Accountable

Without question, there has been too much attention paid to these outbursts and lack of reverence from public figures as of late. However, while Congress has voted to rebuke Joe Wilson and Michael Jordan’s candid (bitter?) Hall of Fame speech has been confined to just basketball media, we’re still talking about the potty mouth of Serena Williams and the complete absurdity of Kanye West’s disruption.

The truth is that while there is no reason for these moments to receive any more attention than they have been given, there’s something at play that is not easy to recognize or as ‘sexy’ to talk about: organizational and/or industrial accountability.

When you look at the two incidents, it’s easy – a bit too easy, perhaps – to say that the backlash on all sides is racially motivated. After all, these are two prominent African-Americans who not only make an impact in their respective arenas, but they have crossed over into other areas (for both, fashion). However, at least in this Scribe’s eyes, that’s the lone significant similarity.

As mentioned in ‘All-American’ in regards to Melanie Oudin, Serena is the biggest star in an individual sport that only gains mainstream attention four times a year. The fact that this happened at the US Open in Queens, New York with ESPN and CBS as broadcasting partners only makes for a longer national conversation, for better or worse. Finally, the story continues to run because tennis has not had success in finding a few good women to consistently battle Serena (and her sister, Venus). Truthfully, if this happened at the Tashkent Open, this would amount to nothing more than a fist-shaking YouTube video of the day.

While non-sports media outlets continue to run with the story, some of the smoldering flames that are still out here are from news about the possibility that Williams would be suspended from next year’s Open. The fines that were imposed on her upset a few people because $10,500 is a pittance, but to be fair, tennis players are more like independent contractors who play for every tourney check than salaried employees who are guaranteed a constant paycheck. Yet, at least when an athlete makes a mistake, there are immediate penalties places upon him/her to go with public ridicule and disappointment within the involved organizations. We may not always agree with how the powers-that-be decide to punish its players, but at least the measures exist.

That’s not the case in the music industry. Despite being on record companies that make pretty album covers and pay radio stations for airplay* and promote their work until the album release date, these companies at large aren’t what you’d call the most organizationally sound businesses. Few of its artists gain significant exposure. Finances for those artists arte pretty questionable, to say the least. Most of all, with the outright shadiness of the business, bad news is good publicity for the artists that receive it, even if we should know better.

Now, unless they release an artist or band from a contract (usually because of the classic cop-out of not being ‘promotable’), it’s not very often that you hear about labels dropping the hammer on their most controversial signees. West has a chronicled history of making himself the center of attention for all the wrong reasons, yet no one – not his label, not his handlers, not the companies that stock his music, not the media that plays his songs or videos – have ever done anything to curb or stop him. Just as many would consider the Minnesota Vikings as enablers in the Brett Favre saga, the music industry as a whole is an enabler to the mainstream artists that make more news for their screw-ups than their music.

In the sports world, it’s second nature to demand swift action from teams and leagues when a player commits a wrong, on or off the field. For all of the anger about the money involved with these games, fans and media can at least scream “suspend him!” until they are blue in the face, knowing that for every action, there is a punitive reaction written into the by-laws of these organizations. Even in much maligned sports such as track & field and boxing, individual athletes and trainers answer to their sports’ organizations along with state and national athletic commissions for their transgressions.

In music, however, the lone penalty there is for an artist’s foolishness is not buying the record (or these days not downloading the songs and not watching the videos). While an economic boycott seems to be the most direct penalty any musician can feel from the fans, (s)he does not have to perform in front of the public during a season. In fact, outside of the rap industry, there aren’t too many artists who release new material yearly, let alone remain the public eye consistently until said new material is released or there’s a tour coming up. As much as the public claims to hate West now, if he has a ‘hot song’ out, the music world will bow down to his supposed greatness until there’s someone else to fawn over or he puts out a new track. If anything, he basically has to become a pariah like Chris Brown to find himself without top-selling records.

Will Serena lose some fans after her tirade? Possibly. Did Kanye? Hopefully after years of waffling from previous acts. Yet, as a society, we continue to demand athletes to shut up, play and ‘be role models’ while we allow artists to skate away relatively unfazed because of some idea that we can infringe on the creatives. Seems a bit unfair, doesn’t it?

Say What?!?!: So I'm not President Obama's favorite basketball player? I'm truly saddened by this.

Inaccessible

There may never be another like Michael Jordan, no matter how hard we try to find one.

Or in the cases of some, make one.

For years, those of us who love and appreciate the game of basketball have been participants in the crisis of the search for “the Next One”. Most of us have passively accepted this as background music while trying to enjoy the game play of current stars. Yet, there will always be those that either love to debate which player has the standing to take his mantle – between LeBron James, Kobe Bryant and Dwayne Wade – or want to single out the NBA for even pushing the agenda.

Yet, if you take a look around, you’d find that the A isn’t the only entity looking. In fact, if there is one league that feels that they have that next Jordan, it’s the Professional Golfers' Association with one (Eldrick) Tiger Woods.

Starting tomorrow, Augusta National is going to be the epicenter of über-levels of hype as Woods takes part in his fifteenth Masters appearance.

Chronicling Tiger’s achievements over that span on Scribe would be kowtowing to carpal tunnel syndrome. You could sum up his career in the amount of majors he has won, his lifetime earnings, the potential to become the first professional athlete to earn a billion dollars as an active athlete and being the first “ethnic” star of significance in the sport’s history. Yet, the most impressive aspect about his career is actually how he made golf, for the lack of a better term, relevant to the mainstream sports world.

Prior to Woods’ arrival, only the diehards and keenly aware sports fans could name the most successful golfers on tour. Outside of those people, some may have still believed that Arnold Palmer was not only a really good non-alcoholic beverage, but still an active player on the PGA tour.

His consistent dominance in a sport known for quirks, flukes and frustration at the bunker made the sports world take notice. You can say his absence has the same effect as television ratings – no matter how criticized the metric is – plummeted and “when is Tiger coming back?” queries skyrocketed.

So, the major players in the media and advertising business believe that they found “the Next One” in Tiger. Just as discussed in this space about Jordan, Woods has the clean-cut look, the accolades, the publicly-displayed drive to succeed and the apolitical stance to not tick anyone off.

Yet, what those folks seem to overlook is that what made the ascension of Jordan possible was the sport he played.

You don’t need much to play a game of hoop. Anyone can get a ball (or something like it) and a hoop (or something like it) to shoot around, have a make believe dunk contest or practice their ankle-breaking crossover. Outdoors or at a gym, the game is one of the few that can be played in the same manner, regardless of location.

Just as some of soccer/football’s most revered players come from a myriad of backgrounds, basketball features much of the same mix (and surprising to some, many come from more middle-class backgrounds than we thought according to last year’s profile on the NBA by ESPN the Magazine). Part of the allure of Jordan for some is that by obsessively fine-tuning the craft, no matter where you were, you could attain similar success or very close to it.

That’s not exactly the case with golf.

There are most likely golfers who did not come from the pristine and exclusive world of private clubs, crisp polo shirts and affluence. Yet, unless you tear down some housing or want to fight with environmentalists, golf courses aren’t built every day. On top of that, just as the expense of equipment has been explored by Major League Baseball to reinvigorate interest in their game among African-Americans, it is a deterrent that golf has recognized, but not necessarily figured out to a T just yet.

This is not to say that suddenly, civil engineers devise their plans because of an athlete’s popularity. Yet, as anything in society, it’s easy for someone to be interested in a product – in this case, a sport – or service when the costs of participation are easier to negotiate.

Tiger is certainly one of the most revered athletes of all time. He shares equal footing with Jordan in terms of being a singular dominant force in a sport full of just really good players. However, to consider Tiger on par with Mike in terms of global stature is to say that golf’s popularity on par with basketball’s global reach.

It’s nowhere close, no matter how hard some try to ignore that fact.

Props to Getty Images for the photo

Follow

Before anything else, let it be known that while it's been a rather challenging two-week period, it has been worthwhile in many aspects.

Without going too deep into a non-sports topic, I have walked away from my recent civil service with a greater respect and understanding of the judicial system. Jury duty is a nuisance as it is a forced interruption into twelve independent and relatively unconnected lives.

It requires that each participant does more than just show up and collect a check, though there have been people who have done just that.

It requires that each participant consider more than the physical and verbal evidence (read back of testimony, for example), but to consider the intangible evidence such as body language and the words left unsaid.

Most importantly, it requires that no matter what prejudices and experiences each juror has with the legal system, (s)he must be as open-minded and fair towards both sides of a conflict.

Trying to meet all of those tasks is easier for some than others. It is admittedly a challenge that is far easier in theory than in practice, yet I can say that regardless of the outcome, myself and my fellow jurors made the best efforts. That’s all anyone – the judge, prosecution, defense or the citizens themselves – can ask for.

And now, for the topic du jour.

It’s supposed to have been an important (albeit, rainy) day in New York baseball history as both new stadiums will be unveiled to the public for the first time with their primary tenants. After batting practice, testing the dirt and signing some autographs last night at the new Yankee Stadium, Derek Jeter talked to the media about his first impressions about the park. He also talked a bit about the anticipation of the Stadium’s first, being that he was the first to get a hit – a home run, apparently – in the building.

Yet, as asked by my editor, an article for this week’s New York Beacon (75 cents at select newsstands in New York City) discusses when he might get his last hit in pinstripes.

The likelihood that Jeter will be anything other than a Yankee – at least to this writer – is nil, unless one of two things happen. Either the team decides to show financial restraint and somehow decides to offer him an incentive-laden deal or the team believes that they can use a stronger arm on the left side of the infield. Yet, considering that Jeter is the Joe DiMaggio of this Yankee era both on and off the diamond, a divorce such as this could be far more embarrassing and heart-attack inducing to the fans than the Joe Torre debacle of 2007, the Billy Martin firings and George Steinbrenner’s feud with Dave Winfield combined.

Or maybe everyone will come to grips with the inevitable; there’s going to be a new guy between second and third some day. The question isn’t who so much as it is a question of when.

The Jeter Watch started recently as he will be a free agent after next season; a 35-year old shortstop whose defensive abilities have been criticized nonstop for a number of years, while his Hall of Fame offense will compel some team outside of the northeast corridor to make an obscenely rich contract offer.

While writing the Beacon piece, I couldn’t help but to think of how hard it’s going to be for the first After Jeter shortstop.

In fact, I couldn’t help but to conjure up the name Pete Myers.

If you can’t remember that name, Chicago Bulls fans might help you. He was the starting shooting guard after Michael Jordan retired in 1993. Myers wasn’t a bad player at all, he just wasn’t Mike.

Now, this isn’t saying that Jeter, whose marketability has grown over the past few seasons, is in the realm of Mike. Yet, at least within a team has storied as the Yankees, his eventual departure will cast a rather large shadow over those who will follow him.

This isn’t anything new. You can’t expect a franchise to suddenly fold when one of its most revered players (if not the most) calls it a career. However, when certain players walk away from the games, you can only hope that the fan base and management they leave behind are rather patient and welcoming.

Otherwise, you have an unsettling period as endured last spring and summer in Green Bay.

Crossed

Something light-hearted after some heavy-handed verbage.

If you haven't had the chance to enjoy this, do so.



Now, as good as that was you're probably considering scouring the 'net for some other greats. Let's start with the end-all, be-all classic that changed the NBA FOREVER.



Of course, there's the player who did help bring the move into the consciousness of many teens in the early 90s, George Takei's favorite (hate him or love him).



And for some recent knee bucklers:



There are a handful of moves in sports in which fans and media of both teams in the field of play actually join in unison to say "oh snap" (or other words of that nature) because they saw something so unbelieveable, so jaw-dropping, so... ridonculous, that for a moment, loyalty to a team logo doesn't even matter. Along with the mammoth home run, the open field collision between defender and ball carrier, the midfielder or star winger going one-on-one with a soccer or hockey goalie and the between-the-legs volley in tennis, the ankle-breaking crossover is assuredly one of those moments.

PROStars

So there is likely an obvious answer to this question, but if you had the ability to bring it back to life, which current players would you model this glorious cartoon after and why?

Then again, since we all have personal favorites or just want to be random, it may not be so obvious.

Have fun.

Inclusive

When sports fans hear the words “Hall of Fame”, immediate reactions are to talk about baseball and football. Though every sport has its hallowed halls and record books, there is such public and media gravitas involved with Major League Baseball and the National Football League that you’d almost forget than any other sport or league has a Hall associated to their craft.

Baseball’s history and its controversies throughout the years – eventual integration, gambling, performance-enhancing use, the good-ol’-boys network enshrining not-so-great talents – keep Cooperstown in the conscious of nearly every fan. While football shares some similar issues, its position as America’s passion and its impact on television have given Canton, Ohio a national

Well, what about Springfield, Massachusetts?

Friday brought us the induction of some of the best and brightest to ever be involved in the game of basketball as its Hall of Fame welcomes seven new members. While there’s nothing ‘sexy’ about this group, it’s an impressive roll call of names: Hakeem Olajuwon, Patrick Ewing, Pat Riley, Adrian Dantley, Dick Vitale, Cathy Rush (pioneer women's basketball head coach) and William Davidson (Detroit Pistons owner). Why this group does not inspire more than basketball-media chatter is still somewhat astounding.

What separates the Basketball Hall of Fame from Pro Football or Baseball (and Hockey, for those who wonder) is that it honors excellence at all levels of play. Whether it’s college, the NBA or international pro leagues, Springfield prefers to tell the stories of the game under one house, even as individual states and franchises choose to honor their own greats separately. The voters are relatively unknown and the process is not up for as much public discourse as in the other Halls.

For the apparent lack of exclusivity, the Basketball Hall does not lend itself to the rampant promotion, major cable network coverage – ESPN Classic doesn’t have near the reach of siblings ESPN or ABC – and debate within the fan base. The NFL is the undisputed king of American sports and save the Pro Bowl and the Quarterback Challenge, there isn’t an NFL property that does not whip the media into frenzy. Baseball is a sport that is buoyed by major markets, deep pockets and over a century of records to compare. The NBA, as the banner brand of basketball, finds itself continually crafting its image after any media or public slight.

So for the sports nation, it might be more fun to break down the credentials of Todd Helton or Fred Taylor than Chris Webber. This may just be an inconvenient truth for basketball as a whole, but it could be a great opportunity to ask what can the trustees of the sport do to raise the Hall’s profile?

Is a change in order for the selection process, or at least the voters themselves?

Does the Hall move the induction ceremony into or closer to the season instead of the current early September date?

Or do they take the league’s approach of the last decade: wait for Michael Jordan to save us all?

The eligibility of His Airness begins in 2009.

Whoa...

Eight gold medals in nine days.

What Michael Phelps has done is nothing short of remarkable. While his teammates were electric earlier in the week and deserve far more attention than they received, it is clear that the Baltimore native not only met the seemingly unreachable goals of these Olympic Games, but has earned much of the hype bestowed upon him.

He’s the greatest athlete of all time.

Hold up... the greatest athlete of all time?

If that sentence is jarring, it should be. It should be because too many folks are quick to make this claim.

This isn't to discount or discredit what he does in the swimming pool as he established a career unlike no other before him, including Mark Spitz, the swimmer who Phelps eclipsed in Olympic accolades. Yet, to say that he's the greatest to ever attempt something athletic is a bit of a stretch. It's not due to fatigue of his hype or the relatively low exposure of the sport in non-Olympic years, but because there is no single metric that can be used across all sports to compare the excellence of one athlete to another.

Michael Jordan's scoring exploits cannot be compared to Jim Brown's rushing prowess, Martina Navratilova's successful aces in Grand Slams or Wayne Gretzky's penchant for hat tricks.

It is not to say that he shouldn't be considered one of the greatest of this era or of any time, but the love affair for Phelps has clouded to judgment of some.

Let's just appreciate what he's done for what it is in this moment. Let us also hope that if there is something to take away from Phelps' accomplishment beyond his future endorsements and parades, it's that an opportunity to promote the sport of swimming is right in front of him and the powers that be in the industry.

Say What?!?!: Speaking of the moment, take a moment to read this article from the New York Times. Maybe, just maybe, there is a true social haven for sports fans.

Forward (VI)

After this, just one more. A smorgesborgh, if you will, of other sports to watch out for throughout 2008. For now, this sixth installation speaks about the most criticized and self-critical league ever known.

NBA: Will we keep looking for the Next Jordan? A while back in Sideshow, an article from Page 2’s (ESPN) Chuck Klosterman was referenced. It’s probably the most truthful article written in decades, if not ever, about the National Basketball Association. He described the league as “hopelessly, endlessly, incorrigibly narcissistic,” but explained further:

“When people hear the word "narcissistic," they associate it with egotism, but that's not really accurate. The failing of the mythical Narcissus was not his obsession with himself; it was his obsession with his image. And this is what prompts the NBA to wrestle with itself. No other league is as preoccupied with how others feel about its product.”

This is the league, however, that recreated the template of sports superstardom that is hard for anyone to duplicate. The emphasis on the individual is unlike any other from a team sports organization. From the unusual physiques to the near-nudeness due to the uniforms, NBA players are arguably the most recognizable athletes in the industry. The potential for these athletes, however, to transcend the sport took some time and luck to determine.

Baseball players were some of the first due to their early start in the sports landscape. Football stars followed suite once the NFL began to grasp the power of television. Yet, because the NBA has always been in some sort of need for revival, the singular face of the league was undefined. The Bill Russell-led Celtics, Oscar Robertson-led Royals and Wilt Chamberlain’s 76ers and Lakers were not enough, despite their uncanny talents and public demeanors. Race plays a significant role, whether we like it or not, but there was something else that not even Magic Johnson or Larry Bird in the 1980s possessed.

Somehow, Michael Jordan had it.

Before Jordan, it took the press’ unquestioned pulse on the sports world and some social firestorms to make athletes seem bigger than life. Muhammad Ali (and Jack Johnson before him), Joe Louis, any Yankee Hall-of-Famer, Johnny Unitas, Jim Thorpe, you name it. Though Fortune 500 companies had long ago made their foray into sports, the union between Jordan and Nike changed how popular athletes would be introduced to the world on a grand scale. That very union attracted many other offers for him and started a tidal wave of endorsement deals and sponsorships that has yet to show signs of subsiding.

Jordan has the looks, the talent, the accolades, the insatiable drive to dominate and an apparent apolitical stance that offended neither consumer nor business. He was the first black star athlete with undeniable crossover appeal. Even in a progressive era as the 1990s, this was unique and it was hard to imagine that the Association, or any league, could find similar success with another player.

They’re still searching for it.

When Jordan first retired following his third title with the Chicago Bulls, roundball columnists were asking who would become ‘The Next’. The roll call: Harold Miner, Penny Hardaway, Grant Hill, Jerry Stackhouse, Vince Carter, Tracy McGrady, Kobe Bryant, Dwayne Wade and the highest anointed of them all, LeBron James. Not surprisingly, most of those players had or have reached just a fraction of Jordan’s popularity with the public and the corporate community (and ‘Baby Jordan’ Miner faded rather quickly). The expectations were unfair and unrealistic, but that hasn’t stopped the A from trying again with Wade and James. All the while, a different brand of superstar emerged that countered the ‘clean-cut’ campaign for Jordan.

For better or worse, stars with ‘hood appeal’, ‘street-cred’ and ‘ghetto superstardon’ written all over them became the focus on the league. Allen Iverson was the first anti-Jordan superstar (and this moment solidified that status), and he singlehandedly carried a fledgling Reebok into the 2000s. Any guard with a crossover and bravado seemingly followed suit (Stephon Marbury, Steve Francis, Baron Davis, ‘White Chocolate’ Jason Williams). The influx of hip-hop culture with these newer players may have opened new doors in the coded ‘urban’ centers, but it also invited a socioeconomic rift that turned away many casual fans. Race, economics, generations, you name it.

Because these two contrasting campaigns were openly competing for the public’s conscious, every little negative tidbit regarding a player or the games themselves became a referendum on the NBA.

It still does.

You can dissect any news related to the NBA and find that no matter how insightful the discussion can be about the game, its players or teams; the conversation always comes back to the league’s image. A low-scoring game invites people to scream about the salaries of players. When someone takes thirty or so shots in a game, players are selfish and dumb (because Jordan himself never took more than ten shots in any game). When more international players are drafted, it’s becomes some conscious plot to undermine the African-American athlete. When Steve Nash wins two MVP awards, some columnists and fans take Commissioner David Stern to task for championing a white player in a league full of black ones. Can the A get a fair shake? Not when it is so open about its desires of finding another Mike.

The league changed on-court play with new ripples for offense in order to move away from the dominant defenses of the 80s and 90s. The marketing of their already-known and industry-leading community relations initiative (branded as NBA Cares) has been turned up since the Brawl a few years back. Wade and James are the most marketed players in the league; Wade’s championship with the Heat have catapulted him major pitchman status while James was placed in Jordan’s shadow when he was still in high school barely five years ago.

All the while, there are a sign of the anti-Jordan athlete, even within the Jordan brand, Jumpman. Carmelo Anthony, its signature player, may run with Iverson now, but he was categorized with him during his rookie season. Marbury went from And1 to his own inexpensive and successful ‘Starbury’ line, even though his image has taken a turn for the worse in recent years. There were failed attempts to find more of those types, such as the adidas contract bestowed upon Marbury’s troubled cousin, Sebastian Telfair.

It’s apparent that the NBA wants to be admired in the way that few leagues are. The NFL, Major League Baseball and college sports (mainly basketball and football) don’t have these internal struggles out in the open as much as the NBA does. Other than baseball, the aforementioned leagues have a similar composition of players as the A; many black players grew up poor, working-class or middle-class. Baseball, itself, has an increased presence of Latino and Asian players and dwindling number of blacks and whites.

So, why do all the image problems really fall into the NBA’s lap? Because no matter if it’s Derek Jeter or Peyton Manning or even the true collegiate pitchmen, the coaches, those leagues never had what the NBA banked on for the better part of twenty years. They didn’t create nor fall upon what the Association had in the palm of its hand.

Jordan.