Surprised by "What About Cris Carter?" Cries? So Am I

Many of you may be reading this post today because you were stuck in this weekend’s major snowstorm and you have time to catch up on some blog scouring. Others figured that the 6,398 hours of pre-game isn’t enough for your appetite leading to tonight’s Super Bowl.

Yet, since this Scribe is straying from footballish visuals until around kickoff, it’s going to be assumed that there’s plenty of chatter about the upcoming Pro Football Hall of Fame Class of 2010. From the panel of finalists alone, this could have been considered the greatest class ever inducted and for good reason.

There seem to be debates about the selections this year; notably the inclusion of New Orleans Saints sack artist Rickey Jackson and the exclusion of Cris Carter.

First of all, anyone who knows this Scribe personally knows that I abhor the politics of the hallowed Halls of sports; minimum and maximum requirements, the obsession with certain stats and media markets, the elbow-rubbing and contrarian decisions, etc. However, dislike doesn’t equal complete disdain; these Halls represent icons of the games were few people could even make a living, let alone a lasting impression. To not be in awe of the men and women who helped shape the games and even the culture that celebrates them would be absurd.

With that said, it would be unfair to completely speak on Jackson as while he was an outstanding player in his own right, his career began the year before I was born and ended shortly into my teenage years. The Saints were comically awful in much of his tenure and he joined San Francisco as a situational pass rusher for one of the most underrated defensive teams of the 1990s. To debate his merits compared to anyone else would be a bit unfair for me, personally, as I feel that my elementary and junior high school recollections on sports couldn’t be effective criteria for HOF-worthiness.

Now, the “What about Cris Carter?” cries; those are bit more of this Scribe’s speed. It’s not that Carter doesn’t deserve a bronze bust in Canton; he will certainly be inducted by at least next year. However, as I asked earlier on Twitter, what’s with the rally around him as opposed to anyone else?

Last December, Chase Stuart of Pro Football Reference had a comprehensive look at the three wideouts who were on the ballot – Carter, Tim Brown & Andre Reed – behind this year’s inductee, Jerry “The Best That’s Ever Done It and You Know It!” Rice. Stuart says that the statistics make a better case for Brown than Carter and it’s hard to not disagree.

Minnesota got a lot of attention because while they had a big play offense throughout Carter’s tenure, it came up phenomenally short when the lights were brightest. Yet, we tend to forget how good Los Angeles/Oakland truly was. They also came up short fairly often, but those Raiders teams made the AFC West a season-long battle for much of the 1990s and Brown was a major part of it.

Brown, in many regards, was taken for granted; a very good kick returner who blossomed into a strong all-around receiver who was able to grab the deep passes as well as work as a possession receiver if necessary. Likely because he played for the other Bay Area team or that his teams didn’t see Brett Favre – and fawning announcers – twice a year, but Brown wasn’t in the spotlight as much.

Maybe because we see Carter every week as an analyst is that there’s more vocal support for his candidacy. We are habitually visceral creatures; if it’s in our immediate vision and we see it often enough, it’ll stay top of mind for quite a while.

While Carter denied for a third year in a row, the truth was there was no way that the voters were going to let him go in, knowing that Rice was on the 2010 ballot for his unquestioned induction. It may or may not be fair, but a way, to have inducted him would have essentially said that there was a peer to Rice.

Even in the ultimate team sport, there is none.

Deleted Scenes from "Enjoy the Show"

When writing “Enjoy the Show” for this month’s Norman Einstein’s, I reached out to a few individuals who elaborated a bit more on their appreciation for the NBA’s All-Star gala. We’ll see it live within two weeks and a few of you may be lucky enough to see it in person. Yet, here’s the full text of what the contributors had to say.

Once again, I send my most sincere thanks to Andrew Bucholtz, Patrick Truby, Jason Rawlins and Tamara Curl-Green for such on the fly, but great responses.

Jason Rawlins: The NBA does the best job with their all star weekend because basketball is the only team sport that permits for individuals to showcase their extreme talents within the flow of the game. The nature of basketball alone makes it more exciting in the all star format. We get the opportunity to see (Harlem) Globetrotteresque dishes, arcade classic NBA jam type slams, and the occasional brilliant block. All of the essentials that make the game are displayed at their highest level (minus defense) which allows for viewers to fully grasp how physically gifted these athletes are.

Can we really grasp how great an All-Star left fielder is if he gets no balls hit his way? Can we fully understand how hard a Pro Bowl running back runs if he's stopped close to the line of scrimmage for the majority of his carries? It’s only in the NBA all star game where any player who touches the ball has the opportunity to showcase their superior skills, whether with a killer crossover, low block post move footwork, or long distance shooting. As difficult as it is to hit a baseball or make a diving catch at SS, I'd rather see an easy layup pinned to the backboard or a gravity defying alley-oop. A Pro Bowl QB can have a great day connecting with a rival receiver, but since the game is at the end of the season, I couldn’t care less about AFC/NFC bragging rights. It’s only in the game of basketball where we have the chance to see every player potentially show us something that makes us think, "I wish I could do that."

Tamara Curl-Green: I'm not much of a hockey fan so I won't comment on their game. I do think that the NBA All-Star Game is more of an exhibition but I think it's unfair to discount the MLB and NFL games. In all sports, fans are much more inclined to ooh and awe over good offense. The NBA is the only league where players aren't invited for being exceptional defenders. It's the nature of pro football and also MLB that defensive players will also stand out and be selected because of their performance on defense. In that sense, it's much easier for the NBA to make it an exhibition game. On the other hand, if home court advantage was on the line, like home-field is in baseball, you'd probably see much more defense in the NBA.

That all being said, I just think it's easier for the NBA to put on an exhibition because of the nature of the game. And with that, it's easier to draw celebrities as well as fans to the weekend and get them excited because we are all sure that we're going to see a great exhibition game.

I do enjoy watching MLB All-Star events as well. Especially since the league has made an attempt to expand the weekend.


Andrew Bucholtz: For me, it's a few things that elevate the NBA All-Star Weekend above the rest. First of all, the NBA All-Star Game itself seems more faithful to the regular season than either the Pro Bowl or the NHL All-Star Game; the Pro Bowl features barely any effort and as little hitting as possible, while no one throws body checks or plays defence in the NHL game, causing 11-10 scores to be the norm. By contrast, the NBA game is reasonably similar to a regular basketball game. It still has all the traditional elements, just with more talent and a bit of a higher score than usual.

Another thing that makes the NBA game special to me is dramatically improving a player's teammates the way you do in an All-Star Game seems to have more of an impact in basketball than in the other North American sports. In baseball, so much of the game is individual that it doesn't matter all that much to your play who you're with. In hockey, stars are usually playing on the top lines, so they're generally around a fair bit of talent anyway. Significantly changing your teammates can make a big difference in football, but the lack of effort in the Pro Bowl means we don't really see the full effect of, say, Peyton Manning throwing to Andre Johnson. By comparison, the NBA's salary cap means each team is pretty much limited to one superstar and a bunch of supporting players. Having ten superstars on the floor at once isn't something we get to see apart from the All-Star Game, and it can lead to some incredible moments. NBA players also seem to care more about putting on a show in the all-star game than their counterparts in other leagues, which generally leads to a better game.

Finally, the NBA has a better lineup over the rest of the weekend than any other sport, featuring some really cool events like the dunk contest, the three-point contest, H-O-R-S-E and the rookie-sophomore game. It's not about finding out who's actually the best at basketball skills, which is the mistake the NHL's made with its skills competition. Instead, the NBA focuses on putting on an entertaining show, and that makes for a much more watchable product. There's a reason SI can put together a top-10 list like this of NBA all-star weekend moments and have the top-10 actually be memorable; I think I'd be hard-pressed to even come up with 10 things I remember from any other league's all-star weekend.


Patrick Truby: Regarding the all star games: I think the NBA has the most entertaining All Star because of how the game is played. It can function and entertain even when there is nothing at stake. Football is just dangerous, and any precautions taken to slow the game down or make it safer takes away what makes those NFL players great. Who wants to see a great pass rusher come off a block only to stop short of sacking the quarterback?

Major League Baseball is okay because, despite determining which league gets home field advantage in the World Series, the players still have a lot of fun, especially during the Home Run Derby when they all bring out their cameras and joke with each other the whole time. But the rhythm of baseball, with its stopping and starting between pitches, outs, and innings, especially without a real rivalry for fans to have a rooting interest in the game, does not make for great television. (I think MLB also lacks the personalities that made great moments like John Kruk's backward helmet possible).

The NBA All-Star Game emphasizes the more entertaining parts of the regular game that fans love, like amazing shots, fast breaks, dunks and alley-oops. Also, the players seem to have just as much fun playing as audience does watching.

Phil or Pat? Who Would You Take?

Color me amazed!

A question to Scribe’s Twitter followers got the attention of @NBA_on_ESPN_RV and has inspired a pretty good debate. To elaborate on those 140 characters:

You’re given a team that has been in the middle of the road for some time. There’s playoff potential, but equal potential for them to get embarrassed in the first round. Because of that treading-water phase of the franchise, you haven’t been able to draft a can’t-miss player and cap space is preciously thin. However, while your squad doesn’t have superstars, some players are on the radar of contending teams.

You have a chance to grab one of these two all-time great coaches. Which would you take: Phil Jackson or Pat Riley?

Of course, the question was inspired by Jackson passing Riley as the winningest coach in Los Angeles Lakers history last night.

Personally, I know who I’d make the case for, but I would hear what you have to say first.

State your case in a comment here, Facebook or on Twitter.

What Are You, A Bunch of Einsteins? Well... Yeah

For those who haven’t caught up with the February’s edition of Norman Einstein’s Magazine (the apostrophe is key from here on out), I not only implore you to read all of the fine work, but take some time over the next few days to pore through the archives. For the unfamiliar, working with the NE has been great because there’s a strong mix of sports writing & photography (unfortunately, nothing from Stephanie Lim this month) that does well enough to preach to the converted while providing some intrigue to the agnostic.

I won’t go into a description of my venture this month, but the deleted scenes that came from it will be posted later Wednesday afternoon. However, a brief description for each of the remaining contributions:

Zac Soto has a unique Super Bowl preview; going into the divide on what we truly find great about sports. In a sense, he dares to ask if it truly is about the name on the front of the jersey – or in this case, the colors and logo of it – or the name on the back. Yet, he is providing less of a statistical breakdown compared to other sites who are salivating over Sunday’s championship and more of a description on how those stats come to be; styles, resolve, faith in the systems built by their respective organizations.

NE oracle Cian O’Day attacked the prior three weekends of the NFL postseason with a balance of analysis and poetry with varied angles. While he certainly agonized over his Packers painful, but thrilling exit, he gave each game its own fair treatment. Yet, he also took on the controversies and no-questions of the league awards, the dagger and the farewell… all from interesting bar stools and couches in the New York/New Jersey vicinity. As many former football players, there’s a different vibe in his words (played center in high school) compared to someone as myself (played running back on Madden).

Corban Goble took on a different twist in his playoff viewing this season; the son of a Packers stockholder – talk about prestigious - he had the struggle of watching both his NFL team and his college basketball love, the Kansas Jayhawks, take breathtakingly bad losses within hours of each other. He chronicles the day in a ten-year-old-fan-in-a-grown-man’s-body fashion; certainly entertaining and for those who know a similar internal battle, you’ll empathize, sympathize and… cry-a-thize.

Finally, Rough Justice as an interesting take on Lance Armstrong. He discusses the lack of awe or even respect within the American cycling community as he took a single-minded focus towards one race (the Tour de France) as opposed to ensuring a similar excellence towards several. Rough Justice also delves into the brand that he’s become; taking the Michael Jordan route to the point of even greater discontent from some.

The rest of the week may have you frazzled with work, class, bad weather and whatever challenges in your way. Feel free to give yourself some time to soak it all in and as “Rick James” would say, “enjoy yourselves. It’s a celebration…!”

Controversial Ads Using Super Bowl Platform... Badly

There have been some rather interesting conversations in the last week about Super Bowl advertisements.

Previously in this space, you saw a link in regards to an Advertising Age article regarding the Focus on the Family ad that will feature mother Pam and son Tim Tebow. Yet, it’s not the only ad in which attention has been given as a gay dating site, Mancrunch, believes that CBS’s decision to not approve of its ad is discriminatory.

You’ve heard this story before, haven’t you?

Every year, some company pushes a commercial that is deemed offensive in some manner. They generate buzz because people want to know why the ad is so controversial. These days with the internet, people can actually watch the ‘leaked’ ad to see for themselves in advance of the game, providing enough eyeballs to achieve their goals before the game or in case it’s not even approved.

With all due respect to the league’s advertising sponsors and the agencies it works with, why it invites such controversies for its grandest stage has become unconscionable.

It’s very easy to say “it’s all about the money”. You won’t get an argument against that since the rates for 30-second spots have skyrocketed from $600,000 in 1987 to nearly $3 million for Super Bowl XLIV. However, if the ad is more focused on being funny than building awareness, a lot of money was just wasted.

---

Hey, You Didn’t Mention This: A friendly member of Scribe’s Twitteratti posted a link about the Focus ad; though Pam Tebow wants to share her reasons for risking her health to have Tim, someone left out that part of the reason that she did was because abortion is unilaterally illegal in the Philippines.

From Alas! A Blog:

“Well,” you say, “this is different. I mean, her life was in jeopardy, so obviously, that was legal.” Au contraire. The Philippine criminal code makes no exception for life or health of the mother. Had Pam Tebow had an abortion, she could have been jailed, as could her physician and anyone else who assisted her.

Now, that doesn’t mean Pam Tebow is lying. There are about 470,000 abortions performed annually in the Philippines, and about 80,000 women hospitalized for complications of abortion. 12 percent of all maternal deaths in 2000 were due to unsafe abortons, of course, because abortion is illegal — but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen. As anyone with a rudimentary understanding of abortion policy knows, outlawing abortion doesn’t stop abortion. It just makes it much less safe.

But this is an important part of the story that Pam and Tim Tebow are ignoring. Because the organization they’re supporting — Focus on the Family — is virulently anti-abortion, and supports making it illegal. But by Pam Tebow’s own admission, outlawing abortion didn’t stop her Filipino physician from recommending it. She had a choice — but one that was more dangerous than it had to be, one that could have had legal repercussions for her and her family.

Now, as A) a male and B) someone who abstains from political discussions as much as possible, I won’t go into the merits for or against abortion legislation. Plus, you don’t read Scribe for that unless there’s a connection to sports. However, what I will say is I’m against showing this ad for an entirely different, more practical reason. I think it’s more important to have a focused audience in another forum – say news media – rather than going for the shotgun approach with THE BIGGEST SINGLE DAY EVENT ON THE PLANET!

As this brilliant SBNation post sums up, sensible people aren’t thinking about the hot button topics when they’re “watching Peyton Manning yell at the offensive line some more.” In fact, there’s a very good chance that the actual fans in the living room will be taking bathroom breaks or head diving into guacamole along with their chips.

And the rest of the fans? Well, the moment they try to start talking about the ad, Jonathan Vilma will interrupt the conversation with a vicious tackle after the commercial break.

And that’s the problem. As much as former colleagues at Madison Avenue want to believe that the Super Bowl is the proper platform for some of these advertisements, the truth is that it can be the absolute worst.

This ad belongs on news television because the content of the ad is actually discussed and debated regularly. It’s a bit timelier to see the Focus ad during Bill O’Reilly or Glenn Beck’s programs (because airing during Rachel Maddow’s show might incite a riot in itself). Even on the nightly news programs on broadcast TV, the Focus ad might have a little more poignance.

In fact, why did Focus use an ad to get the message across in the first place? It would have been cheaper and far more effective to make the national talk circuit, right? What Focus and other agencies of its ilk (pro-choice or anti-abortion) might need are more conversational outlets as opposed to what will amount to a $3 million throwaway at the end of the week.

Speaking of throwaway, tossing the Mancrunch ad in the trash heap wouldn’t be a bad idea for a somewhat similar reason.

---

You’re Not Even Funny!: Plenty of people have equally, if not stronger opinions about homosexuality. Again, this isn’t the place to actually speak on what’s become a political issue that should just stay personal.

With that said, Mancrunch hasn’t done itself favors with this commercial. It’s not so much about two men kissing – personally, I couldn’t care less – so much as the suggestive dialogue and the attempted comedic feel just makes it an absolutely awful waste of $3 million.

Now that suggestive dialogue might work for a sitcom or even Grey’s Anatomy. It would have been better off on some late-night program on E! or Comedy Central. However, the braintrust at this company said that it’s going to make a big statement at the Super Bowl, where the amount of men watching at one time is astronomical compared to any other program during the year.

That’s not the best strategy to employ here.

Maybe there would have been less of an issue if Mancrunch didn’t go the obnoxious route or if they even showed this at another time where it would be best suited. Better yet, if the site was fashioned as the gay alternative to Match or eHarmony, then there might actually have more sentiment in its favor.

Mancrunch might get a good buzz around their battle with CBS, yet, if they want to be heard of after what’s considered a stunt, it’s time for them to get a long-term strategy together.

Preferably one that doesn’t involve trying to shock the world.