Stafford for Goff Investment

 

LA Rams

The GameStop of Football

 

            The Los Angeles Rams finally got an answer at the quarterback position. Jared Goff along with two first-round draft picks and a third-round pick were traded to the Detroit Lions in exchange for Matthew Stafford. There is no surprise that a trade happened. The surprise might stem from the draft picks the Rams traded away, but not on the fact that they needed someone else under center for the next season. As a Rams fan who like most fans around the country tend to have an unwavering support of players on their favorite franchise. I for sure fall under that category.

            To clarify, I did not believe that Jared Goff was the next Joe Montana, but I watched this past season gutted every snap he took. Before the thumb injury it was obvious to me that Goff was terrible. If I, a sit on the couch eating pizza and chips fan, can see this than I have no doubt McVay and the rest of the team’s coaching staff were well aware of their quarterback situation throughout the season.

            Goff is heading to Detroit and Stafford is coming to Los Angeles. The obvious is that Stafford is a better quarterback than Goff. The issue the Rams have was that they had a contract that no team would be willing to take on a simple player for player trade. The Rams pulled it off with Detroit. Yes, they pulled it off.

            As previously mentioned, I am a Rams fan and my bias will always show. The view of some sport radio and shows I have listened to break it all down on who won the trade, how much the future may impact the Rams or the Lions and the usual stuff that follows a blockbuster trade. Some say the Rams lost because they gave up so much for a soon to be 33-year-old quarterback who has on resume not really accomplished much. In fact, if one lays out a few select stats Goff can easily be portrayed as the better player. I do not care.

            I am excited that the Rams have a new quarterback! I can’t say that I have had an interest Stafford but like most fans around the league I know of him. A good quarterback with a really bad team. One of the knocks is that the Rams have no first-round draft picks until 2024 and I do not share the same sentiment. I have seen this franchise go from Kurt Warner to Marc Bulger to Sam Bradford to Jared Goff. Having Matthew Stafford for a couple seasons is not that bad. To address the draft picks, the Rams have disappointed on the offensive side when it comes to picking young talent. I am still furious that the front office thought Tavon Austin was better than DeAndre Hopkins.

            I am in support of this all-in win now approach. I am aware the team in the future may be limited on their moves, but I am fine with that. I lived through the Jeff Fisher era. I will be fine. I may regret having this thought process, it may attribute to the GameStonks movement in me where I disregard for the conventional wisdom and caution. TO THE MOON!

Leeds United v. Pep Guardiola: Money in coaching

             Leeds United hosted Manchester City today to a 1-1 draw. Pep Guardiola's team was dominant in the first 20 minutes where I suspected that Leeds was out of there depth and based on their playing style would easily let in 3 more goals. However, Leeds did not break from their playing philosophy. Bielsa's coaching style was well demonstrated on the field today. I don't want to merely summarize the match as mostly anyone reading this can find others much more qualified for that. My interest lies more in the typical nostalgia factor of they don't make them like that anymore. 

            There is no surprise that Manchester City have a significant economic backing from their ownership group. The back four are one of the most expensive back lines in football. That is where I want to focus on, the money. No, this isn't the usual money is destroying the game and brings a disadvantage to other teams and blah blah blah. The emphasis on the money is how it has changed or can change coaching and managing a soccer team. The two managers for this game. Pep Guardiola and Marcelo Bielsa are two masterminds in the footballing world. Pep a genius and Bielsa "el loco." 

            The game was entertaining to watch, but it was difficult not to notice the way the teams were built. Guardiola has almost all the resources available to him while Bielsa is on the opposite end. Both teams are built in mind with their coach's approach to the game. Just one has unlimited amounts of cash or it seems that way while the other is a team recently promoted from the second division. To be fair, Leeds United did spend this off season. Their goal scorer tonight, Rodrigo was purchased for his services from the Spanish side Valencia for quite the price tag, breaking a club record.

            This in no shape or form am I suggesting that one coach is better than the other or one side has an unfair advantage. My focus here is on the coaching or the approach to coaching a team with the influence of large amounts of money. Bielsa is carrying what I would consider the traditional approach where a coach has a team and must develop the players and team philosophy to complete their goals. Bielsa has revitalized the like of Kalvin Phillips in the central midfield role. This is not to say that Guardiola has not or can't do the same, which he has in the past. The issue is that now, Pep can turn to money to attempt for a quick fix for his side. In no way is that wrong or foul play, but today we saw that Mendy may not be the answer for Manchester City at left back. Full disclosure I watch Leeds United more than I watch Manchester City and could be wrong on my player analysis. Mendy could have just had a bad game and the pouring rain did not help either. Yet, for an expensive backline I would expect better from all four defenders. 

            The issue with money is that Bielsa is forced to coach players and their roles more intensely than Guardiola due to not sharing the same deep financial pockets. I see that Bielsa is a coach from the Sir Alex Ferguson era where one must make their team and players better with reliance on team chemistry and individual growth from certain core players year to year and game to game. I am not naïve to state that Manchester United did not spend massively on players during Ferguson's time in charge, but he didn't have the same approach as the other coaches who wanted to find a finish polish player every transfer market. Guardiola is an excellent coach with a huge budget or not. However, I sense that coaches are looking for the quick fixes which makes sense with the amount of pressure and limited time they have to turn a team around and get results. I wonder if that is one of the issues causing Manchester City's sluggish start that has carried over from last season. 

            I rate both coaches in the upper echelons of coaching. One clearly has financial resources while the other must rely much more heavily on his coaching philosophy. Which makes sense when Bielsa has stated that Leeds only know how to play one way. This is no ding at the teams with money at their disposal, it would be foolish for a coach to have that resource and not utilize it properly. I just wonder if that is being used as a primary method to fix a team further reducing the coaching role requiring to coach than to a manager trying to fit and control new star recruits for their team to function.   

California Law v. NCAA Policy

           California is giving the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) a headache. The state senate and assembly passed their own versions of the Fair Pay to Play Act. If the legislation passes, it still needs to have minor details between the two bodies of government worked out, would allow for college athletes to monetize their image and likeliness through a third party. This would mean that college athletes would be able or protected by California state law to hire an agent. An athlete could essentially be paid to be in local commercials or received payments for their autograph at a signing event.

            This doesn’t sit well with the NCAA and its policy of amateurism. All student-athletes are amateurs and therefore cannot receive any form of monetary payment. However, college football and basketball tend to resemble professional sports rather than a local or regional sporting event. The president of the NCAA has issued a warning that if the law passes the not-for-profit organization would ban all schools from California. UCLA, USC, Stanford, and Cal are a few of the big-name schools that would face a dilemma. Whether to follow state law or the NCAA’s policy. The state of California also has other schools that participate in division I sports such as Cal State Fullerton (Baseball) and San Diego State. This would place plenty of schools in a bind.

            The Fair Pay to Play Act, if passed, would not go into effect until January 1, 2023. However, the NCAA is prepared to challenge California’s law in court. Most likely through a federal court on the notion of interstate trade and commerce. The legal battle will be an interesting one to follow, but it might end up being settled if the NCAA changes its policies before the law goes into effect.

            One of the threats that the NCAA states it will issue is banning schools from participating in Bowl Games or playoffs. Which is a serious threat as many schools will miss out on monetary gains. One of the possible implications would be that high school prospects would opt out from joining schools in California and that high-quality coaches would not take a job as they would be barred from any NCAA championship.

            BUT! What about the students’ perspective?  The assumption that student athletes would avoid USC, UCLA, Stanford, and Cal because they would not be NCAA playoff eligible seems to miss a few key points. Lets not forget that the current trend among college football athletes is to sit out on bowl games as they are deemed to be too much of a high risk especially for athletes that are prospects to be drafted in the early rounds of the NFL draft. The second point is that making money tends to be a huge motivator. Mallory Pugh left UCLA’s women’s soccer program to go pro and get paid! Why do something for free when one can get paid to do it?

            This is in no way to diminish the spirit of the sport, especially in the older fan community. There is something admirable about playing a sport just to play. However, NCAA football and basketball players do not play just to play. They are amateurs by name only. I play soccer on the weekends and no one who reads this knew that. That’s amateur. I would want to see the law go into effect and be curious to see if top high school prospects actually prefer to attend the universities in California. The schools will still have athletics, granted they may turn local and regional due to being barred from the NCAA, but I am a strong believer that college sports in California will not vanish once or if the law is passed.

            A top prospect would play less games, travel shorter distances for away games, and has the opportunity to get paid. Those conditions seem to favor the student-athlete. The law would affect all student athletes in California so that would mean that tennis players, volleyball, swim, track and field, and other sports would be eligible to pursue the same economic gains without being banned or punished by the NCAA. Football and basketball players will most likely generate a higher price tag, but that’s just the free market working out right?

            The law will challenge and force the hand of other states as well as the NCAA to act and define the role and limitations of collegiate athletes. If a student-athlete opts to play for free and just accept a scholarship then great, their choice. But, that choice should not limit the options of other college athletes from pursuing their liberty and happiness.

"The Life of J.Z." by Jay-Z

     The National Football League's commissioner, Rodger Goodell, met with Jay-Z , one of the most successful rappers of all-time and a hip-hop mogul. The two had a joint media session in the Roc Nation's office building in New York. The general public has taken notice or is most likely aware that the NFL has had an image problem for quite some time. Starting from the withheld concussion information to the players' protest. Colin Kaepernick is rightly given the credit on starting the dialogue by sitting and then kneeling during the national anthem that is traditionally played before a sporting event.

     Kaepernick's protest was to raise awareness on police brutality and the inequality that exists in the country. It was spun and turned into a debate about the flag and symbolism rather than addressing the real physical impact a bullet has on human flesh. There is so much to unpack and unravel from that. However, that is not the main purpose for what is to be discussed today. That is not to imply that the words of the President and many others who lack or have a very limited knowledge of sport history should be ignored and not properly addressed.

     The focus is on Jay-Z. He partnered with the NFL to develop the NFL's social-justice initiatives by creating a place and space for players to speak out on issues and the Super Bowl halftime show. I don't want to be a skeptic, but I have a sense that the latter is what Roc Nation will be more heavily concerned with. After all Jay-Z is a smart businessman and why wouldn't you want your entertainment company to have an exclusive inside access pass to one of the country's most watched sporting event? To clarify, the focus on Jay-Z is not to excuse the multiple times the NFL has botched on social and health issues or make Roger Goodell the good guy here. The thesis is to understand some of the backlash Jay-Z has received due in part of this partnership deal.

     There are quite a few ways to go about this. The method I chose was to examine a few words that Jay-Z said that left me scratching my head. Especially since it came from someone who has utilized his platform pretty well when it has come to social issues. The quote in full below. Granted there is more to the media session, but this caught my eye.

“I think that we forget that Colin’s whole thing was to bring attention to social injustice, correct?” Jay-Z said during the press conference. “So, in that case, this is a success; this is the next thing. ’Cause there’s two parts of protesting. You go outside and you protest, and then the company or the individual says, ‘I hear you. What do we do next?’ So, for me, it was like, action, actionable item, what are we going to do with it? Everyone heard and we hear what you’re saying, and everybody knows I agree with what you’re saying. So what are we going to do? So we should, millions of millions of people, and all we get stuck on [is] Colin not having a job. I think we’re past kneeling. I think it’s time for action.”
   The first part that I question is Jay-Z stating that one protests an "individual or company." That right there says a few things and Jay-Z unknowingly undermines Kaepernick. Colin Kaepernick was not protesting an individual (President 45?) or a company (NFL). He was protesting police brutality and inequality which Kaepernick said from the very beginning when reporters asked him why he took a knee. 

      From my understanding the majority of protest are intended and aimed at government institutions for failing their citizens. Which is a social structure problem not an NFL or individual issue. In that context, Jay-Z has shifted the systemic problems Kaepernick wanted to bring up into the forefront of national conversation towards a solution.  A solution that two companies will attempt to solve. To be fair, Jay-Z did not say that this partnership will solve institutional racism that exist in the country. 

     That follows my second problem with what Jay-Z said. Which was that he implemented "we" as in millions of people were stuck on Colin Kaepernick not having a job. That plays into the hands of the NFL when it comes to their public image of the league blackballing the former Quarterback. Jay-Z fails to see that Kaepernick used his platform to speak out on social issues and lost his job for it. The NFL is a company that exist within a much larger structure. That structure is the US economy that is more of a pro-enterprise market than a free market. Enterprises have been given more rights and leniency than individual Americans. That is the excuse that has allowed for laws and practices to strip Black Americans from their rights, land, and jobs. That is were I think Jay-Z fails to understand the history of racism in America. 

     I believe that Jay-Z has well intentions in his partnership with the NFL, it will certainly benefit his company. However, this is a business to business partnership and the bottom line is to make as much money as possible. This is similar to the outrage I sometimes read about people calling Hollywood or other sectors of the entertainment industry as hypocrites. Yes, the entertainment industry may have liberal and progressive views, but their main thrust is to entertain not get the Democratic candidate in the Colorado senate race elected. 

     This is my guess in why part of the backlash Jay-Z has encountered the last few days. There may be a lot more to it, but by entering this partnership Jay-Z is not thinking about Kaepernick or else he would have had him take some part in this. It is very early to predict the future with how this will turn out. The financial details have not been disclosed and Jay-Z has not had any time to demonstrate his work and vision in this project. All I know is that the structures will limit and social justice progress. 

Using Drugs to Enhance Performance is Cheating

          

          Swimming is not really known for having bad boys or drama outside of the pool. Speaking as someone who views sports and consumes most information from living in the United States, I don’t hear much from the sport. Michael Phelps and the Summer Olympic games are the only reason, for the most part, that my curiosity is peaked about what is going on in swimming. Yet, the reason I dedicated a brief space and time for swimming has nothing to do with either.

            Sun Yang, a swimmer from China, won gold in the 400m freestyle event in the championships in South Korea. Sun was caught using a performance enhancement drug (PED). He tested positive for a banned stimulant, trimetazidine, in 2014. Mack Horton, an Australian swimmer and Olympic gold medalist from Rio, was not happy with the result and did not stand on the podium along side his competitor. Horton took silver in the race but was clearly upset that he lost to someone who he has called a cheat in the past.

            The drama further escalated as some swimmers sided with Horton’s action on not shaking hands or posing pictures with Sun Yang. Sun was not happy and stated that it was unfortunate.

            This is some high-level drama considering I don’t necessarily follow swimming and tend to be associated with the masses who only care about the sport every four years. The reason this story piqued my interest was because of the view on drugs within the sport by athletes. I am in the camp where I think that athletes should be allowed to use PEDs, but in a regulated and safe manner. I am aware that my view is not widely accepted as the ethical pathway, but I do have reasons at the structural level of sport that shape my view. However, that debate shall be revisited at another time.

            The significant aspect of this event outside of the pool shares the view on how swimmers view their competitors who used PEDs. They are cheaters. They broke the rules and therefore are cheaters, simple. I do not disagree with Mack Horton’s camp and think he is right to complain. The reason I bring this up because it is fascinating to see who the athletes view PED users. Granted their reaction is not a real surprise as I doubt anyone enjoys losing a competition to someone who did not contest fairly, but that the protest from Horton is a moment in sport history that should be remembered for the larger debate. 

Quick Notes on 2020 Tokyo Summer Olympic Games

In exactly one year from today the Tokyo 2020 summer Olympic games will commence. There will be a few events that will start before the opening ceremony on July 24, 2020. The Olympic medals that will be awarded in 2020 were revealed today at the capitol of Japan. The medals are unique in how the precious medals were obtained. There will be a decent amount of recycled material used in the medals and the gold, silver, and bronze obtained from public donations from mobile phones were utilized. Not to be confused, the public donation of recycled mobile phones does not account for all of the precious medals used. But it is a sign on how Japan wants to design the Olympic games to the world.

The international sporting event is a time when the host city and most of the time the nation can demonstrate to the world who they are and what they represent. That is no secret, but it works to a certain extent. Tokyo is planning on having robots in the image of the Tokyo 2020 mascot at events greeting people. This creative sport political image shaping is a reason behind host cities and nations seek the opportunity to host the Olympic games. The Olympic games are awarded to a host city, but the nation also provides a lot of input and influence over the campaign.

This is an example of sports being about nationalism and political. At its core value the Olympic games are about competition and human pursuit of excellence, but the human factor is a reason why the topics of nationalism and politics are inescapable. The Olympics will focus on the winners that stand on the podium, but one should keep in mind that the winner’s nations national anthem will be played as they step up to receive their medals. This is the reason why there is an anti-Olympic movement. Politics are decisive and perspective based. Nationalism is not necessarily a negative ingredient as it does make sporting events much more fun especially if one knows the history of the nations and can conjure up historical events to create a mental rivalry. The more basic one is that of supporting one’s nation and excited at the sight of winning and be associated with that nation.

However, the reason politics cannot be ignored and tends to be the more divisive measure is due to a few reasons. The main reason is money. The Olympics are a fun and exciting sporting event that momentarily unites people from all over the world in one place to share common values and interest. Yet, hosting the games is a very expensive burden that tends to fall onto the locals. Whatever the billions of dollars that one will read or watch on television during the 2020 Tokyo Summer Olympic Games, beware that 70% of cost will be covered or was paid for by the taxpayer. Which is how this great sporting event gets political and unavoidable. When money is being spent that belongs to the taxpayer two essential questions should be prompted. Do the games bring economic growth to the host city? What happens after the games are over? To keep it brief, no and the city residents are left with a large portion of the bill.

The Olympics are fun and entertaining to watch. I will be watching the games and keeping track on all the athletic events as possible. One should beware that there will be protesting and instead of moaning and complaining that sports and politics do not mix or that this is not the right place or time understand that sports as never stood alone in a vacuum from the rest of society and that is a reason why sports are fundamental to human society.

The Sun has not Yet set on the Old Empire

The Sun has not Yet set on the Old Empire

            The UEFA Champions league and the Europa League will be contested by four English club teams. Liverpool versus Tottenham for the champions league match and Arsenal against Chelsea for the Europa League. An astonishing feat for a league that has not had recent success in the Champions league. The last English team to win it was in the 2011-12 edition when Chelsea defeated Bayern Munich in a penalty shootout. Manchester United was the last English club to win the Europa League fairly recent as the red devils lifted the trophy in the 2016-17 season. Having all four teams be from one league in Europe is an impressive accomplishment that I can remember. The most recent kind of dominance in Europe by one league that comes to mind is during the 2013 to 2016 span when both European competitions were won by teams from La Liga. This will guarantee that the English premier league will secure a similar kind of dominance in Europe.

            It will come to know surprise to those who share the game watching experience with me that I am not too big on the English side as being thee best league, or top five in international competition. However, their recent run in Russia during the 2018 World Cup was an entertaining run and one worth acknowledging their great performance. This adds to it as I will concede that the English have gained traction in getting things right that past couple of years. Now for those who think I take the contrarian route in disliking the English have it quite wrong. I do not go against them simply because they are popular and well marketed league, hats off to them for it. My view has always been that I did not see the same thing that the fans of their respective teams saw in them. For example, I did go for the English national side during their run in the world cup because I enjoy a good underdog and redemption story like most fans. But, that is how I have always seen them.

            Now that that clarification is out of the way, back to the English being good in football. The Europa league will be contested by two sides that really did not look so great for the majority of their domestic campaigns. Chelsea brought in Mauricio Sarri to take the club to the next level and potentially challenge for the title. That did not go as planned. The Sarri ball side finished 3^rd in the league but it did seem as if the team regressed from the previous year and limped their way into third as neither of the other teams really wanted it either.

            Arsenal can be seen in a more positive and forgiving manner as the side was managed by a new coach in Unai Emery. Arsenal were and are currently in a rebuilding phase and at times showed the grit and resilience that was lacking under Arsene Wenger’s last few seasons in charged. Emery has given the Gunner’s faithful some hope for the club, if the board fully commits and gets behind their new manager, and confidence that he is the right man to lead the team back in the right direction.

            Both teams had their issue in their domestic campaigns, but little of that was visible during their European cup competition. Not sure if this is as impressive of an accolade given that both clubs are much more financially off then the rest of the teams that compete in Europe, but both Arsenal and Chelsea are teams that began their campaigns in the actual group stage of the tournament. Which has not been the case for the last six tournaments where at least one has been from the Champions league tournament. Now both teams could potentially be in the Champions league next year depending on the outcome in Baku.

            Liverpool and Tottenham will play in Madrid for the Champions League final. Liverpool just finished the league in second pushing Manchester City to a record run only to fall short off them by a point. Liverpool under Klopp is not really a surprise as I think most footballing fans will be aware on what kind of team Liverpool has become under the German manager. If Liverpool win on June 1^st they will become the third most successful club in the competition. They will go from 5 trophies to 6 placing them on clear of Bayern Munich who have 5 and one shy of second place AC Milan.

            Tottenham will have an opportunity to win their Champions league trophy and award Pochettino his first title with the club as well. The Argentine manager has done a phenomenal job guiding the club to their current position without any new signings this season. The club has transformed into a well playing side that has challenged the top clubs in England and Europe.

            Liverpool are heavy favorites, but Tottenham are not a club to be overlooked. Chelsea may have a great side compared to Arsenal based on player for player comparison by position, but Arsenal did not reach the final by accident. Tottenham will be without an inform Henry Kane who will most likely be available but will be a surprise if he starts. Liverpool at the moment look like the side that has not faults other than the mental fatigue that can be attributed from a hectic domestic season. Arsenal seem the weakest of the side simply because their defense is still awful and in desperate need of an upgrade over the summer. This season belongs to the English as their teams have demonstrated that they can play among the very best and have gifted us with two exciting finals that I will definitely watch.