s products. Fisher may not have the sex appeal of Danica but she has that down home goodness that so many in Indiana, the Midwest and elsewhere, really appreciate.

I think someone will eventually step up and give Fisher a shot…but I can’t help wonder if she had that sex appeal, showed a little boob, would a sponsor be stepping up sooner?

What do you think - is Fisher worth a sponsorship? If she were “sexier” would she be getting more sponsor love?

{This is going up at Nosebleed Radio as well}

Indianapolis has been awarded the 2012 Super Bowl and the city is ecstatic and rightfully so - it is a big “Get” for a middle market like Indy. However one of the biggest arguments for going after the big game was and is based on the economic impact that the city could possibly receive from hosting the game. I don’t like to rain on parades, I really don’t, it’s just that I don’t like it when the sporting world tries to sell the public on something with faulty logic or numbers.

The NFL, the city, and others have thrown about $300-$400 million of economic gain from hosting the event, a number that the team and city officials have been very liberal in plastering in the media and other places when talking about the advantages of hosting the game.

Just as teams and cities oversell the impact a new stadium can have, I’ve always felt that the NFL oversells the event and what it means in terms of an economic standpoint. I think there are incentives for those doing the selling and the public is readily enticed into believing the big numbers. In doing some research I came across an interesting FastCompany article called The Business of Hosting the Super Bowl, which seemed to support some of my beliefs.

I followed up with Professor Victor Matheson an economics professor at the College of Holy Cross. Mr. Matheson has researched this topic and was quoted in the above article. I wanted to ask him some questions about the economics of hosting the Super Bowl and how it relates to Indy.

LoS: What is a good estimate a city can reasonably expect to make during a Super Bowl, in terms of economic impact and net revenue - I have seen some estimates from you and others that the real benefit is $30-$90 million is this still accurate?

Looking at data from cities that have actually hosted the Super Bowl, I have performed several studies that have identified a positive economic impact of $30-$90 million, or roughly 1/4 to 1/10 the figures touted by the NFL.

LoS: Are small market teams, like Indianapolis, more or less likely to see a large economic impact - why?

Based on the city’s size alone, I would guess the impact would be lower. Indy’s tourist industry is more likely to hit capacity constraints than that of Los Angeles, Miami, or other larger cities. In addition, if guests don’t have enough to do while in town, as happened when Jacksonville hosted the game several years ago, the city’s reputation will not receive any enhancement from hosting the event.

LoS: Could the impact be more than expected - based on Indy not being a big tourist attraction in January like a Miami or Arizona?

The general state of Indy’s tourist industry in early February definitely plays in its favor. The Super Bowl is very likely to crowd out regular visitors in warm weather destinations like New Orleans or Miami. Indy’s hotels are probably not normally at the same occupancy rates as those of the usual Super Bowl hosts in the middle of winter. Thus, the Super Bowl is less likely to crowd out other activity in Indy.

LoS: Does the “free publicity”/notoriety of holding the event truly have an impact or are there capacity restraints (how many events Indy could really hold vs how many they currently hold, actual costs of recruiting businesses to the area etc)?

I don’t know of any people or businesses that have ever relocated to a city because of the city hosting a mega-event like the Super Bowl. In fact, I have never even heard anecdotal evidence of such a thing happening. Furthermore, one must remember that not all of the publicity a city receives during a big sporting event is necessarilyl positive. Beyond the case of Jacksonville previously noted, does anyone think the Olympic Games in Munich with the Israeli athlete deaths improved the image of the city? How about Salt Lake City and the bribery scandal during the Winter Olympics or the rioting that occurred after the NBA championships in Detroit in the early 1990s (ok, so Detroit’s reputation probably didn’t have that far to fall, but you get my point).

LoS: What is the relationship of money spent on building a stadium (Indy’s is roughly $750 million) and the economic impact of hosting the Super Bowl? I.E. is the money spent by the public to build the stadium more or less than the expected Super Bowl revenue and can it, from an economic standpoint, be argued that there is truly a net gain or loss from the two?

There seems to be a curiously close connection between the average public contribution to an NFL stadium of roughly $300 to 400 million and the NFL’s claims of a $300 to $400 million benefit from hosting the game. Essentially, the NFL is saying, build a stadium with $400 million of taxpayer money and we’ll give you a $400 million Super Bowl. It’s like getting a stadium for free. Of course, trying to get large taxpayer handouts is exactly the reason that the NFL comes up with exaggerated economic impact estimates.

I certainly don’t believe that the taxpayer money Indy put into the stadium was money well spent, but now that the decision has been made to subsidize the stadium, the more events that you can host, the better. The city will certainly be somewhat better off economically due to the Super Bowl, but it won’t come close to covering the cost of the new stadium despite the numbers touted by the league.

This is a day late (or will be when I publish it) but still felt I should at least write about it. I was reading Pointless Banter (which if you aren’t reading you should be, it’s damn funny). Kevin wrote about his involvement with Blog Catalog’s “blogger’s unite“.

He wrote a great post about his lack of knowledge about some issues like Darfur and others. His message or goal or whatever you want to call it was that he needed/wanted to educate himself about these issues so he could become better aware of ways to help make an impact. This sentence “The biggest crime against humanity is apathy and I know I am guilty of it” really stuck out to me and made me think of my own involvement with certain human rights issues - and other issues important to me.

For a while I have had many ideas of ways that I can help people in need…I think a part of me, because of my background, has always wanted to do something more, give back and have an impact on those who don’t have the opportunities I have been provided.

I guess this is a post to ask you to check out Kevin’s article, which was also mentioned on CNN, and if you are moved to; learn about issues important to you, find out what you can do, and take action.

Thanks to Kevin’s post I will be looking at expediting my ideas and seeing how I can turn them into reality and have real impact, like I have always thought about.

Hopefully we can all turn our apathy into action and create real change.

After the latest “cross over” story, the one where Ranger’s tough guy Sean Avery is interning at Vogue magazine, I started thinking about sports stars and their incessant need to “branch out” beyond their sports fame. Everyone seems to want to be a multi threat, and not in their sport, but in celebrity. It seems as if every athlete wants to be a product pitchman, a movie star, a rapper/singer, director, producer etc.

What happened to just being a really damn good athlete? What happened to having the drive to be the very best in your sport, for your team, your city and your fans? When did it become normal for every decently gifted athlete to decide that they needed to be all things in all professions?

I am most certain that it is not a money issues. I mean I know you have to feed your family, right Spree, but can you not live on a couple million dollars a year? I know that some will argue that they need to set themselves up for life after sports and I partly agree with that. I know that in the, what have you done for me lately, world of sports you are only as good as your last season. So many of these athletes may be looking towards retirement but I don’t buy that is the case for most.

It may be that we just live in this 15 minutes of fame culture. Where even some dude who can barely sing, like William Hung, can be a star, but these guys (and gals) are already famous. At what point does your ego get so big that you need to pitch every product and star in movies before you get tired of seeing yourself?

I know that this is a bitchy rant and maybe it’s showing my age (I’m only 29, come on) but I like my sports stars to be stars because of their sport, not because they can barely act or sing or produce. Sometimes when you are really good at one thing it doesn’t translate well to another. Just ask Michael Jordan about baseball, or Shaq about acting…or rapping.

I know you all think that you are on the roads to stardom, and you are, but it is from what you are good at. Your sport and your athletic ability. So please, PLEASE just stop. I want our athletes back, untarnished and unsullied by the likes of Hollywood, Madison Avenue, and Nashville.

{This is also posted at Nosebleed Radio}

ESPN is reporting that one-and-done USC sensation OJ Mayo allegedly received cash and other benefits from a man linked to BDA, an agent group based in Southern California.

First off, SHOCKER! This is the same kid who had an “associate” waiting for coach Tim Floyd in the coaches office, asking “How would you like to have the best player in the country?” The associate then went on to tell Floyd how Mayo wanted to market himself in L.A before jumping to the pro’s, and how we wanted a University that would allow him to do so.

The man involved in the first incident, Ronald Guillory, is the same man who is alleged to be the middle man between BDA and Mayo, so it shouldn’t come as a shock to Floyd or anyone else associated with this situation. Floyd was willing to take a flyer on Mayo and his talents; essentially signing a deal with the devil in hopes that they could go deep into the tourney, thus raising the profile of USC basketball and start a revival of sorts at the football-crazed school.

There is a ton of blame to go around - if the accusations are true - but the person/people who need to evaluate this more than anyone is the NCAA. The NCAA and NBA thought they were creating a better system by instituting an age limit for entry into the league, however, I think the system will actually produce more headaches than they realized.

Face it, many of these kids are either kids who see the NBA as a way out of a tough life or who have a less than stellar support system, and have people in their ears who are looking out for themselves and not the kids. When they are “forced” to go to school for one year they are going to be looking to make the biggest impact, create the marketing machine for the next step, and position themselves for endorsements/a large contract etc. Ensuring a huge payday once they do leave school. So you have a system rife for exploitation.

The NCAA and NBA either need to drop the age limit or extend it to be similar to the NFL, which requires players to be at least Juniors in college or three years removed from high school graduation. The one year limit essentially makes these kids hired guns. The school that can guarantee the highest exposure and best “accommodations” are going to be the benefactors of this system…but they are going to come at a cost.

Raising the age to at least two or three years, like the NFL, would allow these kids to be influenced less by outside forces such as agents etc. You would still have corruption, face it, if a kid wants to get paid, he is going to get paid. But you would have a less “Rent-a-Player” atmosphere than you do now.

Without totally absolving the age limit ( I am a huge proponent of an age limit), or increasing it, you are going to have similar stories pop up. Kids are going to be looking for a quick payday and will agents who are more than willing to “play ball”.

So, the infamous Walsh Tapes have been delivered to the NFL commissioner’s office and the big relevation appears that not only did the Pat’s try to steal Defensive signals they tried to also tried to steal Offensive signals.

While the tapes are a little less important than say the Zapruder films, these could have a lasting impact on the NFL. SpyGate, as this has been so cleverly named by the media, is not all that surprising. Teams are consistently looking for an edge - in a game where a few plays here or there can mean winning a Championship or not.

So why is this going to be so important? Because the league is very much a copycat league. Teams, coaches, GM’s etc., willingly and openly borrow from other successful organizations. Whether it is an offensive/defensive style/scheme or how teams handle free agents, organizations watch what each other are doing and mimic one another.

So my guess is that the Patriots are not the only team doing this. In a league where the coaching trees branch from a few successful coaches and teams, you know that others have known or are practicing the same type of behavior. I am not saying it is right, but my guess is that while this may be going on in other organizations, the Pats were caught because they have a mark on their backs for being a successful franchise for the past few years. Also, because I think Belichick is not as popular as other head coaches amongst his peers.

So, if the league determines that the Patriots were in fact stealing signals in such a habitual and systematic way, they are going to come down harder than the first time around. They will have to send a signal that if other teams are doing it, that they will pay the price.

I wouldn’t be surprised if news slowly trickles out that other teams have been doing this and that it is more prevalent than we want to believe.

What do you think - is this going to be important and do you think other teams are doing the same thing?

{This is also going up at Nosebleed Radio}

The MLB Players Union is looking into possible collusion amongst the owners in how Barry Bonds’ free agency has played out.  The issues stems from the fact that there are teams that on paper could use his service yet he hasn’t received a single offer form any of the MLB teams.

I wouldn’t put it past Bud Selig and his cronies to come up with some nefarious plan against Bonds and other “marked” players in the league, I have stated before how I think Selig is a rat, yet I think this one might be actually what it appears to be.

Could it be that no owner wants to take a chance with Bonds?  Never mind his pending legal troubles and his alleged steroid use.  I think the real issue here is the type of teammate, or at least the reputation he has, that could be hurting Bonds.  Baseball is a long grueling season that requires the players to be around each other nearly every day.  Bonds has long been known as a prima donna that requires his own personal space in the clubhouse…hell, he had his own leather lounge chair brought in for his locker in San Francisco.

Maybe owners and managers don’t want to upset the chemistry of their teams by adding Bonds?  Maybe if a team and Barry could figure out a deal where he was a DH, showed up five minutes before his at bat, and had his own locker room it could work out - I am sure he would enjoy that set up.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out, but my guess is that it will be a non-story in a few short weeks.