What type of Baseball Hall of Fame is it going to be in the future?

For a number of reasons, maybe it is time for MLB to re-examine how the vote for membership into the baseball Hall of Fame is handled.

Aside from the inherent conflict of interest, there is increasing evidence of overt and covert biases among the writers that may allow "undeserving" players to get in anyway where "undeserving" is simply defined as merit.
(see the Beyondtheboxscore story featured below - great work!!)

So now where do you go if you are the Hall of Fame relying on baseball writers to be the final arbiters of what the Hall of Fame represents?

It's certainly not a Hall of Merit as much as a Hall of Paybacks in some areas.

It's clearly not a Hall of Saints in many areas, cited here and elsewhere on numerous occasions.

So which is it going to be going forward?

It seems to me that the Baseball Museum which tells the History of Baseball Warts and All should be the approach taken going forward.

The other two approaches leave you appearing like Madonna defending her virtue.

A big, fat joke.


from Baseball America:
BaseballAmerica.com: Majors: Tracy Ringolsby: Hall Vote Hurts Everyone:

Steroids have become such a lightning rod for members of the media. Could it be, in part, because there is a guilty feeling on the part of so many of the writers for ignoring the impact of steroid usage at the time, and then having the problem exposed publicly, including in Congressional hearings?

 Think about it. For all the complaints about steroids, the BBWAA voters never seemed to have any concerns about segregation. They elected players who have been arrested on drug charges and some who were implicated in the cocaine scandal of 30 years ago. They didn't bat an eye about supporting pitchers who doctored baseballs.

 With steroids, however, the masses seem to have suddenly found religion.

The fact that Clemens and Bonds did receive support from more than a third of the voters bodes well for them long-term, and it underscores that voters are more willing to recognize their accomplishments than others also stained by steroids.

Sammy Sosa, also a first-time candidate, was on only 12.5 percent of the ballots. Mark McGwire was on 16.9 percent of the ballots, his weakest support in his seven years on the ballot, and Rafael Palmeiro only 8.8 percent, his lowest total in three years on the ballot.

The question that only time will answer is whether those who wanted to make a statement about suspected steroid users this year will ease their stance over time, and eventually reward the likes of Clemens and Bonds for what they accomplished on the field.

'via Blog this'

from beyondtheboxscore.com
http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2013/1/10/3857368/2013-baseball-hall-of-fame-vote-how-much-do-bbwaas-secret-ballots

Two years ago, as I was was looking through some Hall of Fame vote trackers, I stumbled upon something curious: the totals from the publicly released ballots didn't match up with the final results. I thought this warranted further investigation, so I crunched some numbers and found that there were indeed some major discrepancies in the voting—specifically, that public voters were more likely to check the boxes for better Cooperstown candidates and less likely to support questionable picks than their more secretive peers.

.......

We've now established two facts about the 2013 BBWAA Hall of Fame vote:

1. Several candidates for Cooperstown were judged differently by those who kept their ballots secret than by those who made their votes public.
2. A significant amount (perhaps more than half) of a player's vote discrepancy between the two groups can be explained by how worthy he is of the Hall of Fame.

Let me pause for a moment to say that what follows is not a blanket statement that applies to every Hall of Fame voter. At the time of this study were 467 writers who did not allow the BBWAA to release their ballots, and for any individual voter I do not assume to know why he or she did not release his ballot (I should again mention that the BBWAA's list does not seem to be complete), or why he or she voted for whomever he or she voted for, or how responsibly he or she takes his or her duty. This is not targeted at any specific person and I would like to apologize in advance to any BBWAA voter to whom the following statement does not apply.

That being said, there is a third fact staring us in the face that is the logical conclusion of the first two:

• The BBWAA's use of secret ballots leads writers to vote for undeserving players and to snub worthy candidates when they would not be able to defend such selections publicly.

Who is John T. Reed? And why is he throwing stones on Facebook?

So, I'm just wandering along Facebook, minding my own business when one of my "friends" posts the following thread (below).

Needless to say, we're not "friends" any more. Locked and blocked. The beauty of Facebook. Relationships are easy come easy go, I guess. 

Friends answer honest questions honestly. They aren't afraid of those who appear to disagree with them. They don't scrub comments they don't agree with, unless perhaps they contain extreme or offensive language.  

You can make your own judgements, but I was actually with my "friend" philosophically until the "Not my fault. I voted for Gary Johnson" line.

That one was up for a challenge. 

Facebook can be very eye-opening sometimes. This thread (conversation) was fascinating to watch develop in real time, almost like watching a train wreck.

I was thinking, "I really can't believe this guy is doing this".

It was fascinating. I would get a "Like" message to my comment and as they were deleted from his page -- and it is his page -- they would be deleted. I tried to screen shot as much as I could, but this thread goes down as one of the most well-scrubbed threads I've ever seen. 

Some of the responses may appear out of order, because dude was literally scrubbing out comments with opinions contrary to his as soon as they hit for about 20 minutes.

He's done similar work on his page in a "debate" where he tried to crush Colin Powell. Seems like that would be easy enough work recently, but I guess not.

I explained this "control the narrative" thing to my son once regarding how sports talk radio or any genre of talk radio (political, financial) works. It seems like some have taken the model to little old Facebook.

No surprise really. But now you know. And really, as we've seen with the whole Manti Te'o thing, this demonstrates how phony and hollow Facebook can be. 

Know your friends. Now you know how some of them can be and can better judge the value of the friendships. 

John T. Reed

26 minutes ago  · 

• I heard that Beyonce did a great job with the Star Spangled Banner. Then I listened. "I'll be damned" as I thought as he went along. She has a great voice and she's not adding syllables to the words. Then she did the usual adding of syllables and heretofore unknown musical notes to make it unique and about her, not the nation. Bunch of bullshit. At least it matched Obama's speech where he said we have to address entitlements and quickly added but we cannot break our promises to each other. Like our promise not to cut Warren Buffett's Medicare or Social Security. The promises "we made to each other" actually refers to the promises Democrat politicians made to spend your money and your credit and that of your children and grandchildren to buy votes from those who hate you." 

  
  Obama said the equivalent of, we must never forget that up is up, nor must we ever say that up is not down. The U.S. government is rapidly going bankrupt and the message today was that it's not going bankrupt fast enough. We need to have more Solyndra's, more regulations, more taxes, more money for teachers and public safety unions, more food stamps, more unemployment insurance, more "disability," etc. Not my fault. I voted for Gary Johnson.

  Like ·  · Share

6 people like this.

• 

  Charles Slavik How does the math work on the won't do the lesser of two evils, but willing to accept the greater of two evils? I'm still trying to reconcile that. Show the work. Not sure that Johnson even won the vote amongst Libertarians. Not quite on the level of Pilate washing his hands, but still....

  12 minutes ago · Like
• 

  Egidio Oliveira I didn't bother to listen. Sailboat ready to leave harbor check. Passport check. Overseas acct check getting closer.

  10 minutes ago via mobile · Like
• 

  Mark S. Hankins It's one of those Zen things. Unless we are willing to throw our votes away, our votes will be forever thrown away...

  7 minutes ago via mobile · Like

  • 
    
    
  • 

    Sam Grover Oh my lord, Reed, you probably should've sat on that set of tangents for a couple hours before you posted it

    Like ·  ·  · Share
• 

  Michael Beifeld John what happens if the govt re-sets the currency? Do they then give an allotment to everyone on the country? For example, lets say we get what Zimbabwe had and the currency is eliminated. What happens everyone starts at zero again?

  2 minutes ago via mobile · Like
• 

  John T. Reed Here is how the math works. I voted for Perot in 1992. He pushed a balanced budget. He got 19% of the vote. We got a balanced budget for three years because Clinton was scared of that 19%. Here's some more math. Obama wins CA where I live by about two-to-one so voting Republican here since the 1980s is a waste of time. The nation is about to go bankrupt—because the vast majority are content to settle for voting for the lesser of two evils rather than their conscience or common sense or sound policies. Any other stupid questions?

  2 minutes ago · Like
• 

  Michael Beifeld I wasn't asking sarcastically I was being serious.

  a few seconds ago via mobile · Like
• 

  
  
  

• • 

    Jim Clayton I couldn't watch it. It nothing but a bunch of lies and pats on backs of people who could give a rats ass about anyone let alone us. Entitlements? Who the he'll is entitled to anything other than what you work for? This country is heading straight t...See More

    about a minute ago · Like
  • 

    Charles Slavik Does scrubbing leave you with dish pan hands or just the illusion of honest debate?

    a few seconds ago · Like
  • 

He "un-friended" me before I could ask more questions. 

Or maybe I "un-friended" him first. Hard to say. 

Here is my initial thought on John's cool, reasoned response to my question:

HOW ABOUT THESE QUESTIONS JOHN T. REED? PLEASE FEEL FREE TO ADDRESS THE ONES YOU FEEL ARE STUPID FIRST, THEN YOU CAN WORK YOUR WAY UP TO THE INTELLIGENT ONES, IF YOU HAVE THE ENERGY? 

CLEARLY, WE ARE IN GREAT NEED OF YOUR SUPERIOR INTELLECT. 

You never addressed my "dish pan hands" question. Maybe it was a stupid question.

How about what happened to my 3-4 "Likes"?  They seem to have been "scrubbed".

What happened to the folks you scrubbed (like Sam Grover)?
Are they OK?
Are they still your friends?

Is controlling the narrative more important than integrity in either a business or personal setting?

Please feel free to respond. I really couldn't keep up with your scrubbing of comments and likes, hence the "dish pan hands" question.

Should people in glass houses really be throwing stones?

John T. Reed's analysis of Robert T. Kiyosaki's book

Rich Dad, Poor Dad

http://www.johntreed.com/Kiyosaki.html

Facebook is kind of fun, and I don't hate anybody per se, but......"Oh what a tangled web we weave...", right? 

Anyway, as John well knows -- being a real estate guru and all --the second three most important words after Location, Location, Location are Comparable, Comparable, Comparable. 

To compare voting for for Ross (19%) Perot in 1992 with voting for Gary (1%) Johnson in 2012 in terms of impact is, too say the least, a stretch of epic proportions.  

Voting for Perot didn't keep Clinton in check, the House Republicans did. Justify all you like. Your vote aided and abetted Obama winning re-election and now you want to rail about it? He's been laughing all the way to the inauguration from Election Day that the Republican Party could possibly be that fractured and self-defeating. 

At least under the Democratic big tent, they pulled together enough, in spite of some of their considerable differences, to pull out a victory. A victory that -- on Election night at least -- seemed to come with a big sigh of relief to Obama's supporters, as well as himself. I don't think even he imagined the R's would be that stupid. Apparently, they are. 

So congratulate him on his victory. And to those of you who want to claim the so-called moral high-ground of "Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson" you're wasting your time. You know what they say about you and the horse you rode in on.

You've doomed your little 1% faction to a generation of voters who will view you as spoil-sports and never take you seriously on the national stage. They already view you (us?) as crack-pots. Throw prima-donna into the mix now. 

Libertarians will be seen as the Randy Moss of the electorate -- unreliable and only willing to run hard if the ball is being thrown to them. I wish Rand Paul a lot of luck leaning into that. 

Libertarians are the divas of politics, which is what you began your post railing about. Well, that and Beyonce. Again, people who live in glass houses...Are there no mirrors in your house?.....YADA YADA YADA.

Big problem under the Republican tent and has been for some time, this lack of team chemistry or team players. If they're not playing, most basically shut it down -- which would be bad enough -- many try to help the other team win. 

Read Colin Powell, whom you've also railed about. Problem is most see the Gary Johnson crowd doing much the same thing. 

If people sense that people ON the team don't believe in the team, why should ANY independent voters believe? That is what tipped the scales of the election IMO. But what do I know? 

If you can't take the "heat" of a simple question to explain your position without going right to name calling 1) stay out of the kitchen of political debate 2) you really don't have a well-thought out position.

I don't know what they teach regarding tactics at West Point but they might want to lean a little heavier on integrity in the future.

The tactics demonstrated here are more suited for the Politburo and the Red Army. For that, shame on you.

I thought the old pitching coach battles back in the day were fierce, a least there seemed to be more civil debate.

These guys who fancy themselves as real estate, investment or political gurus play an entirely different ball-game.

So now you know. 

BBWAA says none are worthy, not even one

This was fairly predictable for the main protagonists Bonds, Sosa and Clemens, but Craig Biggio too? C'mon guys?

Baseball -- via the powers vested in the BBWAA and the Hall of Fame -- seems bound and determined to continually this annual rite of public flagellation and humiliation over the PED issue.

The NFL addressed this when Lawrence Taylor was up for induction and -- with no huge public outcry or retribution -- Taylor was admitted under the premise that the Hall of Fame is not the Hall of Saints. Given the baseball Hall of Fames ridiculous adherence to the following "character clause" we can expect more of the same debate in coming years.


from foxsports.com
Morosi: Simple change to MLB Hall of Fame ballot could help deserving players - MLB News | FOX Sports on MSN:

PEDs enter into play when we consider the evolution of voters’ thinking. Of course, the actual criteria, set forth by the Hall of Fame, remain unchanged: “Voting shall be based upon the player’s record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.” The BBWAA isn’t easily convinced, enshrining more than two players in a year only once during the past two decades. But now it seems successful candidates must check three boxes.

How many guys have actually been elected to the baseball Hall on the basis of integrity, sportsmanship or character without superlative playing ability and contributions to winning? Anyone? Is there a "Miss Congeniality"  that has been elected who didn't pass the usual playing ability tests? I didn't think so, although I thought I heard a couple of Phil Rizzuto whispers back there, but WDIK?

If you're not willing to take open and avowed racists (talking to you Cap Anson) or guys who padded their stats by competing in a segregated league, then don't go all high and mighty now.

The Hall is a museum and should speak to the history of the game, warts and all. If you're not scrubbing or ignoring the racists past, it seems rather silly, childish and petty to only punish players of this era for their sin in participating in the "culture of the game" within the context of the era in which they were participating. By that standard, you should yank Babe Ruth out for not speaking up against segregation.

Why MLB insists on turning what should be an annual celebration of the game into an annual black eye, to appease a small minority of self-avowed "purists", who truth be told are not all that pure themselves, is a joke.


from the MLBPA:

Michael Weiner, executive director of the Major League Baseball Players Association, released the following statement after the BBWAA failed to vote in a single candidate for 2013:

"Today's news that those members of the BBWAA afforded the privilege of casting ballots failed to elect even a single player to the Hall of Fame is unfortunate, if not sad. Those empowered to help the Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum document the history of the game failed to recognize the contributions of several Hall of Fame worthy players. To ignore the historic accomplishments of Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens, for example, is hard to justify. Moreover, to penalize players exonerated in legal proceedings -- and others never even implicated -- is simply unfair. The Hall of Fame is supposed to be for the best players to have ever played the game. Several such players were denied access to the Hall today. Hopefully this will be rectified by future voting."

Baptist Press - FIRST-PERSON: The riches of integrity

from bpnews.net
Baptist Press - FIRST-PERSON: The riches of integrity - News with a Christian Perspective:

"Concerning legalized gambling, longtime news anchor Walter Cronkite once commented, "A nation once built on a work ethic embraces the belief that it's possible to get something for nothing." Recent studies prove Cronkite's observation to be correct. A poll conducted in 1999 by the nonprofit Consumer Federation and the financial services firm Primerica revealed that 51 percent of people in households with incomes of $35,000 or less are firmly convinced they have a better chance of becoming financially secure by investing in a lottery than by any other means.

It is clear that the long-term effect of the government sanctioning any activity is the attitude citizens eventually adopt toward the said activity. The killing of the unborn, once considered reprehensible to a majority of Americans, is now approved by approximately half of the population. Similarly, gambling once frowned upon, is now accepted and embraced."

Once upon a time churches in America took firm principled stands against what they deemed were moral wrongs. Pastors took the lead and spoke out because they believed activities like abortion and gambling were not only inherently wrong, but they also understood the implications of the state legitimizing a morally subversive activity. In the short term, individuals would be damaged, but in the long term it would be all of society that would suffer.

'via Blog this'

The Courage of Integrity

The Courage of Integrity
The highest courage is to dare to be yourself in the face of adversity. Choosing right over wrong, ethics over convenience, and truth over popularity…these are the choices that measure your life. Travel the path of integrity without looking back, for there is never a wrong time to do the right thing. - Author unknown

These values have never been more true or needed in society than today. Seems like a simple credo or ethos to follow--"Do the right thing" was a popular advertising catch phrase at one point--but it really needs daily reinforcement. Leadership rises from having the value of integrity combined with the courage to not compromise in the face of adversity. These are not virtues or values that we are born with--they are learned and cultivated.

Integrity is doing the right thing, regardless of temptation.
Courage is being able to do the right thing, regardless of the cost.

Building these qualities generally happens outside of the spotlight usually by doing small things right and being recognized or rewarded for the behavior. Many times, these qualities can also be eroded or destroyed in the shadows if we allow fear to move us towards dishonest behavior.

In the aftermath now of the McGwire revelation, it struck me how easy it would be for any of us to slide into similar behavior. Doing the right thing is not always a black and white issue.

It's obvious in hindsight that McGwire was afraid his career was slipping away and he compromised his integrity to hold onto it. He had million$ and million$ of reasons why he did what he did. Doesn't make it right, but I'm not sure I would ever want to be in that situation.

We all fantasize about how we act if we were in a situation like McGwire or Derek Jeter. But if push came to shove, how many of us would have the courage and strength to handle the pressures and temptations? We all fantasize about winning the lottery and what virtuous things we would do if we won the money, but I just read a story of a man from Florida who won a $30 million lottery and his life was miserable afterward. He was hounded by friends and "newly found" relatives for money and financial aid. He struggled to not change his life very much, but he later told a relative he was thinking about disappearing to an desert island somewhere to get a break from the stress. He has not been heard from since and is presumed by authorities to be dead. I am sure his perceptions of how his life would be before winning the lottery compared to after winning were very, very different.

It seems easy to say that we would all act with the highest levels of integrity if we were placed in similar situations. We all hope that we would have the courage to maintain our values when placed in a situation that would tempt us to compromise or change them. But harder to do.

It takes a lot of courage and strength to maintain a high level of integrity in our lives.

Coaches are famous for having phrases posted in gyms and locker rooms as constant reminders for how to go about your business. I know many people that carry poems or phrases in their wallet or purse as a reminder. This poem is provides a nice framework for maintaining a high level of of personal integrity in your life. It should be required reading in the public schools, at the very least discussed and understood, if not committed to memory. Maybe I ask for too much.


If..by Rudyard Kipling

IF you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
But make allowance for their doubting too;
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or being lied about, don't deal in lies,
Or being hated, don't give way to hating,
And yet don't look too good, nor talk too wise:
If you can dream - and not make dreams your master;
If you can think - and not make thoughts your aim;
If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster
And treat those two impostors just the same;
If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,
And stoop and build 'em up with worn-out tools:

If you can make one heap of all your winnings
And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings
And never breathe a word about your loss;
If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
To serve your turn long after they are gone,
And so hold on when there is nothing in you
Except the Will which says to them: 'Hold on!'

If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
' Or walk with Kings - nor lose the common touch,
if neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you,
If all men count with you, but none too much;
If you can fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds' worth of distance run,
Yours is the Earth and everything that's in it,
And - which is more - you'll be a Man, my son!

-----

COURAGE - He shall say: "Hear, O Israel, today you are going into battle against your enemies. Do not be fainthearted or afraid; do not be terrified or give way to panic before them. For the LORD your God is the one who goes with you to fight for you against your enemies to give you victory. - Deuteronomy 20:3-4

The Black Eye of Notre Dame continues

NOTRE DAME'S BLACK EYE

Here's the quandary Notre Dame finds itself in as far as the football program. The decision is not about bringing in another football coach to turn around the football fortunes.

According to current Athletic Director Jack Swarbrick

“it is critical to this program and to its place in this University and college football that we compete at the highest level, that we compete for National Championships.”

However, the elite academic standards and the image of Notre Dame as one of the last bastions of the "true" student-athlete formula in collegiate athletics is one of the albatrosses around any Notre Dame football coach's neck.

Charlie Weis succeeded in spades in one of those key areas but failed in another.

Swarbrick has lauded Weis for his love of the University and his players as well as his ability to bring in elite student athletes. He has acknowledged that Weis did win a national championship at Notre Dame because the Irish finished first in graduation success rate this year.

So which objective is most important Notre Dame? Actions speak louder than words.

I'm not sure they can continue to cling tightly to both objectives and succeed at both in the current environment. My fear is that they will end up like Indiana post-Bobby Knight. That program clung to its "we run a clean program, our basketball players go to class, graduate and don't embarrass the program". And that was fine as long as Knight was competing for national championships as well. Once the Hoosiers were no longer a Top 25 team, other issues arose and the emphasis was placed on winning. This begat Kelvin Sampson and the rest as they say is history. The Hoosiers no longer have their "clean program" mantra to cling to anymore.


The list of desirable potential candidates to replace Charlie Weis gets smaller every day. I'm not sure that this is one of the most "coveted" jobs in college football anymore. It is losing luster, just as the Indiana basketball job did recently.

The list of candidates:

John Gruden - he would rather stay in the booth, thanks.
Urban Meyer - no thanks, Florida works for me.
Bob Stoops - why would he leave Okalahoma?
TCU coach Gary Patterson - just signed an extension, thanks.
Boise State's Chris Peterson - seems very comfortable on the smurf turf, maybe he sees what happened to his predecessors leap for the greener pastures.

All the other NFL long shots including Tony Dungy, Bill Cowher and Brian Billick have given the golden domers the cold shoulder.

That leaves Cincinnati's Brian Kelly, UNC's Butch Davis and Stanford's Jim Harbaugh as the remaining names deemed worthy enough to take over. But are any of these guys better coaches than Weis or Willingham or even Bob Davie for that matter?

Certainly one of these guys could be playing coy publicly and footsie privately, no doubt. But given the recent history of the last three coaches at Notre Dame spanning the last twelve years, I'm not sure what we are seeing is more the exodus you see coming from a burning building than effective contract negotiations.

Let's review:

Ty Willingham came in to save the program after the George O'Leary debacle with credentials forged at Stanford. It was thought that he could succeed under ND's academic environment because he succeeded at Stanford. After a fast start, he faded to a 5-7 and 6-5 record and was ousted. Did he get a quick hook? Absolutely. Was it about race? Doubtful, more likely about color. The color of money. They were concerned about falling ratings and the loss of their exclusive contract. By the way, Willingham has not exactly been a rousing success at Washington (a combined 11-37 in four years since leaving Notre Dame with an 0-12 2008 record).

Ty was 21-15 at Notre Dame, a .583 winning percentage. About the same as his predecessor Bob Davie (35-25 for the same .583 percentage)

The Notre Dame wanderlust for a big name like Urban Meyer and then Charlie Weis may have had as much to do with Willingham's quick hook as anything. Meyer is the guy they have been salivating over since he burst onto the national scene at Utah. Once he settled at Florida instead of coming to Notre Dame, the administration was caught with a coach twisting in the wind in Willingham.

It's interesting to note that Weis combined record of 35-27, a .565 winning percentage is comparable to both Willingham and Davie. This indicates to me that unfortunately for both Notre Dame and maybe college football as well, the obvious conclusion is "you are what your record says you are."

This is over a decade of results from the Davie era through Weis and the chase to be #1 in the polls continues. Three different coaches, all successful coaches prior to coming to Notre Dame, and the results are about the same. How does that definition of insanity go...doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results?

I'm not sure why any high profile candidate would want to risk the damage to his resume that a stint at Notre Dame might bring.

It's romantic to cling to the projected Notre Dame image as being a place where winning on the field is no more important than the integrity off it. But the administration has spent lots of time talking that image talk, they need to demonstrate that they can walk the walk.

Which quality will Notre Dame cling to and which will be set aside -- FAME or INTEGRITY?

The man of integrity walks securely, but he who takes crooked paths will be found out. - Proverbs 10:9 INTEGRITY

Maybe Touchdown Jesus can save them.

Hi, Beemer. ~;::::::;( )">

Sportsmanship: Pre-Game Handshakes

IF YOU DON'T SUPPORT ACTS OF SPORTSMANSHIP, YOU PROBABLY LACK THE OTHER TWO QUALITIES LISTED - ETHICS AND INTEGRITY


Are you kidding me? We can't get together as leaders (coaches and officials) of young people and implement something as simple as a handshake? The mandate is supposed to be to build up these student-athletes in areas that transcend their athletic gifts.

Here we see where the competing interests fail once again to see the big picture. The fact that several NCAA teams declined to participate says all you need to know about the coaches involved and my hope is they get killed on the recruiting trail as a result. This "football game as war mentality" is one of the most foolish relics of the era of "old-school" coach mentality that is out there.

The fact that the University of Connecticut and West Virginia will get together, on their own volition--to remember and respect a fallen teammate and opponent--should give the knuckle-dragging cretins who oppose this "intrusion" into their pre-game motivation strategy all the perspective they need.

Sadly, most of them will still not get it.

THE COACHES DEBATE: (from the athleticmanagement.com story linked below)

To Shake or Not to Shake?
Some teams decided to answer Teaff's question and find out what happens when teams don't start the game by wringing hands. In one of the weekend's marquee games, Oklahoma State University decided against shaking hands with University of Georgia players.

"Our first concern was (we'll) have 115 guys out there and they'll have 70, it just takes one guy to pop off," OSU Head Coach Mike Gundy told The Oklahoman. "Then I don't know how you're going to break it up. How do you control something like that?"
But many teams participated in the sportsmanship initiative without incident.
"It's just another gesture to send a message that football is not a gentle sport by any measure but gentlemen can play it," Marshall University Head Coach Mark Snyder told The Herald-Dispatch
•••
Coaches React
At Montgomery County Public Schools in Maryland, every game is followed by a handshake, an act that is not likely to change because a college football player several states away punched an opponent. Montgomery County coaches view the incident as isolated and have seen much worse. In 2007, a James Hubert Blake High School player in street clothes carried a knife into the handshake line and cut three opposing players' hands.

"Ever since then, we've been able to use it as a teaching tool," Tony Nazzaro, Head Coach at James Hubert Blake, told The Gazette. "In that case, the person gave no indications beforehand of what he was going to do. But I've had kids who should be held out of the handshake because their emotions are still running too high ... Those type of incidents are few and far between, so we shouldn't let a couple of bad incidents ruin what is still a positive experience 99 percent of the time."
•••

MORE FROM THE NCAA AND THE AFCA:

http://www.athleticmanagement.com/2009/10/01/handshake_headlines/index.php

Handshakes and Fisticuffs
By Kyle Garratt

When the NCAA and the American Football Coaches Association (AFCA) named the first round of college football games "Respect Weekend" and encouraged teams to shake hands before each game in a show of sportsmanship, they probably didn't envision what would actually follow. The first game of the college season ended with a player punching one of his opponents, several teams declined to shake hands, and many were not shy to voice opinions for and against the pregame formalities. As it turns out, would-be friendly handshakes can turn quite volatile.
•••
Shakes Turn to Swings
Perhaps it was bad luck that the first game, and first pregame handshake, of the 2009 season packed more emotion than a typical non-conference contest. The University of Oregon was attempting to avenge a loss to Boise State University in which the Broncos knocked the Oregon quarterback out of the game. Senior running back LeGarrette Blount created bulletin board material before the game and a fiasco after. Blount used colorful language to imply his team owed Boise State revenge, rushed eight times for negative-five yards in the game, punched Boise State defensive end Byron Hout in the face before attempting to start fights with teammates and Boise fans, and was suspended from the team.

AFCA Executive Director Grant Teaff did not blame the handshake for the ugly events after the game.
"I thought to myself, 'What would have happened if they hadn't shaken hands before the game?'" Teaff told ESPN. "This wasn't a fight. This wasn't a brawl. I was impressed by the coaches and players who showed restraint and self-control last night."
•••

-----

THE REPORT CARD

From Indystar.com 9/9/09

The NCAA and the American Football Coaches Association kicked off the 2009 season with a “Respect Weekend” in which all teams were encouraged to hold a pregame handshake ceremony to promote sportsmanship.

How did it go?

How did it go?

First, the players. With players cranked up before the opening games of the season, the concern was that one player saying something could mutate the handshake line into a riot. Didn’t happen. Not one pregame incident anywhere. A

Second, the spectators. On talk shows and sports blogs around the country, the majority of fans were fervently against pregame handshakes. When teams met in the middle of the field across the country, would they be drowned out by a chorus of boos? Didn’t happen. On TV screens across the country, stadium crowds spontaneously stood and cheered. A

Third, the coaches. With so many coaches growling at the formality, the concern was that colleges would refuse to do it. Didn’t happen. Other than Oklahoma State and Illinois, the vast majority of schools complied graciously.
For every Joe Paterno (Penn State) saying he didn’t need handshake ceremonies to instill sportsmanship, there was a Jim Tressell (Ohio State) saying the opportunity to shake hands with Midshipmen of the U.S. Naval Academy “was something our kids will probably never forget.” B

Fourth, the aftermath. The NCAA and AFCA hoped the pregame gesture would reduce bad sportsmanship and carry over the camaraderie to the postgame atmosphere. Didn’t happen. After the Boise State-Oregon game, victorious Boise State players taunted Oregon running back LeGarrette Blount for making comments about them earlier. Blount retaliated with a sucker punch, for which he was suspended for the entire season. C-

--------

THE OFFICIALS POINT OF VIEW:

http://www.boston.com/sports/schools/football/articles/2008/12/12/referees_lose_on_handshake_rule_in_court/

Referees lose on handshake rule in court
By Dave Nordman
Worcester Telegram &Amp; Gazette / December 12, 2008

Official Protest
The football field hasn't been the only home for recent handshake debate. In October 2008, the Massachusetts Interscholastic Athletic Association (MIAA) adopted a rule requiring basketball officials to stay on the court during the postgame handshake. The Massachusetts State Basketball Officials Association (MSBOA) objected to the rule on grounds that it put officials in danger of fans or coaches who were upset by calls during the game.

"Anyone who picks up a newspaper knows that we're living in a violent society," Alan Goldberger, lawyer for the International Association of Approved Basketball Officials, told The Boston Globe. "The rule is so absurd as to border on delusional."
The MSBOA filed a temporary injunction with the Worcester Superior Court, and the MIAA fired back.

"There is no merit to their case," MIAA lawyer James Long told the court. "We haven't had any problems. It's history vs. speculation."
Ultimately, the court ruled the officials must stay on the court until the handshaking is done.

As a high-school official in basketball, baseball and softball I can tell you I have always found the officials position of turning tail and retreating into the locker room after a contest to be one of the most chicken-hearted (I cleaned that one up) pieces of advice given to us at various clinics and from officials associations.

If you are afraid of abuse from fans you probably did not do a good enough job on the floor. The school is still required to provide for your protection even if you are required to stay longer to observe the post-game handshake. It is simply an extension of your job from the moment you hit the floor, which is to enforce sportsmanship and fair play from the get go. To duck and run after the final horn reflects a lack of seriousness and sincerity to that #1 priority of your job. What a poor image to reflect to fans, players and coaches.

I have stayed after games to watch friends work a higher level game and have never had a problem with fans, players or coaches, in fact quite the opposite. You can sometimes have an opportunity to explain rules or calls after the game in a less pressurized environment and help educate those that have never been there, done that.

At issue was a ruling by the Massachusetts Interscholastic Athletic Association that referees, part of the Massachusetts State Basketball Officials Association, not leave the court until teams have exchanged the traditional handshake. In the past, the referees left the court immediately after they signed the score book.

After hearing arguments in a courtroom filled with referees, high school administrators, and MIAA officials, Judge Christine M. Roach ruled against the MSBOA. During the two-hour hearing, the group argued that the rule might cause physical harm, expose them to added liability, and interfere with their contractual relations.

The MIAA countered by saying there has never been an incident in which an official has been assaulted during a post game handshake.

From personal experience, I agree with the MIAA here, in fact the only incident I have had was with a parent, well after the game, outside the gymnasium. I don't see much risk in taking part in a school sanctioned, high-school association approved act of sportsmanship. And the officials association should have backed it to the hilt. So shame on us as well.