Supporting the Yankees

I was recently forwarded an email which contained, as an attachment, a scanned copy of an NFL contract from 1944.  The contract, between the Green Bay Packers and a player named Ed McGroaraty, agreed to pay the athlete $150 per game, plus $35 per week for travel expenses, with the possibility of increasing payment "as soon as you are playing the kind of ball deserving more money."  The timing of this email was perfect; when I received it, I was on ESPN.com reading about Derek Jeter's contract dispute with the New York Yankees.

McGroaraty's 1944 contract with the Green Bay Packers.

As one Caught Looking reader accurately noted on Facebook yesterday, Jeter's stats clearly don't justify the kind of pay increase he's asking for.  It's hard not to agree with the following:

It's really fairly difficult to make the Yankees look like the reasonable party in a negotiation but Derek Jeter is apparently giving it his all. Players with a higher WAR* last year than Jeter's (2.5) last year: Omar Infante (2.7), Mike Napoli (2.7), Kevin Kouzmanoff (2.9), Luke Scott (3.1), and about 80 others.

But, as usual, I'm not here to debate Jeter's statistics or monetary value.  What I can't stop thinking about, though, is the notion that, according to a supposedly credible source, "the Jeter side [doesn't want] Jeter's value to be judged against that of other shortstops, preferring to base his worth on his legacy as an all-time great Yankee."

I realize that it's within every professional athlete's right to fight for the best contract he can.  MLB stars like Jeter generate a ton of revenue for their teams, and Jeter is certainly allowed to negotiate as large a contract as possible.  The question here, though, is if there's a difference between what Jeter is "allowed" to do as a star baseball player and what he "should" do as part of his self-professed efforts to be remembered as an "all-time great Yankee."  For years now, Jeter has been the gold standard of baseball players, from his cordial relationship with the media to his lack of (speculated) performance enhancing drug use.  If there was one MLB star who I would have thought would have quietly and smoothly agreed to a reasonable deal to return to his team, it would have been Derek Jeter.  These surprising developments in the Jeter vs. the Yankees contract saga show that I was wrong.

Derek Jeter is not Ed McGroaraty, and this is not 1944.  Jeter plays in a professional sports landscape full of multi-million dollar player contracts, television agreements and stadium construction proposals, and has the right to carve out the biggest piece of that pie that he can.  At the same time, though, the Yankees have the right to play hardball and stick to their original (and seemingly more than fair) three year, $45 million offer.  I hope that for once the Yankees stay true to their word about refusing to overspend, and until they budge from their current position they have my support (for once) in their battle against Derek Jeter. 

*WAR = Wins Above Replacement

No Respect on Senior Day

Earlier today, for the first time ever, I watched the BCS Selection Show that ESPN airs on Sunday evenings.  It's a completely absurd show where ESPN milks what should be a ten-minute event into a 45 minute show, and the BCS top 25 is leaked out bit by bit in between mindless commentary.  Normally I'd avoid the BCS Selection Show like the plague, but with Stanford's hopes for a BCS bowl bid almost entirely dependent on this week's rankings, I was hooked.  After a surprisingly (and embarassingly) dramatic 30 minutes of waiting, we learned that Stanford is now #4 in the current BCS rankings, meaning that, much to college football's disappointment, the Cardinal are almost definitely heading to the Sugar, Orange or perhaps even the Rose Bowl (if Auburn loses to South Carolina this weekend and TCU goes to the national championship game).

Why is this so disappointing to the BCS bowl system and the NCAA?  The underwhelming home crowds at Stanford games this season, despite the team's on-field prowess, illustrates why the BCS bowls should be concerned - there just aren't many fans of Stanford football even in Palo Alto, let alone across the country.  Stanford's inability to convince fans to come to a critical home game against Arizona earlier this season suggests that premier football matchups don't matter much to Cardinal fans. Even more disappointing to me, though, was the pathetic turnout for Senior Day against Oregon State yesterday afternoon.

A dominant team and a great Stadium apparently aren't enough to sell out Stanford home games.

Yes, there were possible explanations for why some people might not have come to the Oregon State game yesterday.  It had rained earlier in the day.  It was the Saturday following Thanksgiving, so some people might have been out of town.  Oregon State isn't a high profile opponent (Stanford's only sellout this year came against USC).  Despite these facts, though, I was personally really excited for Senior Day and would have thought more people would have been, too.  The fifth-year seniors were freshmen when Stanford went 1-11 five seasons ago, and this home finale should have been a celebration of the turnaround that the program has made since 2005.  Instead, it was just another dominant on-field performance that was only seen live by 38,775 people.

One of the coolest parts of most Senior Days is when the senior class is recognized one-by-one on the field prior to the game, but Stanford didn't even do that because, as I was told by a credible source,not enough fans show up prior to kickoff to justify the ceremony.  Instead, the team videotaped a "ceremony" that was held earlier in the day, and showed it on the video boards during halftime.  Rather than receiving a standing ovation from 65,000+ fans like he would have had he attended Penn State, Texas or Alabama, two-way starter Owen Marecic was featured for about five seconds as part of a cheaply-made video that barely anyone was paying attention to.  Not cool.

It was pretty sad and very disappointing, and I can't blame the BCS for not wanting Stanford in one of their bowls.  As much as I've enjoyed watching the Stanford football team play this year (I don't think anyone in the country is playing better right now, Oregon, Auburn and Wisconsin included), I've found the support for such a dominant team thoroughly underwhelming.  If Cardinal fans won't come out to home games to watch the #4 team in the nation, why should we believe that they will travel to support their team in a BCS bowl played in New Orleans, Miami or even Los Angeles?  My guess is they won't, and what should be a neautral-site game will turn into a tough road contest for the Cardinal.

Congrats to the Stanford Cardinal 2010 football team.  They're the only team in the country going BCS bowling in spite of their fans. 

BCS Bitterness

Since its inception, I've always made it a point to call Caught Looking a blog about the sports fan experience, not a blog about sports.  I've gone out of my way to avoid covering the topics that are constantly beat to death by traditional sports media: game recaps, scenario analysis, second guessing, etc.  At the same time, I try to write about topics that actually matter to true sports fans: what it's like to attend live games, tools that improve the fan experience, etc.  So, where does the BCS debate fit in?  While I've avoided writing anything BCS-related to date because it's so overly-covered by ESPN and Sports Illustrated, few things matter more to sports fans right now than how college football's national champion is decided.  So I've decided to cave and put down a few personal thoughts on college football's championship process.

First, let's get some things out of the way.  I'm not going to leave you on any cliffhangers here; I'm definitely a fan of a playoff system.  I'm also not going to pretend that I'm not biased.  As the 2010 season nears its conclusion and it appears increasingly likely that Stanford, despite a possible 11-1 record and a top-six BCS ranking, won't go to a BCS bowl game, I'm growing increasingly bitter.  But anger over the BCS isn't very productive unless you can identify what aspect of the current system annoys you.  Today, while watching Auburn pull off an impressive comeback at Alabama, I think I figured out precisely why I despise the BCS.

As the Auburn-Alabama game was in its final minutes, the announcers proclaimed that the close games played by SEC teams were the reason a team like Auburn should play for the national championship and a team like Boise State or TCU shouldn't.  The ESPN crew insisted that because Boise State (now irrelevant because of their loss to Nevada last night) and TCU don't have to go play at Alabama as part of their conference schedules, Auburn must be a better team.  It doesn't take a genius to realize that this logic makes absolutely no sense.  Assuming the goal of any college post-season system is to find the best team in the country, it shouldn't matter how many games you've played against teams that are close to your ability.  Instead, all that should matter is which teams are better than others on an absolute basis.  While it's true that TCU plays weaker conference opponents than Auburn, we have no idea how well the Horned Frogs would do on the road at Alabama.  Many assume that because TCU hasn't had the opportunity to play a team like Alabama on the road, that must mean that they couldn't win in Tuscaloosa.

This reasoning just isn't sound.  The reason this argument doesn't make sense, however, is because it's not really the argument that these announcers were trying to make.  Their real point was that, when two teams are close in ability, the team with a tougher schedule should get priority when it comes to the national championship.  And you know what?  That probably makes sense.  I have no idea how Auburn would do against TCU (only a playoff could tell us that), but if I had to pick one I guess I'd pick Auburn as the best of the lot.  Nevermind the fact that we shouldn't have to choose.  If we're stuck with the BCS, we'll have to resolve discrepancies by giving preferential treatment to teams from better conferences.  Fine.

So if "better conference equals better team" is the BCS's mantra, then tell me this: why will Stanford be sent to the Alamo Bowl when inferior teams from the Big East and ACC play in BCS bowl games?  If tougher schedules count more, then shouldn't #6 Stanford, who has only lost one game (on the road to the number-one ranked team in the country) in a competitive Pac-10 conference, play in a BCS bowl before an unranked Big East team like UConn or West Virginia?  Why isn't the same logic that's keeping TCU out of the national championship picture keeping UConn and West Virginia out of the BCS bowl picture?

Like many others, I think a playoff system would resolve 99% of the BCS's issues, but I realize that it's not likely to happen any time soon.  So if we're stuck with the BCS bowls, shouldn't the NCAA at least be able to implement its policies consistently?  In my opinion, the NCAA and BCS need to state their stance on these issues clearly, once and for all.  If conference strength is king, then explain to me why UConn and Virginia Tech can go BCS bowling and Stanford can't?  And if conference strength isn't the determining factor, then the NCAA needs to come up with a new rationale for keeping TCU out of the national championship game.  Either way, the NCAA has some explaining to do to its fans.

Smooth Skating

This fall alone, I've been stuck in the Oracle Arena parking lot for 45 minutes following a Warriors game against the Knicks and avoided going to the bathroom at Stanford Stadium for hours because of long lines during Stanford versus Arizona.  When I pay big money (or even when I pay nothing at all) to go to a sporting event, I expect the stadiums and arenas to add to, rather than take away from, the live game experience.  The RBC Center in Raleigh, North Carolina is the perfect type of facility - a modern, clean and efficient arena that is refreshingly well-run.

After an easy ride to the RBC Center parking lot (thanks to parking lot attendants who were actually directing traffic), I entered the arena and immediately noticed a huge selection of food options.  Not only did RBC have numerous fixed concession stands, but the concourse was filled with wheel-able carts selling Carolina BBQ, four different types of sausages, ice cream, healthy options and more.  As I walked around the stadium to our seats, I saw that each of the stands and carts could be found in multiple places, meaning that fans don't have to walk more than a few sections over to find their favorite snacks.  Prices as a whole were between reasonable and typical, and because it was "Family Night" all hot dogs, regularly priced at an already-fair $3, were only $1.

I was impressed with the inside of the RBC Center, too.  Built in 1997 when the Hurricanes moved to Raleigh, the arena had new-looking red seats, tons of nice video boards and a great-looking Jumbotron (similar to the one I saw at HP Pavilion last week).  It's an above-average looking NHL arena - seemingly well-suited to host the NHL All Star game this coming January - and runs as smootly as any I've been to in recent memory.  The people working there are knowledgable, attentive and nice, which coming from New York and having become used to Yankee Stadium, Madison Square Garden and Nassau Coliseum, I wasn't used to.

 Despite the open seats, energy was high for Hurricanes vs. Capitals at the RBC Center.

The game itself - a battle between the Hurricanes and the Washington Capitals - was fine.  The crowd was somewhat sparce, but perhaps that was to be expected for the night before Thanksgiving.  Despite being only about two-thirds full, the arena was loud during key moments and following the Canes' two goals.  I'm not sure how often RBC is full for either Canes or NC State Wolfpack basketball games (it's a pretty amazing venue for a college basketball team, and I had no idea that NC State played there until I saw their banners hanging from the rafters), but when it is I'm sure it's a great place to watch a game.  If you're in the Raleigh-Durham area, take a trip to the RBC Center for an NHL hockey or ACC basketball game if you want to see how a sports facility should be run.

Dribbling Down the Tobacco Road

I've always said that any true sports fan needs to make pilgrimages to the important landmarks in sports during his lifetime: Fenway Park, the Baseball Hall of Fame in Cooperstown, Lambeau Field, the Rose Bowl, etc.  Yesterday I not only crossed two sports to-do's off of my list - Duke's Cameron Indoor Stadium and UNC's Dean Dome - but I had the rare opportunity to visit both on the same day.

First up was an up-close-and-personal tour of Cameron, which exceeded even my wildest expectations.  Thanks to some special connections, I had the chance to walk right onto the fabled "Coach K Court" and take a look around the facility with no one else around.  As I'd heard, the gym is very small and cozy, and has a wonderfully classic feel to it.  Even though I unfortunately wasn't there for a game, I could understand what makes Cameron such a special place; from the blue seats to the classic scoreboard, everything had a very "Duke-cool" feel to it.  While it lacked the bells and whistles of some of college hoops' more elaborate arenas, the only college basketball facility that I've been to that might rival it is the Palestra in Philadelphia.  In addition to Cameron, we also toured the nearby Duke sports museum, which had awesome displays of Duke sports accomplishments (mainly basketball, but other sports too) over the years.  Duke has a gorgeous campus overall, and the basketball facilities truly are the icing on the cake.

On the floor of Duke's Cameron Indoor Stadium.

Yesterday evening, it was off to the Dean Dome to watch North Carolina take on UNC Asheville.  The Dean Dome couldn't have been more different from Cameron Indoor Stadium; other than the trademark Tar Heel blue covering all of the seats, railings and rafters, nothing about the Dean Dome was very collegiate.  At more than double the size of Cameron, the Dome is probably awesome when filled with screaming UNC fans, but was a little underwhelming at basically half capacity.  The fans matched their team for most of the game, as they appeared to take the win for granted (and barely cheered) until it got close in the second half.  At that point, both the team and the fans released nervous blasts of energy, which gave me a glimpse of what a game at the Dean Dome could be like.  This particular pre-Thanksgiving non-conference matchup, however, reminded me more of an Indiana Pacers game than it did a home contest for one of college basketball's top all-time programs.

There were plenty of open seats at the Dean Dome for UNC's game against UNC-Asheville.

For this trip down Tobacco Road, the score reads Duke 1, UNC 0.  I hope to have the opportunity to attend big-time battles at both Cameron Indoor and the Dean Dome in the future, though, to see how the two compare on more equal playing fields.