http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/25/sports/football/25needle.html
In summary, American Needle wants to make NFL apparel. The NFL has an exclusive apparel deal with Reebok, creating the sub-brand "Equipment NFL" (the first step towards my boycott, laid years before). American Needle says this agreement is collusion and therefore illegal; they should too be able to make NFL apparel. Lower courts agree. NFL appeals to the supreme court, stating they should have an anti-trust exemption (MLB has one, no other sports league does) because they are not 32 individual teams, but rather one league. The Supreme Court disagrees and says they are 32 individual teams who sometimes share similar goals.
What does this mean?
It means, potentially, that teams can decide their own commercial ventures, instead of those bequeathed by the league. It means an exclusive apparel deal, like the one in collusion with Reebok, is potentially illegal.
It means, if I happen to end my NFL boycott in a few years, and the Reebok deal is no more, I may be able to purchase a replica football jersey -- I only have a Corey Simon jersey I got when he was a rookie on the Eagles, and a "vintage" Eagles Reggie White jersey, which I may actually suspect is reebok or whatevs (which makes it inauthentic, Eagles didn't have an agreement with Reebok then) but it was a gift.
But perhaps finally this madness will come to an end. I do believe (I say believe because I am unable to actually produce any sort of empirical evidence for this) that the price of NFL team hats (the product market which American Needle wishes to jump into) has risen above the rate of inflation since the deal was struck with Reebok.
Isn't it the goal of a team like the St. Louis Rams to sell more hats or other apparel than, say, the Chicago Bears? How can they do this when the deal is all set up under the guise of the league acting as one.
Try telling the (insert team who lost the Super Bowl last year, or really any team that didn't even make it to the game) that they won the Super Bowl, cos the League won the Super Bowl. It doesn't work like that.
And if the league has an anti-trust exemption, then how come rival leagues have come and gone? The USFL in the 80s, the XFL in the 90s, the UFL currently, and what about all the arena leagues?
I know Paul "I don't care about old player's health coverage and pensions" Tagliabue was the one who signed the deal with Reebok, but damnit if roger goodell wasn't hell bent on expanding it and making sure it stays in place. I mean, Quarterback gets off the field, wants to take his helmet off on the sidelines, has to put on the "new officual quarterback's hat, by Reebok", come one, and it goes down the line of pretty much all the "skill" positions.
It could also potentially mean a lot for the upcoming collective bargaining agreement. What, I'm not sure, since I don't know anything about collective bargaining.
-- Knuttel
5.28.2010
5.27.2010
ESPN and BCS in bed
Yes, it is true. I do believe that I have written of their partnership in the past, and may have even commented on the "pro-bcs" commentary during the "national championship" as a definite downside.
But now, in what can only be called the off-season, ESPN's College Football live takes shots at bcs naysayers.
Boise State's President outright slammed the bcs in a recent statement. Attacking the notion that "every game counts", he states:
"But how do Boise State’s games count under the BCS when four of the past six years we went undefeated in the regular season, and yet never even came close to having an opportunity to compete for the national championship? How did all of those games, and all of those perfect records, count under the BCS? In fact, in two of those four undefeated regular seasons, Boise State was foreclosed from even playing in a major bowl."
The statement was also wrapped around revenue issues, showing how the Mountain West and WAC (the conference which Boise State is in) have higher TV Ratings, higher rankings, and higher game attendances than the ACC and Big East, yet the ACC and Big East receive 19 Mil in Bowl revenues yearly, The Mountain West and WAC getting 9 mil if they make the big bowls.
This made headlines on College Football live, and instead of having at least a reasonable discussion about the pros and cons of either situation (with or without the bcs), they simply take turns bashing the idea that there could be anything resembling a national champion without the bcs, and come to the conclusion that the President of Boise State must be a lunatic.
Before ESPN, and its family of networks (actually the ABC/Disney family of networks) got their hands on a big portion of the bcs pie, they never made a huge deal about the "awesomeness" that is the bcs, and how we would all be wandering nomads in the desert without its brilliance, guidance, and wisdom. Sure, they were invested in the bowl system, but it wasn't uncommon for commentators to say "hey, maybe the champion should be decided through a playoff, but hey, there's no reason we have to get rid of this great bowl system we have."
They could at least get half way there.
Now they are miles away. The only way this could seemingly get fixed is if legal action is taken. I don't want that to have to happen, because the people who won't read about how bad the bcs really is, are the people who only watch ESPN for their sports news, are the people hate government intervention of any kind (save for their welfare checks). So naturally, they will assume the bcs was given to us by God, and his prophet, Lee Corso, and the government is trying to take away all that is holy in college sports.
Come on, this isn't Europe! We don't have a series of tiered leagues, with a points system tied to relegations and promotions. We don't decide who the winner of a league is by points total at the end of the year (the NHL has the President's trophy, but the winner of that definitely does not always win the Stanley Cup). And perhaps most importantly, we don't have an over-reaching Police State watching our every move and locking us away when we say something benignly offensive to the regime.
Fuck the Queen.
See, say it along with me. It's liberating. And it's American.
Why can't there be a civil debate about how we should go about replacing the bcs (cos anyone with half a brain could tell you having the bcs would be a wrong move)?
http://news.boisestate.edu/blog/2010/05/25/statement-of-boise-state-university-president-robert-kustra-regarding-bcs-revenue-discrimination/
-- Knuttel
But now, in what can only be called the off-season, ESPN's College Football live takes shots at bcs naysayers.
Boise State's President outright slammed the bcs in a recent statement. Attacking the notion that "every game counts", he states:
"But how do Boise State’s games count under the BCS when four of the past six years we went undefeated in the regular season, and yet never even came close to having an opportunity to compete for the national championship? How did all of those games, and all of those perfect records, count under the BCS? In fact, in two of those four undefeated regular seasons, Boise State was foreclosed from even playing in a major bowl."
The statement was also wrapped around revenue issues, showing how the Mountain West and WAC (the conference which Boise State is in) have higher TV Ratings, higher rankings, and higher game attendances than the ACC and Big East, yet the ACC and Big East receive 19 Mil in Bowl revenues yearly, The Mountain West and WAC getting 9 mil if they make the big bowls.
This made headlines on College Football live, and instead of having at least a reasonable discussion about the pros and cons of either situation (with or without the bcs), they simply take turns bashing the idea that there could be anything resembling a national champion without the bcs, and come to the conclusion that the President of Boise State must be a lunatic.
Before ESPN, and its family of networks (actually the ABC/Disney family of networks) got their hands on a big portion of the bcs pie, they never made a huge deal about the "awesomeness" that is the bcs, and how we would all be wandering nomads in the desert without its brilliance, guidance, and wisdom. Sure, they were invested in the bowl system, but it wasn't uncommon for commentators to say "hey, maybe the champion should be decided through a playoff, but hey, there's no reason we have to get rid of this great bowl system we have."
They could at least get half way there.
Now they are miles away. The only way this could seemingly get fixed is if legal action is taken. I don't want that to have to happen, because the people who won't read about how bad the bcs really is, are the people who only watch ESPN for their sports news, are the people hate government intervention of any kind (save for their welfare checks). So naturally, they will assume the bcs was given to us by God, and his prophet, Lee Corso, and the government is trying to take away all that is holy in college sports.
Come on, this isn't Europe! We don't have a series of tiered leagues, with a points system tied to relegations and promotions. We don't decide who the winner of a league is by points total at the end of the year (the NHL has the President's trophy, but the winner of that definitely does not always win the Stanley Cup). And perhaps most importantly, we don't have an over-reaching Police State watching our every move and locking us away when we say something benignly offensive to the regime.
Fuck the Queen.
See, say it along with me. It's liberating. And it's American.
Why can't there be a civil debate about how we should go about replacing the bcs (cos anyone with half a brain could tell you having the bcs would be a wrong move)?
http://news.boisestate.edu/blog/2010/05/25/statement-of-boise-state-university-president-robert-kustra-regarding-bcs-revenue-discrimination/
-- Knuttel
5.18.2010
THE CHAMPIONS
:cue awful champions league theme song:
I dunno, maybe I don't get it cos I'm not one of those fancy pants European types.
Maybe I don't get it cos I'm also aware of the CONCACAF Champions League, in addition to the UEFA version (I don't think I hear them say UEFA, in either abbreviations or in full during the song).
In any case, I digress.
This Saturday (a step up from last year, when it was Wednesday) Bayern Munich and Internazionale Milan will meet in the Champions League finals. The game will be held in Madrid, Santiago Bernabéu Stadium, the field of Real Madrid.
Real Madrid was, for many decades, a willing acceptor of privileges at the behest of the Franko dictatorship. This means that many of their titles should be considered null and void, or at the very least include asterisks. While many Champions League level teams boast many international studs, the Real Madrid teams that won the first decade of Champions League play was basically the Spanish national squad.
They have played against one another 4 times, twice as a result of being in the same group in the 88-89 UEFA Cup, the other two as a result of being in the same group in the 2006-2007 UEFA Champions League. The record stands as 2 wins for Bayern, 1 win for Inter, 1 draw.
Bayern Munich has won the Champions League 4 times, the last time being 2001, and has been the runner up 3 times.
Internazionale Milan has won the Champions league twice, the last time being in 1965, and has been the runner up another two times. All of these were achieved by using Catenazzio, a strategy that uses boredom to lull the refs, spectators, and sometimes the other team asleep.
Both of these teams are going for the treble, having both won their league titles by points and by the league cup.
Both of these teams are most notable for carrying all time soccer great, legend, and sometimes alter-ego of the Knuttel, Lothar Matthaus, for extended periods of time. Lothar had two stints with Bayern Munich -- 1984-1988, 1992-2000. He had one stint with Internazionale in the meantime -- 1988-1992.
So who wins the game? BREAKDOWN
History in the Champions League final -- Bayern
Geographic proximity to Madrid -- Inter
Tenure of Lothar Matthaus -- Bayern
Not having Marco Matterazi -- Bayern
Goalkeeping -- Inter
Defense -- Bayern (by a hair)
Counter-attack -- Bayern
Mid Field -- Bayern
Forwards -- Inter
Bayern 6 - Inter 3
It is closer than it looks though. This game, by no means, should be a runaway. The stregnths of Bayerns Center defense, attacking outside backs, and midfield should be enough to keep Inter busy. If they can get through, their forwards are better (forwards plural, I do realize Bayern has Klose, just little else), and their more experienced goal keeper should keep Bayern at bay.
As long as the game doesn't devolve into the Cattenazzio that Inter made famous in the 60s, the game should be enjoyable.
-- Knuttel
I dunno, maybe I don't get it cos I'm not one of those fancy pants European types.
Maybe I don't get it cos I'm also aware of the CONCACAF Champions League, in addition to the UEFA version (I don't think I hear them say UEFA, in either abbreviations or in full during the song).
In any case, I digress.
This Saturday (a step up from last year, when it was Wednesday) Bayern Munich and Internazionale Milan will meet in the Champions League finals. The game will be held in Madrid, Santiago Bernabéu Stadium, the field of Real Madrid.
Real Madrid was, for many decades, a willing acceptor of privileges at the behest of the Franko dictatorship. This means that many of their titles should be considered null and void, or at the very least include asterisks. While many Champions League level teams boast many international studs, the Real Madrid teams that won the first decade of Champions League play was basically the Spanish national squad.
They have played against one another 4 times, twice as a result of being in the same group in the 88-89 UEFA Cup, the other two as a result of being in the same group in the 2006-2007 UEFA Champions League. The record stands as 2 wins for Bayern, 1 win for Inter, 1 draw.
Bayern Munich has won the Champions League 4 times, the last time being 2001, and has been the runner up 3 times.
Internazionale Milan has won the Champions league twice, the last time being in 1965, and has been the runner up another two times. All of these were achieved by using Catenazzio, a strategy that uses boredom to lull the refs, spectators, and sometimes the other team asleep.
Both of these teams are going for the treble, having both won their league titles by points and by the league cup.
Both of these teams are most notable for carrying all time soccer great, legend, and sometimes alter-ego of the Knuttel, Lothar Matthaus, for extended periods of time. Lothar had two stints with Bayern Munich -- 1984-1988, 1992-2000. He had one stint with Internazionale in the meantime -- 1988-1992.
So who wins the game? BREAKDOWN
History in the Champions League final -- Bayern
Geographic proximity to Madrid -- Inter
Tenure of Lothar Matthaus -- Bayern
Not having Marco Matterazi -- Bayern
Goalkeeping -- Inter
Defense -- Bayern (by a hair)
Counter-attack -- Bayern
Mid Field -- Bayern
Forwards -- Inter
Bayern 6 - Inter 3
It is closer than it looks though. This game, by no means, should be a runaway. The stregnths of Bayerns Center defense, attacking outside backs, and midfield should be enough to keep Inter busy. If they can get through, their forwards are better (forwards plural, I do realize Bayern has Klose, just little else), and their more experienced goal keeper should keep Bayern at bay.
As long as the game doesn't devolve into the Cattenazzio that Inter made famous in the 60s, the game should be enjoyable.
-- Knuttel
Lack of Responsibility and Oversight
Lack of responsibility and oversight, this may been seen to be an issue with corporations, but it is indeed also an issue with the elected officials of our government.
But elections keep them in check, no?
Well, they do to a certain extent, but it's a system that's far to easy to go around.
First of all, the "one and done," a politician who only runs for one term, he can do whatever he wants. He has no stake in becoming re-electable. Depending on the office, or sometimes nothing at all, this can be a good thing or a bad thing -- as he can either ignore public opinion entirely just to get something that wouldn't otherwise be done, or he can raid the government's coffers for his friends, family, and self.
But that's a small issue, really. The bigger issue is the Party system, and how it stays afloat.
First, in order to get elected, the candidate likely needs support of the larger party infrastructure. Thus, if the candidate is moderate (or even on the "opposite" side of the spectrum) he must radicalize himself in at least small regards to get actual support for his campaign.
Second, he must likely win a primary, where he is only competing for votes amongst his party. Needless to say, this means the winner will much more likely be on the far wing of his party than on the moderate side of politics in general (which would actually make him the extremist in this group). The other party's candidate will likely win in the same manner.
Third, this creates a scenario where a left winger will likely be running against a right winger. In parts of the country where the one party is weaker, this opposite candidate might actually be a moderate, which actually creates competition in these areas, so long as the dominant party isn't too dominant. In any case, this creates an "us against them" mentality among supporters of the candidates. You are either for the candidate or against them, there is no middle ground, no one votes for independents (very rare exceptions to this rule).
Now, fourthly, someone on either edge of the spectrum has now won, and will attempt to push through his radicalized agenda, with the help of his even more radicalized party. If a moderate happens to slip through the cracks in this stage, he must now adopt a more radical stance than the one he ran on, in order to get party support for his projects, otherwise he will be an extremely unproductive "voter" who does nothing for the people who elected him.
At the heart of this issue is the primary system. Most states use a closed primary system, such as my own state of Pennsylvania. As an independent, I cannot partake in anything happening at all today (which is primary voting day), and can only watch in bemusement. I like the idea of the primary, as the people are selecting who will represent their side. But the ultimate resolution is this man will support their side, and likely not much else. There will be no candidate to stride the divide, unite the people and work for something that will work for everybody.
The primary system forced long tenured Connecticut Senator Lieberman to run as an independent a few years ago, and now he's not nearly as endeared to the party's base as he once was. This year it forced Crist, the Senate candidate in Florida, to run as an independent. Even more, he had to declare his independence way before the primary (which I think is also happening today).
It may also force Arlen Specter out of office. He has been Pennsylvania's Senator for I want to say five terms. For the most of that time, he was a Republican the Democrats in the state could vote for. Now, since he switched parties, he's just a Democrat not all the Democrats will vote for. He was forced out due to radicalization within his own party -- Pat Toomey would have been very likely to beat him in the Republican primaries (he kept getting closer and closer). Now Democrats are running Admiral Joe Sestak against him, which bugs me even more because I like Joe Sestak.
Aside: why do the Democrats of Pennsylvania only run good candidates against Arlen Specter? Seriously? In 2004, Joe Hoeffel was run against him, a candidate I would have loved to see in office, but I did not want to see Specter go. Now, in 2010, Joe Sestak is running against him, and I would also kinda like to see him in the Senate seat. Meanwhile, in 2006, Rick Santorum, who by then had made enough gaffs to make Joe Biden blush and was clearly on his way out, had only to run against Bob Casey, a boring "moderate" (a democrat who loves to spend the tax payers money but hates killing babies) who had only held the positions auditor general and state treasurer; his family was also very political (his dad was Governor of Pennsylvania), making him an insider even if he didn't do anything. I believe Sestak was still in the Navy at this point, but why couldn't Hoeffel run against Santorum?
Whatevs.
Todays primaries will likely be very amusing at the least. Perhaps we can see how much pull the new tea party has, as Rand Paul (seriously, who names their kid after a crappy author) might take his primary in Kentucky. There'll probably be a recap of the results later on.
But elections keep them in check, no?
Well, they do to a certain extent, but it's a system that's far to easy to go around.
First of all, the "one and done," a politician who only runs for one term, he can do whatever he wants. He has no stake in becoming re-electable. Depending on the office, or sometimes nothing at all, this can be a good thing or a bad thing -- as he can either ignore public opinion entirely just to get something that wouldn't otherwise be done, or he can raid the government's coffers for his friends, family, and self.
But that's a small issue, really. The bigger issue is the Party system, and how it stays afloat.
First, in order to get elected, the candidate likely needs support of the larger party infrastructure. Thus, if the candidate is moderate (or even on the "opposite" side of the spectrum) he must radicalize himself in at least small regards to get actual support for his campaign.
Second, he must likely win a primary, where he is only competing for votes amongst his party. Needless to say, this means the winner will much more likely be on the far wing of his party than on the moderate side of politics in general (which would actually make him the extremist in this group). The other party's candidate will likely win in the same manner.
Third, this creates a scenario where a left winger will likely be running against a right winger. In parts of the country where the one party is weaker, this opposite candidate might actually be a moderate, which actually creates competition in these areas, so long as the dominant party isn't too dominant. In any case, this creates an "us against them" mentality among supporters of the candidates. You are either for the candidate or against them, there is no middle ground, no one votes for independents (very rare exceptions to this rule).
Now, fourthly, someone on either edge of the spectrum has now won, and will attempt to push through his radicalized agenda, with the help of his even more radicalized party. If a moderate happens to slip through the cracks in this stage, he must now adopt a more radical stance than the one he ran on, in order to get party support for his projects, otherwise he will be an extremely unproductive "voter" who does nothing for the people who elected him.
At the heart of this issue is the primary system. Most states use a closed primary system, such as my own state of Pennsylvania. As an independent, I cannot partake in anything happening at all today (which is primary voting day), and can only watch in bemusement. I like the idea of the primary, as the people are selecting who will represent their side. But the ultimate resolution is this man will support their side, and likely not much else. There will be no candidate to stride the divide, unite the people and work for something that will work for everybody.
The primary system forced long tenured Connecticut Senator Lieberman to run as an independent a few years ago, and now he's not nearly as endeared to the party's base as he once was. This year it forced Crist, the Senate candidate in Florida, to run as an independent. Even more, he had to declare his independence way before the primary (which I think is also happening today).
It may also force Arlen Specter out of office. He has been Pennsylvania's Senator for I want to say five terms. For the most of that time, he was a Republican the Democrats in the state could vote for. Now, since he switched parties, he's just a Democrat not all the Democrats will vote for. He was forced out due to radicalization within his own party -- Pat Toomey would have been very likely to beat him in the Republican primaries (he kept getting closer and closer). Now Democrats are running Admiral Joe Sestak against him, which bugs me even more because I like Joe Sestak.
Aside: why do the Democrats of Pennsylvania only run good candidates against Arlen Specter? Seriously? In 2004, Joe Hoeffel was run against him, a candidate I would have loved to see in office, but I did not want to see Specter go. Now, in 2010, Joe Sestak is running against him, and I would also kinda like to see him in the Senate seat. Meanwhile, in 2006, Rick Santorum, who by then had made enough gaffs to make Joe Biden blush and was clearly on his way out, had only to run against Bob Casey, a boring "moderate" (a democrat who loves to spend the tax payers money but hates killing babies) who had only held the positions auditor general and state treasurer; his family was also very political (his dad was Governor of Pennsylvania), making him an insider even if he didn't do anything. I believe Sestak was still in the Navy at this point, but why couldn't Hoeffel run against Santorum?
Whatevs.
Todays primaries will likely be very amusing at the least. Perhaps we can see how much pull the new tea party has, as Rand Paul (seriously, who names their kid after a crappy author) might take his primary in Kentucky. There'll probably be a recap of the results later on.
5.17.2010
New Sheeit
Ok, so it's been over a month since my last "real" post.
that will soon amended be!
Have been working on a short story (too long to post here, i guess), so that has been taking up my time.
it is almost over
world happenings!
-- Knuttel
that will soon amended be!
Have been working on a short story (too long to post here, i guess), so that has been taking up my time.
it is almost over
world happenings!
-- Knuttel
5.01.2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)