Standing Up for the Rich and Powerful

Chicago has a proud tradition of brilliant sportswriters. I grew up on Jerome Holtzman, who taught me to love newspapers and gave me even more reasons to love baseball in the city.

Chicago also has an embarrassing tradition of giving morons columns and allowing them to poison the atmosphere: Skip Bayless and Jay Mariotti taught me the lesson that in contemporary America, being an a*^hole is often confused with being interesting. Steve Rosenbloom currently proves that this inability to distinguish between the two continues to characterize the environment.

David Haugh is a whole different story. Haugh is generally a solid writer about the Bears and game performance and analysis. His opinion pieces, on the other hand, are idiotic and induce winces while reading. Not because I disagree with his opinions necessarily: Haugh recently wrote that he thought the Bears should do right by the Ravens and send Baltimore its fourth round pick to remedy the team's silly mistake. I also think that it would have been a classy move that would not only salve any hard feelings from the Ravens but also be a tremendous boon in terms of public relations and general perceptions of the club. But Haugh wrote this in support of his argument:

Salvaging Angelo’s reputation around the league by showing he’s a man of his word might be worth whatever fringe roster player might be picked at that slot in the fourth round.

Bob LeGere, who does excellent work for the Daily Herald and is a must-read for all Bears fans, appropriately mocks the stupidity of labeling the possible fourth round selection as a "fringe roster player":

And those who act as if giving away a fourth-round pick is no big deal are uninformed. Since Angelo began running the Bears’ draft in 2002, the fourth round has brought DE Alex Brown, CB Nate Vasher, QB Kyle Orton, LB Jamar Williams, OG Josh Beekman, S Craig Steltz, DE Henry Melton, CB D.J. Moore and DE Corey Wootton.

Indeed, in honor of "fringe roster players" selected in the fourth round, I walked around Byrd Stadium today wearing Marcus Robinson's jersey -- the Bears' 1997 fourth round draft pick out of South Carolina who, under current Terp offensive coordinator Gary Crowton, set and still holds the franchise record for receiving yards in a single season (1,400 yds).

To be fair, it is a throwaway line. Sloppy, ill-conceived, and unsupported, but minor.

Haugh's follow-up? Feigned outrage at Robbie Gould in one of the dumbest concocted controversies in recent memory. Haugh quotes our kicker as telling the Chicago Tribune:

"Look, fans don't buy tickets to see Virginia or Brian McCaskey. They pay to watch Brian Urlacher, Drew Brees and all the great players. This lockout is all because of the owners' greed. I'm sorry if that sounds cold, but it is the truth."

This quote seems, on its face, unremarkable. Not to Haugh. Haugh sees Gould defiling Virginia McCaskey, disparaging her honor. This, Haugh will not abide. Now, expressing this opinion is one thing. When Haugh writes:

By today's anything-goes standards, what Gould said falls short of offensive to many. But a Bears player criticizing Virginia McCaskey is like a baseball manager arguing balls and strikes. You're wrong the moment you begin to speak, whatever you say.

he just comes off as an idiot. A lack of outrage at a fellow sportswriter who repeatedly and continually attacks player for failing to play through injury evinces "anything-goes standards." On the other hand, saying that people don't pay to see the McCaskeys and that the lockout is due to owner's greed is a mixture of fact (people don't pay to see the McCaskeys) and opinion (the lockout is a product of a number of things, including owners' desire for more money -- i.e., greed -- the weight afforded to each factor depends upon perspective).

But Haugh goes further:

I called Gould to see if he regretted escalating lockout rhetoric to include a woman considered off-limits for a long time.

You what?

I asked Gould if he will apologize to Mrs. McCaskey whenever football resumes.

Is this the third grade?

Grow up, David.

Bad Writing

As more facts regarding the negotiations come to light, the "NFL Players Association overreach" position should become significantly less tenable.

Part of the reason why this position was advocated by some has to reflect an awareness by the NFL at the laziness of many sportswriters. The NFL's summary to fans of the breakdown in negotiations was remarkably pejorative for something so light on substance:

Dear NFL Fan,

When I wrote to you last on behalf of the NFL, we promised you that we would work tirelessly to find a collectively bargained solution to our differences with the players' union. Subsequent to that letter to you, we agreed that the fastest way to a fair agreement was for everyone to work together through a mediation process. For the last three weeks I have personally attended every session of mediation, which is a process our clubs sincerely believe in.

Unfortunately, I have to tell you that earlier today the players' union walked away from mediation and collective bargaining and has initiated litigation against the clubs. In an effort to get a fair agreement now, our clubs offered a deal today that was, among other things, designed to have no adverse financial impact on veteran players in the early years, and would have met the players’ financial demands in the latter years of the agreement.

The proposal we made included an offer to narrow the player compensation gap that existed in the negotiations by splitting the difference; guarantee a reallocation of savings from first-round rookies to veterans and retirees without negatively affecting compensation for rounds 2-7; no compensation reduction for veterans; implement new year-round health and safety rules; retain the current 16-4 season format for at least two years with any subsequent changes subject to the approval of the league and union; and establish a new legacy fund for retired players ($82 million contributed by the owners over the next two years).

It was a deal that offered compromise, and would have ensured the well-being of our players and guaranteed the long-term future for the fans of the great game we all love so much. It was a deal where everyone would prosper.

We remain committed to collective bargaining and the federal mediation process until an agreement is reached, and call on the union to return to negotiations immediately. NFL players, clubs, and fans want an agreement. The only place it can be reached is at the bargaining table.

While we are disappointed with the union's actions, we remain steadfastly committed to reaching an agreement that serves the best interest of NFL players, clubs and fans, and thank you for your continued support of our League. First and foremost it is your passion for the game that drives us all, and we will not lose sight of this as we continue to work for a deal that works for everyone.

Yours,
Roger Goodell

The NFL's version was so rosy that the truly gullible had few places to go to explain why the NFLPA would walk away so noisily from something so good. The easiest, of course, is to make the narrative personality-based: DeMaurice Smith's (an accomplished successful DC attorney) ego is too big ... the players are simply vindictive and were punishing the NFL Owners for their approach.

All of this is horse manure. Arguments that negotiations of this magnitude came down to the personalities of those sitting on the players' side of the table are pathetically contrived. By definition, the players' representatives are accountable to hundreds of their fellow employees with everyone's livelihood on the line.

Any self-respecting journalist would have to be incredulous about the declaration that the league's owners had offered to split the difference in the compensation gap between the two sides. And, it seems that this characterization was intentionally misleading:

So the league didn’t really offer to “split the difference.” The league went to the midpoint of the $20 million gap, cutting the total difference from $640 million per year to $320 million. But with no offer to provide the players with any portion of the revenue that exceeds the projected growth, the offer was something closer to the league’s prior position than the players’ prior proposal.

Because the financial structure is complicated, the details that will come to light will escape a substantial portion of fans offering their opinions on the labor dispute. But there is no excuse for a reporter/sports writer not understanding what just went down. Moreover, the intentional deception inherent in the NFL's characterization should be underscored by reporters' writing on the subject.

Realistically, however, it would be foolish to anticipate any change in approach by those teeing off on the players. Sports writing is not a profession where accuracy or completeness is particularly prized or valued. Much better to have an opinion and a strident one at that.

Along the same lines, I was disappointed in Jason Reid's column for the Washington Post today commenting on ESPN's "Fab 5" documentary. Reid criticizes Rose for having once held the view that the only African-American players in Duke's basketball program were "Uncle Tom's" and implies that Rose appears to hold some vestige of that opinion. Reid relates a story of being derided with that term by Milton Bradley, a charge that obviously hurt the write.

I read the column before watching the documentary and was surprised by how much Reid's characterization seemed to distort Rose's discussion of Duke's program. Rose matter-of-factly concedes that his judgment was framed through jealousy of Grant Hill's good fortune compared to the disappointment he felt at his father's refusal to recognize him. Rather than being a judgment on the blackness or lack thereof of other African-Americans, Rose's description seems to be inherently personal and there is little evidence -- from the documentary -- that any of his teammates held similar views.

It seems totally unnecessary to attempt to ascribe a viewpoint to Jalen Rose -- particularly one that leads to a linkage to Milton Bradley -- given the historical setting of the Fab 5. That Michigan team was portrayed to America as the quintessence of African-American youth culture and Duke's basketball program was cast as its polar opposite. The Fab 5 were (so conventional wisdom went) brash, hip hopping ballers, who played a playground style of basketball. Duke, on the other hand, were cerebral, disciplined.

The division between racially true and "Uncle Tom" was successfully etched out by media coverage and popular perception. It poisoned the era and rendered irrelevant the question of whether Rose acquiesced to commonly-held views or not.

The more important thing would appear to be the fact that Rose has since come to grips with those views and why they were wrongly held. And that would make a far more interesting article.

The NFL Owners' New Haugh

The routine I have now developed for weekends involves, on Saturday, getting up early, sitting through multiple Dora episodes, trying to get the family out of the house to avoid watching more Dora episodes, following the Charlton league tie through Charlton Life on my wireless, overcoming the disappointment of a horrifically poor run of play under SCP to get on with the day, and then talking myself out of whatever I had planned for the evening to watch the Chicago Bulls.

Last night, I talked myself out of using the tickets I purchased for the Richmond Kickers - University of Maryland preseason game. The Terps got shellacked in the second half, but I would have gone just to see 600+ people turn out for a third division soccer team's preseason match (and to see that London Woodberry remains very much a part of University of Maryland soccer). I would imagine that the Kickers are very proud to have engendered such remarkable support at Ukrop Park yesterday and I am looking forward to driving down for a game at City Stadium at some point this upcoming season.

And then I talked myself out of watching the 4A state championship, missing a great game at Comcast that crowned Waldorf's North Point as the best high school basketball championship.

The Bulls game was a nice alternative.

68 - 41 at the half. Franchise record of 18 made threes (shooting 56% from beyond the arc). C.J. Watson with 16 points, 8 assists, and 5 rebounds in 17 minutes. Win led to a virtual tie for first with the Celtics in the East.

All beautiful, but all overshadowed by the twentieth anniversary tribute to Chicago's first NBA titleholders. The entirety of the event was well orchestrated by the franchise, but the visual of Michael Jordan pointing to the current team -- taking in the festivities seated on their bench -- and telling Bulls fans not to be surprised if they win six more left an indelible mark.

Sundays bring another early morn and more Dora. But there is a blessed opportunity to catch some live soccer (today it allowed viewing of Renato Augusto's nifty steal and Bayer Leverkusen's gamewinner over Mainz and Reading's valiant efforts against Man City in the FA Cup) and read the papers.

Today, the Chicago Tribune is highlighting David Haugh's criticism of the NFLPA. Haugh argues that the players' union has overreached and reports that DeMaurice Smith's ego eclipsed what Haugh decrees a good deal for the union.

Everyone has an opinion, but not every opinion has merit.

Haugh's editorial is heavy on apportioning blame but light on any substantive criticism of the NFL Players Association's position. Instead, Haugh focuses on atmospherics and what is, ultimately, his political opinion that employees ought to accept labor terms that are reasonable. His willingness to positively characterize a proposal based on the summary released to the public by the NFL does not reflect terribly well on his judgment, but the bigger issue is what Haugh makes no effort to argue: that the the NFLPA's proposal endangers the long-term health and success of the overall enterprise.

The inability to characterize the players' proposal as harmful to the game should ultimately lay bare the true nature of this dispute. Ad hominem attacks on the "greed" of NFL players or the purportedly oversized egos of those negotiating for the players can only distract for a limited time.

As can the even more idiotic arguments leveled against the players -- these tend to employ ridiculously inapt analogies to the salaries of the common NFL fan to those of NFL players and fundamental misunderstandings regarding the nature of labor markets and the structure of the NFL.

My favorite comparison is the poisonous observation that members of the American military make considerably less than the average NFL player. For those truly concerned about the disparity, one might suggest that their outrage is mildly misplaced. Our infantry men are horrifically under-compensated for the sacrifices they make for this country; but any comparison to professional football players is absurd for any number of reasons.

The salaries for U.S. military men and women are established by the Department of Defense -- any agency that is accountable to the Office of the President and the U.S. Congress. In other words, our military is underpaid because we, as voting citizens, tolerate that state of affairs.

The economic activity generated by football players -- and the taxes paid to the federal government by their work -- contribute to the possibility of raising what we pay our service men and women. At the same time federal funds will continue to flow to government contractors and their executives, who make salaries far in excess of grunts in the Army, but who do not cause NFLPA's detractors to bat an eye. And, in the truly private sector, investment bankers and corporate attorneys among many other white collar professionals will continue to rake in obscenely bloated salaries from behind their desks without a concomitant contribution to the generation of wealth in this country.

But, you know, football players make more than enlisted men and women. So screw the players. (You know who else makes more than enlisted men and women? The NFL owners. And sports columnists. Neither of whom will put their physical health at risk for their paychecks).

The NFL's financial health is not in jeopardy. The league continues to enjoy an exemption from antitrust laws that precludes the realistic possibility of competition, while owners have extracted the right to further restrain competition by capping salaries and limiting what players can make for the good of the game.

But the owners want more. They want more guarantees on the revenue they will generate each year. And they want to generate more income through the additional league fixtures added to each season. And they want these concessions -- the additional guaranteed income in particular -- without demonstrating that the financial performance of the franchises have deteriorated to any extent over the last ten years.

Fortunately, the Tribune is also carrying a piece by Bill Plaschke that acknowledges what Haugh appears unwilling to concede: this is not like basketball or baseball. The lasting images of NFL players is not music videos, not television commercials, not primadonna fits of pique. At the moment, the lasting image -- particularly those for Chicagoans -- is the anguished end to Dave Duerson's difficult life and the daily afflictions of former warriors only a quarter century past their physical prime (like Wilber Marshall, who was forced to sue to obtain a meaningful award for disability, eventually winning an appeal before the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in 2008).

The future of football as a dominant force in American sports culture depends upon the NFL doing right by its players. The marginalization of boxing (and the rise of mixed-martial arts, which does a better job appealing to the small portion of Americans lusting for bloodsport) over the last few decades should provide enough of a warning to the NFL that a significant number of fans will stop watching if they are convinced that they are tacitly contributing to the serious physical harm of players.

In these circumstances, it would be very difficult for the NFLPA to overplay its hand. The moral high ground is unquestionably on the side of labor on these facts and no amount of bombastic rhetoric will shift that reality. Owners want more money. End of story. Players, on the other hand, want more money and want to preserve the future of the game.

I have thought about this a lot over the last couple of months. If football came back with a labor agreement that extended the season to 18 games, failed to generously fund retirement benefits and health care for former players, and did not make the health and safety of current players the single biggest priority for the future of the NFL, I do not think I could justify watching Jay Cutler get knocked silly for another season or Chris Harris and Major Wright endanger their long term health to make plays that needed to be made on the field.

America is not Rome.