Stretching Scholarship Dollars Key To College Success | BaseballAmerica.com

This is going to be a tough one to work out since you have two of the biggest control freaks in sports, MLB and the NCAA, struggling for control of these assets called baseball players. If MLB gives subsidies, they are going to want some measure of control in return. 

We'll see how it goes and I remain hopeful they can improve the landscape. But IDK......There should be a partnership type of arrangement and colleges currently work with the industries they serve all the time in terms of curriculum, so this should be somewhat in their wheelhouse. 

So there you go MLB, here's your to do list:

• Subsidize RBI baseball in the inner cities
• Subsidize women's/girls softball nationally
• Subsidize college scholarships
• Subsidize baseball/softball internationally via WBC tournaments to enhance or replace Olympics command and control every four years

It's an investment in your potential future players as well as expansion of the sports future audience.  See how easy it is to spend other peoples money? I should be a politician, but I don't want to shower/delouse three times a day.

from Baseball America:

http://www.baseballamerica.com/college/stretching-scholarship-dollars-key-collegwith e-success/#KlEWlE4r3aUmK1U5.97

Stretching Scholarship Dollars Key To College Success

June 23, 2015 By Ian Frazer

Courtesy of Stanford University

In late March, Stanford announced it was raising an important financial aid threshold. Previously, any family with a yearly household income of $100,000 or less could expect to contribute nothing to a student's tuition payments. This year, that number became $125,000, which is more than twice the median U.S. household income but right in line with the median figure of Stanford's student body.

The motivation for the move was primarily academic: Removing money as an obstacle in getting the smartest, most talented high school students to Palo Alto.

The implications go further than that, though, to the sphere of athletics. Not to football and basketball, most schools' most popular sports and primary moneymakers. A scholarship in those sports has essentially the same value anywhere, and schools are can cover each position three to four times over.

Baseball, however, is different. It is limited to 11.7 scholarships for a 35-man roster, and those are doled out not in terms of yes and no, but in percentages and fractions.

Sent from my iPhone

Wrestling gets reinstated for 2020 Olympics - ESPN

And rightfully so. More than baseball / softball, which I understand that the world thinks of as primarily an American sport, wrestling is as much associated with the Olympic Games and it's history as almost any sport in the Olympics.

My guess is that the reason they were dropped initially is that there is not much the IOC could do to monetize the sport other than to switch to WWF-style wrestling. Oops, I shouldn't give them any ideas.

Wrestling gets reinstated for 2020 Olympics - ESPN:

Wrestling, which was surprisingly dropped from the list of core sports in February, received 49 votes to win in the first round of secret balloting by the International Olympic Committee. Baseball-softball got 24 votes and squash 22.

The decision capped a frantic six-month campaign by the wrestling body FILA to revamp the organization and reshape the sport to save its Olympic status.

'via Blog this'

Why the IOC will never memorialize the '72 Munich massacre - FOX

The reason given by the IOC to the families of the Israelis slain during the '72 Games (second story below) is all the reason I need to not want to watch any more of the current crop of games than is absolutely necessary. And quite frankly, none of it is must-see TV.

The IOC is run by a bunch of human garbage. The sports low light of the week, perhaps the decade.


from foxsports.com
11 slain Israelis remembered at Munich memorial - News | FOX Sports on MSN:

"The families reject the official reasons they've been given for why this cannot happen. At Montreal in 1976, they said they were told the reason was that the Arabs would leave. At Barcelona in 1992, it was an unwillingness to bring politics into the games. At Atlanta in 1996, the reason was protocol. At Athens in 2004, organizers said it was not the appropriate time.

Just before the memorial, sponsored by the British Jewish community, Prime Minister David Cameron expressed support for honoring the slain Israelis.

''As the world comes together in London to celebrate the games and the values it represents, it is right that we should stop and remember the 11 Israeli athletes who so tragically lost their lives when those values came under attack in Munich 40 years ago,'' Cameron told an audience prior to the main memorial service. ''It was a truly shocking act of evil. A crime against the Jewish people. A crime against humanity. A crime the world must never forget.''"

'via Blog this'


from foxnews.com

In 1996, I, along with other Munich orphans and three of the widows, were invited for the first time to the Olympic Games in Atlanta. Before the Opening Ceremony, we met with Alex Gilady. Gilady has been a member of the IOC's Radio and Television Commission since 1984 and has been the senior vice president of NBC Sports since 1996.

I have known Mr. Gilady since I was a kid; in fact, I grew up with his daughter. He had been supportive in the past regarding our plea for a moment of silence during the Opening Ceremonies, so we arrived with high hopes. Gilady informed us that a moment of silence was not possible because if the IOC had a moment of silence for the Israeli athletes, they would also have to do the same for the Palestinians who died at the Olympics in 1972.

My mother said, "But no Palestinian athletes died."

Gilady responded, "Well, there were Palestinians who died at the 1972 Olympics."
I heard one of the widows say to Gilady, "Are you equating the murder of my husband to the terrorists that killed him?"

Silence.

Then Ilana Romano burst out with a cry that has haunted me to this day. She screamed at Gilady,

"How DARE you! You KNOW what they did to my husband! They let him lay there for hours, dying slowly, and then finished him off by castrating him and shoving it in his mouth, ALEX!"
I looked at Gilady's face as he sat there, stone cold with no emotion. This man knew these athletes personally. This man led the Israeli media delegation at the 1972 Olympics and saw this atrocity first hand. This man saw my father's dead, naked body thrown out front of the Olympic Village for all the world to see.

Without a hint of empathy, Gilady excused himself from our meeting.

DOES SIZE REALLY MATTER? Today's major leaguers are bigger and stronger than those of earlier eras - physical size of baseball players | Baseball Digest | Find Articles at BNET

The debate surfaces periodically and revolves around the "is today's player better than players from other eras", whether it be the 70's and 80's -- the WWI era -- or the Ruth / Cobb era.

For certain, I believe the quality of the athlete that baseball is recruiting is better now than ever before. Whether that always translates into better players centers around my belief that coaching, especially at the major league level -- but in the minors as well -- has not kept up.

Coaching may be as good or better than ever at the collegiate and HS level. The youth level, IMO still leaves something to be desired. Generally speaking the level of coaching is improving there, if only sporadically.

Putting aside for a moment the segue arguments
- "Do bigger players equal better players?"
and the pejorative fallback argument
- "How did they get bigger and stronger?"

clearly the trend toward bigger, stronger, faster equaling "more productive" players has pretty much been settled. "Better" is in the eye of the beholder and is dependent on many variables that can not be extracted or accounted for through statistical analysis or the dreaded "eyeball" test.

Some fans will prefer 1-0, 2-0 pitching duels and some will continue to prefer the "chicks dig the long ball" era. The pendulum tends to swing from one extreme to another and back again.

The following article touches on many of the relevant areas of discussion.

DOES SIZE REALLY MATTER? Today's major leaguers are bigger and stronger than those of earlier eras - physical size of baseball players | Baseball Digest | Find Articles at BNET:

"Current baseball scouts generally focus their attention on larger prospects, particularly pitchers

BABE RUTH STILL STANDS AS ONE of the legendary giants of baseball, but if he were alive today, he would stand taller than only 48 percent of the players who were on major-league 40-man rosters at the start of spring training.

The Bambino was listed at 6-2 and 195 pounds before his weight became a major problem during the second half of his career. He is remembered as a much larger man because most newsreel footage of him was taken during his last few seasons-- and because he was always much bigger than the average player of his time.

But if the young, strapping Ruth were magically transported into the 21st century, he would not stand out in the team picture of any major-league club. His wonderful baseball skills aside, he would be--in terms of vital statistics--a very average guy."

The 1927 "Murderers' Row" New York Yankees were one of the most dominating, intimidating teams in history, yet the average height and weight of a member of that storied group, even with such big bruisers as Ruth, Lou Gehrig and Bob Meusel at the heart of the lineup, was just 5-11 and 176 pounds.

The 1975 world champion Cincinnati Reds--immortalized as "The Big Red Machine"--illustrated what a difference a half-century can make. The players on that Reds club averaged 6-1 and 188 pounds.

The 2001 three-time defending world champion Yankees are not really known as one of the most physically imposing teams on the planet, but they weigh in with an average height and weight of 6-2 and 204 pounds.

Changes.....through the years. Sometimes, it's difficult to see the forest for the trees and remember how things used to be in the 'good old days'. Then you see an old ESPN classic and you realize that "Hey, Jennie Finch actually looks more athletic than some major leaguers from the 70's appeared.

BUD HARRELSON - 1969 METS 5'11", 165 POUNDS (MAYBE)

JENNIE FINCH - USA!!! USA!!! - 6'1", 170 POUNDS

Advantage Finch!!!!

My money is on Finch even if it goes this far...

Specialization and AAU-ization...always a factor. Participation in other sports, in conjunction with or to the exclusion of other sports has changed the landscape somewhat.

If it were totally a matter of evolution, the process presumably would take place at a much slower rate. It appears, in this case, that the Darwinian notion of natural selection has been replaced with just plain selection. Baseball players are taller because scouts are out looking for taller baseball players.

"In our industry, as far as evaluating talent, you're driven to larger bodies," said Cardinals director of baseball operations John Mozeliak. "When you go to the Dominican Republic, for instance, you get all these kids at the tryouts. The first thing you look at is how a guy looks in the uniform. You're very unlikely to give any money to a guy who's 5-9 and 170 pounds."

This isn't necessarily a new concept, but several other factors may contribution to the greater availability of tall athletes during the past decade or so--most notably a vast increase in the number and diversity of youth sports programs.

The average 1960s kid played Little League and maybe Pop Warner football. The 1980s kid also had soccer, basketball and other team and individual sports to keep them active year-round.

"I think one thing that's happening is that participation is at its highest level as far as youth sports, so the pool of talent to choose from has grown," said Cardinals trainer Barry Weinstein. "And you're developing a more well-rounded athlete, so a kid doesn't have to like basketball just because he's 6-9."

And the generational shift from sandlot sports to highly organized youth programs probably has the added effect of weeding out kids with less natural athletic ability much earlier--creating a better youth talent pool at the expense of some of the young people they were supposed to benefit.

You can see from the following table that HR champs have been getting bigger over the course of the last few decades. The typical HR slugger from the good old days would be average sized today.

BIG LEAGUE SLUGGERS ARE GETTING BIGGER--Despite the fact that league home run champions have had little change in size over the last 80 years, the most dramatic change has been the number of power hitters. From 1921 through 1940, hitting 40 or more homers in a season was accomplished 32 times by 12 different players. From 1941 through 1960, it was accomplished 44 times by 17 different sluggers. From 1961 through 1980, the number rose to 54 times that a player hit 40 homers in a season, reached by 30 different players. And during the last 20 years (1981-2000), the number of 40-homer hitters jumped to 98 times accomplished by 49 different players. Below is a chart of the average size of league home run champions dating back to 1921.

Total Avg. Avg. Avg.
ERA HR Champs Height Weight HR Output

1991-2000 15 6-3 218 48
1981-1990 20 6-3 208 40
1971-1980 13 6-2 201 40
1961-1970 11 6-1 202 46
1951-1960 15 6-1 194 42
1941-1950 13 6-0 195 36
1931-1940 11 6-0 194 40
1921-1930 10 6-0 187 41

Largest HR Smallest HR
ERA Champion Champion

1991-2000 Mark McGwire (6-5, 250) Howard Johnson (5-11, 178)
1981-1990 Jose Canseco (6-4, 240) Kevin Mitchell (5-11, 210)
1971-1980 Dave Kingman (6-6, 210) Dick Allen (5-11, 190)
1961-1970 Frank Howard (6-7, 255) Willie Mays (5-11, 180)
1951-1960 Hank Sauer (6-4, 200) Al Rosen (5-10, 180)
1941-1950 Hank Greenberg (6-3-210) Mel Ott (5-9, 170)
1931-1940 Hank Greenberg (6-3, 210) Ripper Collins (5-9, 165)
1921-1930 Babe Ruth (6-2, 215) Hack Wilson (5-6, 190)

COPYRIGHT 2001 Century Publishing
COPYRIGHT 2001 Gale Group

From the table in this article, the player of today has to compete against more potential players today than ever before, even with expansion. Although they do accommodate for the exclusion of black and Hispanic players in the past, the pre-war major leaguer did not see the diversity of talent culled from around the globe that today's player competes against.



Another factor, to be considered but not readily apparent from the table above is the effect of the various wars on the availability of 18 - 30 year old males, a crucial variable at times.

Think of how much that talent pool was diluted during the war years -- a time during which "One-armed" Pete Gray played.

Pete Gray, Universal Newsreels, 1945.ogv
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pete_Gray,_Universal_Newsreels,_1945.ogv

Other current stars gave up years of their career to the war effort, as illustrated in the following two articles.

Baseball in Wartime
http://www.baseballinwartime.com/

Baseball in Wartime is dedicated to preserving the memories of all baseball players (major league, negro league, minor league, semi-pro, college, amateur and high school), who served with the military between 1940 and 1946.

World War II was a trying time for the United States and equally so for baseball. More than 4,500 professional players swapped flannels for military uniforms to serve their nation and future Hall of Famers like Bob Feller, Hank Greenberg, Joe DiMaggio and Ted Williams lost vital playing time in the prime of their careers. What is far less commonly known is that at least 130 minor league players lost their lives while serving their country.

Major League Baseball's Popularity During WWII by Joey Corso
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/161265-major-league-baseballs-popularity-during-wwii

Before WWII began, Major League Baseball enjoyed record popularity. Ted Williams batted a record-setting .406, Joe DiMaggio, set a record with hits in 56 consecutive games, 41-year-old Lefty Grove won his 300th career win, and the New York Yankees collected an unprecedented ninth World Series championship.(Baseball in Wartime)

Following Pearl Harbor, overwhelming patriotism spread throughout the nation, causing many young men to enlist including future Hall of Fame players Hank Greenburg and Bob Feller who gave up the prime their careers to be a part of the war effort.

Greenburg summed up what all players at the time were feeling, telling the Sporting News that “If there's any last message to be given to the public, let it be that I'm going to be a good soldier.”

Although a small minority of Americans expressed displeasure towards apparently fit men participating in sports and shirking military duties, Private John E Stevenson, expressed the more widely held view that, "baseball is part of the American way of life. Remove it and you remove something from the lives of American citizens, soldiers and sailors."

Along with future Hall of Famers, many other quality major league players enlisted or were drafted, significantly lowering the quality of play. Average players were now stars, and scrubs who were destined to be career minor leaguers received opportunities to play significant roles on big league clubs.

Using David Finoli’s highly embraced statistical formula, as seen in For the Good of the Country: World War II Baseball in the Major and Minor Leagues, a list of the top 64 ball players during the war seasons (1942-1945) was developed, headed by a Roy Sanders.

Although a fine player, it was clear a somewhat obscure player today, benefited playing against lesser competition. This can be seen by comparing his statistics during and after the war.

The list contains several other fine players, but does not include a future Hall of Fame player until the 14th player on the list, Cleveland Indians shortstop Lou Boudreau. Four highly productive seasons along with six to eight above average ones can usually make a player’s case for entry into the Hall of Fame.

Yet none of the top 13 players during the war made the Hall, proving that these players were unable to perform at the same level when up against the best and that statistically speaking the level of play during the time was lower.

Over time, we have seen baseball players, and the game at large, adapt to many significant changes that have collided to bring about many of the observed changes to the perceived caliber of play.

- The mound was lowered in 1969 from 15 inches to 10 inches in height after the dominance of pitching ( think Bob Gibson's 1.12 ERA ). As a result, scouts and coaches preferred to select taller pitchers to make up the lost difference in leverage the lower mound provided. The short (under 6-foot) RHP became an endangered species in baseball as a result IMO.

- Free agency and guaranteed contracts resulting from the Curt Flood battle against the Reserve Clause has resulted in players beginning treated as more valuable commodities. Prior to 1969, even star players were considered expendable if productivity diminished even slightly. Players were on year to year contracts, security was day to day. Pitch Counts and increased use of bullpen specialists has been the slow, but inevitable outgrowth.

Structural changes such as Astroturf, Questec and increased use of PED's have brought about both observed and statistical changes and anomalies that can never be fully accounted for and so the debate will continue forever.

If you don't think that Questec was a huge and underrated development in the offense / defense equilibrium, take a look at the "strikes" called in some of those Braves - Twins World Series highlights or the infamous Eric Gregg / Livan Hernandez playoff game. There's a reason why Curt Schilling took a bat to an early version of Questec machinery that was in the Diamondbacks dugout. The handwriting was on the wall that a subtle but important pitching advantage was about to be lost.

It's one reason why I like to look to the Olympic sports, specifically track and field or swimming events, to observe and evaluate macro changes in athletes over different eras. The skill sports are too complex to assess causes and effects. The Olympic sports are ideal for statistical analysis because of their inherent simplicity: Running is a universal and fundamental athletic event. Distances don't change, gravity and friction are constants. Even in swimming, the resistance that water provides doesn't change materially over time.

----

In swimming, the 1924 Men's Olympic champion and symbol of virility for machismo for the era, Johnny Weismuller of Tarzan fame, swam a 59.0 sec. 100 meter freestyle.

USA'S JOHNNY WEISMULLER - 1924 PARIS OLYMPICS CHAMPION

In the 2008 Beijing Olympics, Germany's Britta Steffen swam the same event in 53.12 seconds. American Natalie Coughlin swan it in 53.39 seconds for an American record. Both times would have obliterated Weismuller's time.

GERMANY'S BRITTE STEFFEN - 2008 BEJING OLYMPIC CHAMPION

In fact, Weismuller's time would have finished 47th in the world in the 2008 100 meter freestyle qualifying heats. In the women's qualifying heats.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swimming_at_the_1924_Summer_Olympics_-_Men%27s_100_metre_freestyle

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swimming_at_the_2008_Summer_Olympics_-_Women%27s_100_metre_freestyle


---

In track and field, the 1936 Olympic champion Jesse Owens would be challenged to beat the current women's 100 meter champion, Jamaica's Shelly-Ann Fraser. Owens won the 1936 event with a 10.3 sec. time. Fraser's 2008 100 meter time of 10.78 would have placed her sixth in the 1936 men's 100 meter championship heat and made her the fourth fastest American at the time.

Jesse Owens was 5'10" and 165. Fraser tips in at 5'3" and 115. A shorter version, pound for pound of Owens. Looking at some of these comparisons, I am with David Wells -- a Babe Ruth fan -- when he says "15-70-.270" to state what he believes Babe Ruth's stat line would be today.

No night games, no sliders, he may have been exaggerating a little bit, but not by much.

The pre-war American athlete, in many instances, can only compare favorably to female athletes today. Once again demonstrating that the Nixon-era Title IX legislation may have been one of the most underrated pieces of legislation of all time in this country.

There are simply too many factors to consider to make a definitive answer to the underlying question we started with, which is why this question will continue to be fuel for debate for many generations to come.

Do you believe in Miracles?? - 30 years later

THE SPORTS ILLUSTRATED COVER - NO CAPTION NECESSARY, THE ONLY ONE LIKE IT.


This is still the greatest moment in sports history. The rag-tag American team of college players vs. the Soviet juggernaut that was routinely destroying NHL teams. Still amazing to watch and I can't believe its been that long ago.

The Russian coach pulling Vladislav Tretiak from goal after he gave up a sloppy, last-second goal to end the first period is the deciding factor. If he goes into the locker room and lights Tretaik up but doesn't pull him, maybe the result is different. Tretiak at the time was the top goalie in the world. The Russians clearly did not take the American team seriously enough until it was too late. Several of the Soviet players made note of these two factors over the years.


Ten Minutes of the Canadian Feed:



The ABC-TV feed, seen on tape-delay:



In terms of sports, truly a miracle. This series of games was the genesis for the "USA, USA" chant that is commonplace in international contests today. What it did for the spirit and morale of a country that was still ailing at the end of the Carter administration cannot be measured.

The greatest game in sports history in my lifetime without a doubt. In terms of magnitude, I can't even come close to a comparable upset. Perhaps the Russians would cite their own upset of the USA basketball team, but that's another story for another day.

The IOC gets one right?

Couldn't agree with them more on this point of emphasis.

FROM THE WEBSITE OLYMPIC.ORG

05 OCTOBER 2009

Youth and Athletes at the heart of Congress discussions

http://www.olympic.org/en/content/The-IOC/?articleNewsGroup=-1¤tArticlesPageIPP=10¤tArticlesPage=1&articleId=73362

The XIII Olympic Congress today approved a set of recommendations with a strong focus on youth and athletes, declaring that “youth and athletes are equally at the heart of the Olympic Movement.”

Wrapping up a three-day meeting in Copenhagen’s Bella Center, the Congress embraced digital technology and the Youth Olympic Games as powerful tools for sharing Olympic values with the world’s youth. The 66 recommendations included proposals to get young people engaged in sport; to better protect athletes — medically, psychologically and after their sporting careers; to take full advantage of new digital technology; and to use the new Youth Olympic Games as a model for youth competition.

“The XIII Olympic Congress will be remembered as the Congress of Youth and Athletes. It has delivered clear guidance that serving young people and athletes should be our top priorities,” IOC President Jacques Rogge said. “We will find new ways to share the Olympic values with the world’s youth and get them involved in sport. We will redouble our efforts to protect the health and safety of athletes, and help them prepare for life after sport.”

The Congress also highlighted the problem of inactivity and called for action to address it, especially among young people. Delegates asked for closer cooperation between governments and sports organisations, and said governments should build more sporting facilities and offer more time for sport in schools, “at all ages and at all levels.”

The Congress called the new Youth Olympic Games “a unique opportunity in the history of the modern Olympic Movement to raise the bar worldwide in terms of the delivery of educational and sport programmes for all young people.”

emphasis added - C.S.

The Smoking Gun that killed Chicago 2016?

At least according to NBC Sports & Olympics Chairman Dick Ebersol, who speculated that the USOC's move to create a separate cable channel for broadcast was a less than genteel attempt to grab an even larger portion of the pie than ever.

IOC members currently feel the USOC peels off a greater portion of the pie than they should be entitled to. The USOC I believe takes the position that since the lions share of the money comes from US TV networks and sponsors the money should be divided up proportionally rather than evenly.

EBERSOL INTERVIEW WITH CNBC:
http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232/?video=1282880714&play=1


Sounds like the MLB owners to me.

USOC NETWORK STORY FROM SPORTS-CITY.ORG
http://www.sports-city.org/news_details.php?news_id=9329&idCategory=24


USOC admits it badly miscalculated anger over TV plan
(Gee, you think?)

The United States Olympic Committee has conceded it badly miscalculated the angry IOC response to its plans for an Olympic television network but believes the row will not affect Chicago's bid for the 2016 Games.

"Simply put, we miscalculated the negative response to the launch of the United States Olympic Network," USOC acting chief executive officer Stephanie Streeter said on Wednesday.

"While we received many positive statements of support at home and from international members of the Olympic and Paralympic families, we have put the network on 'pause'."

The USOC announced in Berlin last month that it would delay launching a cable television network devoted to the Olympics.

Streeter, who was making a keynote speech to the U.S. Olympic assembly, said she did not think the dispute would adversely affect Chicago's bid.

The International Olympic Committee will choose between Chicago, Rio de Janeiro, Tokyo and Madrid in Copenhagen on October 2.

Streeter offered a conciliatory tone during her speech, saying the USOC hoped to work on the television project with the IOC.

So it sounds like it wasn't Obama's fault, not Bush's fault, maybe not even Daley's fault....all right I got carried away there for a minute, let me take a deep breath.

Whew, that's better.

But hey don't worry about Chicago, we'll move on. People are used to tough defeats up here. C'mon we have the Cubbies and the Bears to keep us in shape in the life disappointment department.

And to prove it, this was posted by a fellow Daily Herald reader earlier today.

From the Daily Herald comments section. Sometimes you find a diamond in the sewer.

10 Reasons Chicago Didn't Get the Olympics [from Rich Lowry]

10. Dead people can't vote at IOC meetings
9. Obama distracted by 25 min meeting with Gen. McChrystal
8. Who cares if Obama couldn't talk the IOC into Chicago? He'll be able to talk Iran out of nukes.
7. The impediment is Israel still building settlements.
6. Obviously no president would have been able to acomplish it.
5. We've been quite clear and said all along that we didn't want the Olympics.
4. This isn't about the number of Olympics "lost", it's about the number of Olympics "saved" or "created".
3. Clearly not enough wise Latina judges on the committee
2. Because the IOC is racist.
1. It's George Bush's fault.

That's just some funny stuff there, regardless of party affiliation.

It's all good though, there will be other Olympics. But they've just stiffed NYC and Chicago in the last two bids. Maybe they just love LA.

CHICAGO 2016 BOUNCED IN THE FIRST ROUND

Turn out the lights...
the party's over...
They say that all...
good things must end....
turn out the lights.......

WOW!!!! A first round knockout. Didn't see that one coming.

This is not referendum on President Obama. If anyone LOST the bid, I would gladly blame Mayor Daley. But even with his sub-Bush approval rating, he keeps getting re-elected. You get the government you ask for I suppose.

The late slump in local support (from 61% to 47%) has been widely attributed to Daley putting the taxpayers on the hook for any cost-overruns (in Chicago???). This was a no-win situation as well however, since if you do not put that safety net in place, the IOC doesn't bless the bid.

So the lesson learned when you deal with these scoundrels is that it always seems to be a no-win, damned if you do-damned if you don't scenario and that is where most of the local ambivalence comes from.

It will be interesting to hear the post-mortem blame game. The far-right and the far-left seemed to team up to rip Obama for supporting the "home" team. Lets' hear what each says now. It will also be interesting to hear the bleating coming from the Mayor's office. Can they possibly blame IOC corruption and insider dealing? With a straight face?

Maybe now the city of Chicago can dial back the hourly rate on their parking meters to somewhere south of the hourly minimum wage.

There's really no perceived upside to having this event anymore, except for a Rio that wants to CHANGE their image around the world. Chicago, Tokyo and Madrid seemingly do not need that as much as perhaps a Rio does.

I wish them luck. I hope for a lot of reasons that it is one of the most poorly watched and sponsored Summer Games in history. I was hoping for that result from the Games held in China, but no such luck.

The Obamas go to Stockholm....and why I love sports

THOSE CRAZY KIDS!!!!

The Obamas are going to Stockholm to meet with IOC officials and make the pitch that their adopted hometown and the country gets to host the 2016 Summer Olympics.

Now admittedly, I am not the greatest fan either the President or the Olympic movement as it is constituted today, but I have to call BS on the criticism directed at the President for going.

People, what on earth do you expect him to do? I would criticize him more for not going, for not helping the city nail down the prize.

It's funny to hear where it seems the bulk of the criticism is coming from. Republican party pooper Michael Steele says he shouldn't go for various reasons--none of them good. We're at war, Iranian mischief threatens world security, he should stay here and protect us...blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

Don't worry. The Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines will protect the country while the Pres. is gone.

Here's some free advice for you Mr. Steele: If your job is to lead the party back from eight years of stupidity by the party, please think before you talk. And check with Mitt Romney, one of your 2012 front-runners, who appears to applaud the effort.

Actually, most of the criticism comes from the extreme left. The Huffington Post columnists must be apoplectic with anger at the President for fronting this effort.

It just goes to show how sports has the power to bring people with diverse backgrounds together and experience the thrill of victory and the agony of defeat.

They should have brought along Geithner and Bernanke because those guys have the financial wherewithal (our tax dollars) to talk these guys into orgasmic fits of praise for Chicago.

Stay tuned, only a couple of days before the final decision.

I'm officially on record as being for the games to come to Chicago. The human drama of athletic competition will be enhanced by the two most corrupt organizations getting together and putting on an event that used to be steeped in virtue and idealism. That has to be good for some fireworks. Who is going to be the pimp and who is going to be the whore for two weeks while the IOC and Chicago's finest politicians play nicey-nice?



I hereby nominate "Huggy Bear" from the Starsky and Hutch TV series as the head of entertainment and good times for our future Olympic guests.

Chicago in the lead for 2016 Olympics...by one point

The Chicago bid was characterized as "ambitious, but achievable". All three of the other contenders fell under the category of "reasonable, but achievable."

I'm not sure what elevated Chicago to the lofty "ambitious" status, but my Spider sense suspects that--given that we are dealing with the International Olympic Committee and Chicago politicians--bribery, liquor and hookers were probably involved.

HEY, HO!!! WAY TO GO!!! CHICAGO!!!

According to Around the Rings:
http://www.aroundtherings.com/articles/view.aspx?id=30687

One point is all that separates the four cities in the race for the 2016 Olympics: that's based on the results of the latest edition of the Around the Rings Olympic Bid Power Index. The third edition of this contest's ranking is the only authoritative, independent review of the race for the 2016 Games.

Chicago Leads, But Barely

Based on the strengths of its venue plan and infrastructure, the U.S. bid from Chicago keeps its spot as the leader in the ATR Power Index -- but just by a single point over the rest of the field. Chicago scores 77, with Madrid, Tokyo and Rio de Janeiro tied at 76.

That lead is trivial. In a practical sense, the race is tied among the four cities. Each have indisputable assets, each comes with liabilities.

IBAF response to IOC snub....Go World Baseball Classic

The International Baseball Federation--headed by Dr. Harvey Schiller--seemingly did more than enough positive work trying to get baseball and softball re-instated in time for the 2016 Olympics. Unfortunately, their efforts--along with those of Major League Baseball--fell on deaf ears at the International Olympic Committee.

Hopefully, now MLB can move forward unilaterally in it's efforts to promote baseball internationally. Maybe now we won't hear quotes from Dick Pound or WADA or USADA anymore. Those guys are out of the picture now, by their own choice.

Below is Dr. Schiller's post-mortem message sent to supporters.

August 17, 2009

Dear Colleague,

As you know, last Thursday we received the disappointing news that the IOC Executive Committee had chosen not to put forward baseball as one of the two sports for a general vote for the 2016 Olympics. Although the announcement was not what we had hoped for, it certainly does not detract from the great progress the sport of baseball is making globally, nor does it minimize the great collective effort by all involved to present the best possible case for baseball’s re-instatement for the Olympics. The fact remains, now more than ever, that baseball is a vibrant, growing sport played and enjoyed by millions and is reflective of all the Olympics are supposed to stand for, whether included in the programme or not.

First, we owe a word of thanks to all those who went above and beyond to assist us in the process leading into Thursday. That includes all the Federations, who not only enlisted the help of their IOC members but who also rallied so much local support for us on our Facebook and website efforts, along with the many people who wrote letters to key IOC members, ranging from college coaches and administrators to government and sport officials from around the world. The support we received was unprecedented and we are confident in the long run that it will benefit the growth of baseball, so long as we keep the momentum going. We would also be remiss in not acknowledging and thanking those at the highest level of the sport, Major League Baseball and the NPB, for all their assistance as well. The game would be nowhere without their efforts, and the support of Commissioner Selig, President Dupuy and Players Association Executive Director Fehr, as well as all the MLB owners and staff, is greatly appreciated. Lastly, there are our staff and Executive Committee, who also did everything possible until the final minutes to rally support. Thank you all for your efforts, they did not go unnoticed.

With regard to “what went wrong” in the Olympic process, it is probably not healthy or productive to spend much time looking back. We effectively addressed all the questions the IOC had with regard to reinstatement. We had unprecedented support from Major League Baseball, the Players Association and the Japanese League with regard to scheduling concessions and player availability, and even submitted a list of statements from top players to the IOC in the last week with regard to player commitment. The one thing MLB could not do was stop the season for the 2016 Olympics, especially without knowing which city was being selected as host. It is not a concession asked of soccer or tennis or other sports, and we did everything possible to provide the best alternative plan that would include using top players for the five day tournament. It is important to note that NOT ONE professional or top amateur player, when asked, said he would not participate in 2016 if his country qualified and he was selected. Not one.

We were also disappointed to see, even with all the concessions made, that a number of members of the IOC Executive Committee who said they would support baseball chose not to support the sport when the vote was taken. Of the countries where we thought we would have had 100% support…Italy, Japan, Puerto Rico, Germany and Mexico especially…we never received more than two votes per round, meaning for some reason unknown to us, even those countries where the sport is strong, officials still didn’t think that baseball should be part of the Olympic programme, despite all that we had done. It was clear from the start of the process that several senior IOC officials were in favor of rugby and golf and many comments made on and off the record supported that fact, so perhaps that is why we did not get the votes we were anticipating and had been promised last week.

Many have also asked about re-submitting a bid for 2020. At this point we do not think that would be prudent for a number of reasons, the biggest of which is that baseball has now been rejected twice by the senior members of the IOC, which is a clear message that despite any changes we make, we are not part of their plan. Also contrary to what we were originally told, the two sports that made it to the vote in Copenhagen, golf and rugby, have been informed they will be part of the programme in 2020. This was yet another clear message that the IOC has no interest in baseball. It makes much more sense to spend all our time, money and effort in continued development of the game around the world, as opposed to making futile attempts to work with a group that has no interest in partnering with baseball.

That being said, baseball is a sport that is full of infinite possibilities and resilience. Therefore, it is best that we look forward to what can be a very bright future.

In just this coming month, we will continue to see championship play on many levels, from youth championships like Little League and Pony League to the much-anticipated World Cup, as well as the World Series and the Japanese Championship later in the fall. The announcement of professional baseball returning to Australia and Israel, along with the continued growth and promotion of baseball in Italy and the Netherlands at a top level will continue to give us a growing presence in Europe, and we are very encouraged by development in emerging nations like Ghana, Nigeria, Pakistan, India, South Africa, Sri Lanka and China among many others. The plans to continue to expand the World Baseball Classic are also ongoing, and there remains strong interest from several sites to host the 2010 Women’s World Cup and continue to develop baseball for girls and young women. All of that is very positive and shows us that we are very much on the right track in growing the game with our partners.

Do we have challenges? Yes. We are aware that some Federations may lose some funding as a result of not being on the Olympic programme, and we remain concerned about the split that softball continues to push with federations in several countries. However we feel that by working together and using economies of scale, identifying new partners and showing what a great social unifier the sport can be, all these problems can be overcome. Baseball after all, is perhaps the sport that teaches teamwork and overcoming adversity better than any other. That is what helps make it such a great game.

In closing I want to personally thank you for your support of our efforts in my two years as President. I am very proud of not just the effort we made, but the way we made the effort. We did not waste money on high priced teams of consultants or advertising campaigns that were proved by other sports to be pointless and a distraction from the mission of growing the sport. Instead we concentrated on telling the stories, building consensus, aligning long term support and exposing the game to as wide an audience as possible, and those efforts, with or without the Olympics, have created a much more solid base for year round effective growth of baseball than ever existed before.

As always, any comments, questions or thoughts are welcomed. I hope to see you soon.

Best regards,



Dr. Harvey W. Schiller
President
International Baseball Federation

IOC TELLS BASEBALL AND SOFTBALL TO DROP DEAD

In favor of golf and rugby. GREAT!! I hope they don't try to bring the Games to Chicago now. Not without baseball and softball. NO SIR!!

According to the IBAF:

IBAF Statement Regarding IOC’s Announcement on Re-instatement To The Olympic Programme For 2016

(LAUSANNE, Switzerland) – The International Baseball Federation (IBAF) today issued the following statement after the announcement earlier today in Berlin on which two sports would be put forth for a vote in October in Copenhagen for re-instatement for the 2016 Olympics.

“The IBAF would like to congratulate golf and rugby on their selection today. Both will be welcome additions to the Olympic programme and should add great excitement to which ever city is selected to host the Olympic Games in 2016. We also want to wish nothing but the best to karate, roller sports, softball and squash, who were also not selected today. All of the seven sports under consideration have proven through the selection process that they are worthy of Olympic Games inclusion.

THE SLAVIK PLAN FOR THE OLYMPICS AND BASEBALL

CHICAGO 2016? AND BASEBALL AND SOFTBALL AS OLYMPIC SPORTS??


As we look out towards the new year one of the things I look forward to is the reinstatement of baseball and softball to the Olympics. My plan for the powers that be, mainly Bud Selig representing Major League Baseball (MLB) and the International Olympic Committee (IOC) is as follows:

The first step is for the international community to pay us back for submitting to their will and electing Barack Obama as our President. This is our gift to the world, who endorsed Obama over McCain (and Bush) in numbers reaching over 90% in some countries. There has to be some quid pro quo for this. This is non-negotiable.

In light of this event, I expect that the IOC would not dare award the 2016 Olympics to anyone but Chicago. The decision comes sometime this year. Does anyone really believe that with Barack's home base still in the running, they can award the Games to Spain or Rio de Janeiro? Come on, get real.

OK so that's a slam dunk. Slight problem though. Even the imbeciles at the IOC wouldn't dare hold the Olympics here in America and exclude America's past time from the event. Would they? I don't think so.

So the IOC have to get together and play nicey-nice and figure out a way to get major leaguers to participate. This is what the IOC has wanted all along, because the big multi-national sponsors will follow.

So how do we get major leaguers in there? Well, some "accommodations" may have to be made.

I would suggest that for 2016, the All-Star weekend and/or the World Baseball Classic not be held that year. The season instead would be shut down while any all-stars chosen for the American team or the international teams participates in the Olympics.


DIG DEEP BUD, GET IT DONE

Since the Olympics would likely last a bit longer than the number of days the all-star festivities are normally held, again for 2016 only, MLB may have to extend the season into early to mid November, which may mean taking the extreme step of holding the World Series at a neutral site for that year.

Cities like Phoenix, Miami, Tampa, Houston or San Diego would be able to guarantee decent weather and/or retractable dome. It would suck for whatever teams fans won the pennant that year, but teams have a lottery for World Series tickets among season ticket holders anyway, so that year only those wiling to take a road trip would put in.

It would be ironic if that ended up being the first year the Cubs won it, but everyone would be sharing the potential burden equally.

MLB and/or the union would have to make some sort of accommodation regarding testing, but if a player is not willing to submit to the Olympic testing for that year, they just don't participate.

All these "accommodations" involve some horse-trading among the principals, mainly owners, players, the union and the IOC. And that means money.

Hopefully, the parties realize that there is enough money for all and that this could end up being good for the game and increase the visibility and popularity internationally. Which means more money going forward.

You'd really have to be an idiot to screw this up but who knows, there could be a breakdown at any step along the line. And given who the parties in charge of making this work and their prior track record, I put the odds at maybe 50/50.

ELECTION DAY - JUST VOTE

http://www.justvote.org/

No matter who wins, the good news that should come out of this election is the sheer number of people going out and voting. Hopefully this will keep those elected on their toes.

Maybe in the high 60% range from reports I'm hearing.

This is where all Americans win. It was an embarrassment recently to see our voter numbers drop into the 50% range. More embarrassing when you would see folks in countries like Iraq exercising their right to vote in spite of threats of suicide bombers or some wack-job lobbing a grenade into a polling place. We have no such worries.

My other hope is that whoever wins, they win with dignity and good grace. We need more good winners.

And the side that loses, should lose gracefully. There's things that can be learned from losing. If you are willing to listen and not make excuses for your losses.

We've seen recently the results, or lack thereof that follow when the losing side digs in their heels and refuses to do what is good for the country.

One thing I will predict, from a sports perspective, should Obama win I think the odds of Chicago securing the 2016 Olympics goes up to nearly 100%. In fact the other entrants should just gracefully withdraw.

We will be witnessing history once again, no matter what the result.

GOD BLESS AMERICA.

Happy 8th Birthday, Beemer. ~;::::::;( )">

THE OLYMPICS ARE OVER - GOOD!!!

I made a concerted effort not to watch any of the Olympic broadcasts mainly due to stories like this:

The Financial Times finally ended its long running kowtow to China with an editorial that features this disgustingly accurate portrayal: “…the breathtaking cynicism of the Chinese authorities in declaring zones in three parks open for public protests and then persecuting, detaining or expelling from Beijing those who applied for permission to use them is a clear breach of promise made by China to help win the bid to host these [2008] Olympics back in 2001.”

Why glorify a regime like this any more than necessary? I understand why NBC and it's family of networks and affiliates wants to do it. There's billions of dollars in future business opportunities in China, so GE, the ultimate parent firm, needs to be there in a large way. Good for them.

The only events I had any interest in was:

Men's Baseball: USA wins Bronze, South Korea defeats Cuba for the Gold.
Women's Softball: USA wins the Silver, Japan gets the Gold.
Men's Basketball: USA wins the Gold.

Good for USA Basketball. It would have been so easy to crush them if they lost, but they didn't and even better, they conducted themselves with class all the way. Congrats to Lebron, Kobe, Carmelo, Jason Kidd, Chris Paul and Dwight Howard. The future looks bright for USA Basketball and the Gold is whee it belongs.

Not so good for Baseball in the last Olympic effort. The Olympics need the major leaguers more than the majors needs the Olympics. I doubt very much that being in the Olympics every four years promotes the game internationally enough for them to shut down the season for two-three weeks to send the big guns. That we did not even send big-time prospects or AAA players indicates that MLB doesn't see the need to be there either. I think they get more from promoting the World baseball Classic to those countries that have big leaguers and a history and tradition of baseball already.

Worse for the girls and softball unless they somehow find a way to get the sport reinstated. At least the "USA is too dominant" argument is out the window.

The only other items that caught my interest was the Michael Phelps gold medal chase, the Usain Bolt assault on the speed events and the Dana Torres story

For Phelps the interest was not so much that he succeeded or failed, but the extent to which he obliterated Mark Spitz numbers in common events. Proving once again that ATHLETES ARE BIGGER, STRONGER, FASTER & BETTER today than they've ever been. We should not be surprised or upset when young men or women of today destroy the records of the icons from prior generations. Phelps blew away Spitz numbers from 35 years ago. It really doesn't diminish what Spitz did in any way. He was the best to ever do it then, Phelps is now.

The Wall Street Journal Numbers Guy does an excellent comparison between the two swimmers, comparing and contrasting their achievments.

http://blogs.wsj.com/numbersguy/phelps-v-spitz-by-the-numbers-396/


USAIN BOLT

The Usain Bolt destruction of the 100 meter dash record may have been the most awesome individual performance of the Games. He destroyed the record while showboating the last 10-20 yards, theoretically costing himself another .10 second. This in an event where most experts have suggested that there would be no assaults on the record books, man had reached the limits of human potential, blah, blah, blah. Once again the experts have been surprised and have to recalibrate their stories. Where have we heard that before?
---------------
USAIN BOLT OLYMPIC SUMMARY FOR Wikipedia:
Bolt announced that he would double-up with the 100 metres and 200 metres events at the Beijing Summer Olympics, and the new 100 m world-record holder was the favourite to win both.[29][30] Michael Johnson, the 200 m and 400 m record holder, personally backed the sprinter, saying he did not believe that a lack of experience would work against him.[31] Bolt qualified for the final with 9.92 and 9.85 seconds in the quarter-finals and semifinals respectively.[32][33][34] In the Olympic 100 m final, Bolt broke new ground, winning in 9.69 s. This was an improvement upon his own world record, and he was well ahead of second-place finisher Richard Thompson, who finished in 9.89 s.[35] Not only was the record set without a favourable wind (+0.0 m/s), but also he visibly slowed down to celebrate before he finished and his shoelace was untied.[36][37][38] Bolt continued running past the post, enjoying his victory.[39] Bolt stated that setting a record was not a priority for him, and that his goal was just to win the gold medal, Jamaica's first of the 2008 Games.[40] Olympic medallist Kriss Akabusi construed Bolt's chest slapping before the finish line as showboating, noting that the actions cost Bolt an even faster record time.[41] IOC president Jacques Rogge also condemned the Jamaican's actions as disrespectful.[42][43] Bolt denied that this was the purpose of his mid-race celebration by saying "I wasn't bragging. When I saw I wasn't covered, I was just happy."[44]
--------------------------

DANA TORRES

As far as the Dana Torres story, I'm not sure I've read a better analysis of it than Elizabeth Weil's New York Times story from June 29th, "A Swimmer of a Certain Age".

Aside from a fascinating look inside some of the training protocols that are credited with getting Ms. Torres this far, the following Q&A is very, very thought provoking. Give it a look.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/29/magazine/29torres-t.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all
-------------------------
UPON HEARING THAT TORRES is likely to make the Olympic
team at age 41, many people have the same question:
How is this possible? Kinesiologists counter with a
different query: Why are you so surprised? “Dara is
extremely impressive, but she’s not as unique as
people think,” says Michael Joyner, a competitive
athlete and anesthesiologist at the Mayo Clinic who
writes scholarly papers about aging and sports. “Ted
Williams hit .388 when he was 39. Jack Foster did very
well in the Olympic marathon when he was 40. Karl
Malone earned a triple-double in an N.B.A. game at 40.
Jeannie Longo won a French time-trial championship in
cycling at age 47.” Torres’s events — short swims —
are also well suited to competitors of advanced age.
Compared to, say, running, swimming is more
technique-intensive and produces fewer injuries.
Sprints are also kinder to older athletes, in that
strength falls off more gradually than aerobic power.
In April, at 37, Mark Foster, a freestyle sprinter in
England, came out of retirement and earned a spot, for
the fifth time, on the British Olympic swim team. “For
those of us who pay attention to this stuff,” Joyner
said, “Dara’s performance is unusual but not totally
unexpected.”

So why do we assume a middle-aged swimmer must be all
washed up? Because for nonelite athletes, sporting
achievements fall off precipitously with age. Body
composition changes toward more fat and less muscle.
Strength and aerobic capacity decrease as well. But a
primary reason that athletic performance degrades in
adulthood is changes in priorities. People tend to
devote more time and energy to jobs and families than
to sports. Even committed athletes downgrade their
workout goals from achieving personal bests to staying
in shape. Academics refer to this reduction in
physical activity as hypokinesis. The phenomenon is
not limited to humans. A 1985 study showed that rats
with unlimited access to running wheels exercised less
as they aged. “But look at people who maintain
activity levels,” says Joel Stager, a professor of
kinesiology at Indiana University. “It’s a different
story! A lot of what we assume is aging is just
progressive hypokinesis. How many people at Dara’s age
have maintained their training consistently? I’m going
to say there are very, very few.”
-------------------------
Any way,great job China. My impression of your country has not changed one iota. Still an oppressive, dictatorial regime that unapologetically tramples human rights and makes no bones about it. No amount of smoke/mirrors or fireworks or Olympics sideshows can distract me from that.

"The reality is that the Chinese government's hosting of the games has been a catalyst for abuses, leading to massive forced evictions, a surge in the arrest, detention and harassment of critics, repeated violations of media freedom, and increased political repression," said Sophie Richardson of Human Rights Watch. "Not a single world leader who attended the games or members of the IOC seized the opportunity to challenge the Chinese government's behavior in any meaningful way.

I say AMEN! to that. The enduring legacy and eternal shame of these Games in my mind will forever be that, for two weeks, human rights and freedom were set aside or outright trampled in the chase for money and a share in the Chinese market. SHAME.

THIS IS WHY BASEBALL IS NOT LONG FOR THE OLYMPICS

and not over-the-top levels of PED use as some folks would have you believe. I read an article by the well-respected, former White Sox strength and conditioning guru Vern Gambetta which posited this theory as part of a defense of the sports of Track and Field and Olympic Weightlifting, and their rather long history of PED abuse at the Olympics. Unfortunately, Mr. Gambetta should know better how things work and what's really going on in the world and not spew this kind of misinformation, but hey, whatever.

Here's how it goes:
We don't send our major league players to compete/smile for the TV networks/sponsors bearing checkbooks.
We don't send our top-level prospects.
Now we're trying to protect our fringe prospects from having to go over there and compete.

The Giants 26 year-old, left-handed pitcher Geno Espineli was called up from Fresno recently after he had been named to the Team USA roster.

------------------
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/07/22/SPVS11T4TE.DTL

Espineli glad to forgo Olympics for the bigs
Henry Schulman

Wednesday, July 23, 2008

"All I heard is the Olympic rosters have to be set, and (being in the majors) will end up being more permanent than I thought," Espineli said. "Of course I like the idea of going to the Olympics, but once I learned I was coming up to the majors, that quickly became an afterthought.

"I'm more than happy to be here as long as possible. I hope it's until the end of the year."
-------------------------
Espineli has been having a good year for Fresno, but he has not been one of the franchises more cherished and valued properties. His name rarely appeared on any one's list of organizational top prospects and if it appeared at all it was because the author produced a rather long list.

And the Giants aren't the only franchise playing this game of musical chairs with the Team USA roster. If it goes on long enough the roster is going to look like a Who's Who of future Rule 5 draft picks. And if you don't know what that means, you just don't know...

But I'll spell it out for you:

1) No Gold medal for team USA. Guaranteed.

2) No medal at all for Team USA.

3) No TV ratings potential for the IOC, the USOC and any of the other alphabet soup organizations that rule the Olympics with an iron fist.

4) No TV ratings or marketing potential = No TV or sponsor money for the WHORES.

5) No money for the whores = No nookie for baseball in the Olympics

Bye Bye, Baseball.....Bye, bye Olympics.

If I didn't know better, I would say that MLB is actually giving the Olympic poo-bahs one final middle-finger salute, but maybe I'm giving MLB a little too much credit.
--------------------------------------------
(REAL) GIANTS PROSPECTS DOWN ON THE FARM:

CLASS....PLAYER............POS...AB..R..H..RBI..AVG

AA.....Sandoval,Pablo.......C.....7...2..3...6....343....HR(5),2B(9)
LoA....Villalona, Angel.....1B....5...2..2...1....250....HR(12),2B(21)-walk-off home run

Sandoval continues to rake. Villalona looks like he's starting to catch on a bit as well. They're so cute as that age.

On the pitching side:

CLASS PITCHER...........IP..H..R..ER..BB..K..ERA
HiA....Pucetas,Kevin.....5.0..6..2...2...0...1..2.55
LoA....Bumgarner,Madison.7.0..5..3...2...2...6..1.85

Bumgardner is one of the top young pitchers in the organization, so it's good to see his numbers are solid. Both are a couple of years from Frisco.

But it beats looking at the big club's numbers. But if I were going to do that for a second or two, I couldn't help but notice the following:

A 19-31 home record vs. a 23-27 road record. The road number is about right, but even a .500 record at home bring these sad-sacks to a 48-52 record overall, only 1 1/2 games back. By the way, the list of teams under .500 at home is a virtual roll call of the leagues cellar dwellers. The Padres are on the list, or the Giants would be in the cellar.

You wonder though, if the relative lack of attendance this year and the overall lack of fan excitement doesn't account for some of the Gigantes miserable home record this year. Just a thought. By the way attendance is down approx. 10% from last year, with more downside on the horizon next year if the team does not make another splashy free-agent signing.

And by splashy, I mean a successful kind of splashy like Bonds, rather than the belly-flop kind of splashy like Zito.

HAPPY 44TH BIRTHDAY SHOUT OUT TO BARRY LAMAR BONDS, STILL THE THE B-POPE, UNTIL PROVEN OTHERWISE.

Gotta give it up to current Yankees management.
They lose Jorge Posada (left-hander power-hitter) to the DL...
after previously losing Hideki Matsui (left-handed power-hitter) to the DL....
and yet they respond by adding Richie Sexson, a right-handed power-hitter and Dave Kingman clone, while the B-POPE doesn't get a call.
While the Yankees post-season chances get smaller every day the Rays stay in it...
And there's no collusion????
Riiiiiiiiiight?
OK Bud, whatever you say.

CHICAGO MAKES THE FINAL FOUR FOR 2016 OLYMPICS

Congratulations to Chicago for making the final cut along with Tokyo, Madrid and Rio de Janeiro. Now the real heavy lifting of winning an Olympic bid begins.

Maybe it's the cynic in me, but why when I read an article with the title "IOC official says 'sign of goodwill' could help Chicago's Olympic bid" do I think that the term 'sign of goodwill' is a euphemism for "SHOW ME THE MONEY!!!!"

I guess you have to read the entire article, but I'll highlight the excerpts (confirmation bias??) that lead me in that direction.

It is funny how the International grand-poo bahs appear to awarding of the Games as a thinly-veiled negotiating tool in order to extort more money from the USOC.

This is also IMO at the heart of the matter as to why baseball and softball are being bounced from the Games. If you can't send your professional athletes, which will bring your corporate sponsors and their mega-bucks to the coffers, than don't bother showing up.

To say that the real reason those sports are being bounced has to do with PED testing is absurd. How many women's softball players tested positive at any of the previous Games? How many sports with a much longer and richer history of higher levels of PED use in the Games (like track and field and weightlifting) continue to be Olympic sports. The answer is because if you shut down those sports, you shut down the Olympics in total. And then where will these money-grubbing whores look for work?

It's all about money and control. And who has it, and who wants it.
-----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/chi-us-olympic-revenue-share-jun05,0,1006451.story?page=1&track=rss

IOC official says 'sign of goodwill' could help Chicago's Olympic bid
By Philip Hersh | Tribune staff reporter
2:29 AM CDT, June 4, 2008
ATHENS

International Olympic Committee president Jacques Rogge said Wednesday a ``sign of goodwill'' from the U.S. Olympic Committee in an ongoing revenue dispute can help Chicago's bid for the 2016 Summer Games.

``A clear indication the USOC is willing to find a solution and not refusing a solution could be very good for Chicago,'' Rogge told the Tribune. ``It would not have a negative impact [if there were no such sign], but this sign could have a positive impact.''

The dispute likely will have little effect on Chicago's expected selection as a finalist. The impact would be when the 110 IOC members vote Oct. 2, 2009, to choose the 2016 host.

Speaking after a Wednesday morning meeting between the IOC executive board and international Summer Olympic sports federation leaders who roundly criticized the USOC Tuesday, Rogge said the USOC has made a written proposal that could constitute that goodwill ``but it must be refined.''

Dividing the issue into three parts – a ``games cost'' contribution, a short-term solution, and a long-term solution – Rogge made unconditional the need for the USOC to begin paying its share of games cost, which covers things like doping control and expenses for judges and officials. Under terms of a longstanding contract with the IOC, the USOC is the only national Olympic committee (NOC) exempt from that payment.

``It is not morally acceptable the USOC does not take part in games costs like the other NOCs,'' Rogge added in the interview with the Tribune.

Rogge said the short-term solution would involve a contribution to the NOCs and the international sports federations. IOC member Denis Oswald, president of the Association of Summer Olympic Sports Federations (ASOIF), said Wednesday the USOC proposal on that matter is ``totally unacceptable'' because it leaves the USOC to decide how the funds would be allocated.

IOC member Hein Verbruggen of the Netherlands, ASOIF vice-president, had heated up the war of words over the United States' portion of Olympic revenues Tuesday, and the escalation of rhetoric could burn Chicago's bid for the 2016 Games.

Verbruggen called the USOC's share an ``immoral amount of money compared to what other people get.''

Verbruggen denied that recent attempts by him and Oswald to push for renegotiating the long-standing deal were related to the Chicago bid.

Verbruggen blamed Ueberroth for having linked the financial issue to Chicago's Olympic bid and lambasted Ueberroth for threatening to take the matter to the IOC ethics committee.

``Who do they think they are?'' Verbruggen said, referring to the USOC.

It seems apparent, however, that Oswald and Verbruggen are using the Chicago bid as leverage to pressure for USOC concessions. After raising the issue at an April IOC meeting in Beijing, they took it to the IOC executive board Wednesday.

``The timing of the public statements is peculiar, in that it seems to be prior to every bid-related decision,'' Ctvrtlik said.

``It is reflecting very badly on the USOC,'' said ASOIF director Andrew Ryan. ``It would be depressing if Chicago turns out to be the best bid to see it damaged by this ongoing discussion.''

In an open-ended contract begun 20 years ago and renegotiated in 1996, the USOC receives 12.75 percent of U.S. broadcast rights and 20 percent of the IOC's global sponsorship revenues. In the current Olympic cycle (2005 through 2008), that amounts to about $300 million, or 50 percent of the operating budget for the USOC, which gets no government financing, unlike nearly all the world's other national Olympic committees.

When those terms were agreed upon, nearly all the IOC's revenue came from U.S. sources. Those U.S. sources still provide about 62 percent of the revenues, according to people familiar with the accounting.

``When almost two-thirds of the revenue comes from one territory, it would seem counterproductive to do anything that would jeopardize those revenues,'' Ctvrtlik said.

The USOC winds up with more money from TV and sponsorship revenue than the IOC allocation to the other 204 national Olympic committees combined.

``I don't understand how you can justify that the rest of the world has to pay for the training of American athletes, and the richest country in the world pays nothing,'' Verbruggen said. ``Are we out of our minds?''

``No one wants to take all the money from the Americans tomorrow,'' Verbruggen said. ``They need to find new sources of revenue.''
--------------------------------------------
Below is an interesting link called GamesBids.com that handicaps the odds of each potential sites eventually winning the coveted Olympic bid.

Very interesting. Currently, Chicago has a slight lead over Tokyo and Rio.

I have to say in all the analysis Chicago almost has to prevail for two reasons:

1) Madrid is hurt by London having the 2012 Games as Tokyo is by Beijing having the 2008 Games in the rotation argument. Rio carries the burden of being the first South American site that would host. They may be hurt by security and/or facilities issues.

2) If ever there were two organizations that were made for each other as far as history and tradition of corruption, sleazy politics, graft and back-room deal making it would seem to be the IOC and Chicago politicians.

GO CHICAGO!!!!

http://www.gamesbids.com/english/content/bidx2016.shtml

BidIndex SUMMER 2016
CITY INDEX
Chicago CHI 05/29 60.73
Madrid MAD 05/29 59.50
Rio de Janeiro RIO 05/29 59.90
Tokyo TKY 05/29 60.66

What is BidIndex?
BidIndex is a mathematical model developed by GamesBids.com that when applied to an Olympic Bid, produces a number that can be used to rate a bid relative to past successful bids - and possibly gauge its potential success. The model was developed by observing historical trends and results of previous bids. BidIndex numbers can be theoretically used to compare competing bids and the relative strength of bids held in different years (e.g. to compare Paris 2008 with Paris 2012). A higher BidIndex indicates a greater chance of being elected.

BidIndex was reviewed in the March 2004 edition of Significance Magazine, a publication by the Royal Statistical Society.

Why BidIndex?
It has been observed in the past the IOC members do not vote based on the quality of the bid alone and often results are unpredictable. GamesBids.com wanted to find a way to compare Olympic Bids and normalize the results. BidIndex takes bid quality into account, but also evaluates other important factors such as Geopolitics, IOC politics, public support and other things considered to have an effect on the IOC voters. These results will help our readers gain an understanding into the relative strengths of the bids.

Does BidIndex work?
While no one can guarantee the results of an election, BidIndex will tell you which bids have more of the qualities of successful bids from the past. A high BidIndex number does not necessarily indicate a high quality bid, but a bid similar to other successful bids. When the model is applied to the 2008 bid, these results were obtained based on information a day before the vote: