Weekly Sporties

-The Monday after the final weekend of NFL games is known as "Black Monday" because it is the day when many underachieving teams fire their coach and this year was no different as five NFL coaches were let go. Most of the firings were expected (Leslie Frasier from the Vikings, Mike Shanahan from the Redskins) but I don't think anyone expect the Cleveland Browns to fire their head coach, Rob Chudzinski, after just one season yet that is exactly what happened. I have to say, the firing does send a bit of mixed message. Before the season started no one expected the Cleveland to be any good because of their horrible quarterback situation. That diagnosis was reinforced after the team traded running back Trent Richardson, seen by most to be the only offensive weapon the team had. If the ultimate plan was for the Browns to end up with the first pick in next year's draft everything was right on schedule. However, a funny thing happened - the Browns started winning and four games into the season they found themselves with a share of the lead for their (admittedly crappy) division. Suddenly, optimism was high. Of course, you can only work with bad quarterbacks for so long and the team eventually settled back down to where everyone expected them to be, winning just four games and securing a high draft pick. Still, the team showed signs of life on defense and if they could get a quarterback they could be on the rise in a hurry so everyone thought they were finally headed in the right direction. That is why many people, including most of the players on the Browns, think that firing Coach Chudzinski after a season is just more proof that team management has no idea what it is doing. I think even the most loyal Browns' supporter would admit there does seem to be some conflicting issues ideas here. I mean, was Chudzinski actually supposed to win with this roster? Because if that was the case than how can he be blamed for the terrible quarterback situation or the Richardson trade? And if he was supposed to lose so the team could draft a quarterback than it was mission accomplished - though they will pick 4th, not first. Now, reports are that the owner wants whomever they hire to keep all the assistants, which make it seem like this was a very personal firing. And you could very easily make the case that if management thought they made a mistake hiring Chudzinski and he wasn't the right long-term man for the job they should have fired him sooner rather than later before too much damage was done. The only way a only way an NFL franchise succeeds is if everyone is on-board with the plan so the front office needs to hire the right coach to make sure the players know what is what. However, given how they handled this current coaching situation you can understand why I would have my doubts in their ability to do that.

-I guess it is only fitting that the first NFL team to fire its coach, the Houston Texans, was also the first one to hire a new one as Penn State coach Bill O'Brien left the Nittany Lions to take over the Texans. Normally I would be quick to call out a guy for leaving a job after just two years to go to a place he has no previous ties to because it makes him look like a mercenary but I consider this one to be a special circumstance. When O'Brien was hired at Penn State he knew the school was about to be hit with heavy penalties by the NCAA but I don't think anyone expected them to be as severe as they were (not even the NCAA, which is why they have slowly started to walk those penalties back) as the team lost scholarships, was banned from postseason play and players were allowed to transfer without having to give up a year of eligibility. O'Brien inherited a mess which he had no hand in creating and while he was handsomely compensated I don't think anyone expected much of him. I'm sure if you ask the administration now they would confess he was meant to be the sacrificial lamb - the coach with no reputation to stain who could come in, take the hits while the school worked through its issues, gradually build a base back up and then fade into the background while the school did what it really wanted to do which was hired someone connected to Joe Paterno to guide the program into the future. The fact that O'Brien won 15 games in two seasons was an unexpected bonus. So, really no one at Penn State can begrudge him for leaving even though the team is still working its way back to pre-sanction levels. The bigger issue was when it was revealed that O'Brien lashed out to a reported a few months ago regarding all the pro-Paterno people who didn't like the way he was handling his business. I think this was always going to be O'Brien's biggest problem while he was at Penn State - he didn't go to the school and didn't have full support from the alumni. College football has this strange phenomenon in which boosters only want the Athletic Director to hire people who have a previous connection with the program, even at the expense of hiring a more qualified candidate. I have always found this logic to be flawed because the only thing separating a coach with a connection to the school from a coach without one is hiring him. As soon as O'Brien took the job he was arguable more invested in Penn State than 95% of the alumni. Honestly, there is nothing more obnoxious than some freshman saying a coach isn't a "Penn State man" when they themselves have been on campus for a grand total of 8 weeks. Also, I have noticed this is never an issue when trying to hire a coach with a resume like Nick Saban's. But, now Penn State can go out and get a coach with a Penn State connection like they wanted to two years ago, so good for them. I would just point out that they should be careful what they wish for because even though Joe Paterno was at the school for 50 years his coaching tree didn't produce that many quality coaches. Personally I would rather my school hire a guy who knows his way around a playbook more than one who already knows his way around campus.

-Getting back to the NFL teams which still have games to play, there are four wildcard games this weekend, just in time for a wicked cold front to apparently grip the entire planet. It is supposed to be single digits in Philadelphia and Green Bay, site of two of this weekend's game while Indianapolis (which at least gets to play in a dome) and Cincinnati are not expected to be much warmer. This sets up two interesting narratives, the first of which is that we will all enjoy watching these games because this is the weather which made the NFL famous. It was images of players toughing it out during the Ice Bowl which first pushed the NFL into America's consciousness as the sport of real men. However, while games are bound to produce some legendary players, the only thing the fans in the stands are going to get out of attending these games is a hefty Visa bill and some frostbite which is why up until yesterday every game but the one in Philadelphia were in danger of being blacked out. You see, the NFL has an agreement in place with local television stations which states that if the games are not sold out than they are not allowed to be broadcast on local TV. Think of it like a punishment for fans who are not loyal enough to buy tickets. Mostly the NFL doesn't fans in other cities to see a half-full stadium because even they know watching an NFL game at home is the far superior experience and think that if fans were allowed to stay home and still watch their favorite team that is what most of them would end up doing. So, this agreement prevents that from happening and is another one of those things which makes a tremendous amount of sense for the people who work for the NFL, but also makes the league seem like giant douchebags. The thing is, Green Bay is expect to be around 0 at kickoff, with a windchill of nearly -20. Being out in cold like this isn't healthy and that should be their main concern - I don't care what your attendance figures are looking like. What I would like to see after this season is the NFL to go back and examine the policy, perhaps add a provision which says that the Blackout rule is waved if being outside is a serious health risk. I imagine it is the kind of thing which will almost never come up and yet putting it out there as their policy would garner them tremendous good will. Unfortunately these TV stations have too much money to lose if the game is blacked out so they will probably buy any unsold tickets and give them away, which means the NFL is going to get it's TV money and be able to tout that all their games are sold out, so they have no incentive to change anything. Still, I wonder - if those players from the Ice Bowl could see what their league has become, would they have still been willing to play or would they have said screw it in stayed in the locker room?

-While we're on the subject of things which make me dislike the NFL a little bit more everyday, this week former Viking's punter Chris Kluwe put out a long article on the website Deadspin in which says he was cut from the team because he was an open supporter of gay marriage, which at the time was coming up on a bill in Minnesota. Kluwe contends that after his initial support was made public he was called into coach Leslie Frasier's office and asked to tone it down. He refused and after that he contends Frasier, GM Rick Spielman and position coach Mike Priefer grew increasingly hostile towards him, with Priefer allegedly tell him that he felt like all gays should be put on an island that would then be "nuked until it glowed." Kluwe also says he is coming forward now for two reason, the first of which Frasier has been fired and Priefer was getting some buzz as having a shot at taking over the team, which Kluwe never wanted to prevent from happening. The second reason is that he doesn't have to worry about any potential backlash because he knows his NFL career is over. His statistics were starting to slide his last year in the league and with the way the NFL salaries are structured the veteran minimum salary he would have to be offered most teams would have no problem finding a younger (and cheaper alternative). Personally, I think the fact that the Vikings cut Kluwe and that he has no real shot at catching on with an NFL team is a larger motivating factor than Kluwe wants to admit. He isn't doing this simply because he believes strongly in marriage equality, I can assure you of that. However, there is also no doubt in my mind that the fact Kluwe has a strong belief on a hot-button political issue and refuses to be quiet when asked his opinion is the main reason he was cut because NFL coaches, for all their talk about wanting players who will do the right thing and fight for what they believe in when facing adversity, are a bunch of wimps. They don't like anything which could possible disturb the little cocoon they have set up at the team facilities which in and of itself is amusing because it blows the idea of the mentality tough football player out of the water. And, really, if you were going to pick an issue to be progressive about, this is the one. Anyone with eyes can see the tide has turned on this issue and the people still fighting against it are going to be the wrong side of history, yet most players don't say anything just because they don't want to deal with their coaches, which goes against everything they claim to stand for. It is the ultimate in hypocrisy. So, while I question Kluwe's true motivation for speaking out now I do applaud the fact he is speaking out at all. Frankly, given the push-back he received while still playing I'm surprised he even wanted to get back into the NFL.

-Late last night a report came out which contends that Louisville head coach Charlie Strong is leaning heavily towards taking over as the head coach at the University of Texas. Nothing is official yet, but as of this morning it appears Strong just want to talk to his coaches before he accepts the Longhorns' offer. On the surface this seems like a very good hire. Strong has a nice background as a defensive coordinator at Florida under Urban Meyer and went 37-15 as the head coach at Louisville, which is impressive when you remember that school is one of the few places which can honestly claim to still put the basketball team first. If he can win with the Cardinals I have no doubt he can win with the Longhorns. Yet, I just can't seem to shake this feeling that his hiring is not going to be very popular down in Austin. It's not Strong's fault but the simple fact of the matter is that he is not exactly a sexy hire, which wouldn't be an issue if the school hadn't been throwing around names like Nick Saban and Jon Gruden for the last couple of months. Fans don't like it when they are promised a big name coach and instead get a solid hire from a school they feel is inferior to them. It's a little like looking at Cadillacs and then finding a Dodge Durango in your driveway. Sure, it's a good truck and it gets you where you need to go, but it isn't an Escalade. The sad truth is that Texas fans are going to have to face the realization that apparently most coaches don't think Texas is the plum job its fans seem to think it is. I mean, I don't think they really expected to get Nick Saban (it would have been a lateral move for him) but when guys like Chris Peterson are turning you down to take a job at the University of Washington and Jim Mora won't even interview because he wants to stay at UCLA it should cause a few people to look in the mirror. On the surface Texas should be one of the best jobs in America - it has more money than it could ever spend so it has great facilities, is in the heart of the best recruiting base in the country and it even has its own TV station. Hell, they don't even appear to have terribly demanding fans because Mack Brown hasn't been good for a couple years and he got to keep his job. That means there has to be a reason all these higher-profile coaches wouldn't even interview and I would love to know what it is. Also, I can't help but wonder if Texas knew how their coaching search would end up, would they re-thinking firing Mack Brown? He may not have ended well but at least he won a National Championship while he was there and apparently Texas can't get anyone with a National Championship resume to even look their way right now.

-Early this week the Cleveland Cavaliers suspended center Andrew Bynum indefinitely for what they termed as "poor conduct". I have to say, I got this one way wrong. When Bynum signed there I thought after he didn't play last year while recovering from knee issues he would come back fully healthy and be a nice tandem teaming with Kyrie Irving. I wasn't about to say he would lead the team to title but I thought they could contend for a high seed in the Eastern Conference, which would be progress for the Cavs. Instead the marriage has been a bad mix from the start with Bynum reportedly feuding with coaches and teammates. (This is not a new complaint either. Apparently Andrew Bynum doesn't really like basketball, just NBA paychecks.) Reportedly the Cavs would like to trade Bynum but they need to hurry up and do it before January 6th, because that is when his contract becomes fully guaranteed for the remainder of this year and next season, meaning they take a massive salary cap hit. Usually, I would say they are out of luck because there is nothing which kills your bargaining power more than another team knowing you are desperate and running out of time. If a team like the Heat (who Bynum wants to play for, because that is where everyone wants to go) really wanted him they could wait until the 6th when the Cavs would release Bynum and then simply sign him without trading away an asset. However, this time it is different because any team which cuts Bynum is allowed to wipe his contract off their books, even if he is only with them for a few hours. So if a team like the Lakers, who are going to be in salary cap hell next season, were to trade for Bynum and then cut him they would be able to get rid of $22 million in salary as well as pay less luxury tax (so obviously I am rooting for him to end up anywhere but there). It is one of those times when on the surface everyone wins - the Cavs get an asset for a guy who doesn't want to play for them anymore, Bynum gets most of his money and whichever team acquires him saves some cash for down the line. But while I understand all this economically I kind of hate it just as a sports fan. I mean, Bynum signed a contract in good faith and then he basically stopped playing as soon as the ink was dry. Why should be allowed to get any money and why should the Cavs and whatever team they trade with be allowed to get out from under a series of mistakes they put themselves into? In every other walk of life actions have consequences, so what makes the NBA so special? My only solace is the fact that any team which makes this deal is bound to make another bad decision with their second chance. After all, if they knew what they were doing they wouldn't have found themselves needing to trade for Andrew Bynum in the first place.

-There are few things in life I enjoy more than a juicy trade rumor and while the New York Knicks don't provide much entertainment on the court, off the court they are a constant source of whispers involving big-name players and harebrained schemes to return the franchise to prominence. Currently the team is trying to decide what to do with forward Carmelo Anthony. Carmelo has been underachieving in his time in New York but at the same time he is pretty much all the team has and he is going to be a free agent this offseason. Anthony has maintained he will test the market and the Knicks have to decide whether to risk watching him walk away and get nothing in return or trade him away now so they can at least be guaranteed some kind of return on their investment. That is why Anthony's name has come up in just about every trade rumor in the last couple of weeks but the other day a real doozy came up when it was reported that the Clippers and Knicks were discussing a Blake Griffin for Carmelo Anthony trade. If it happened it would be the kind of trade which could reshape each conference going forward. [Sidebar: Personally I don't know why you would do that deal if you were the Clippers. Griffin may not be the physical, inside scoring presence you thought he would turn into but at least he plays inside the paint. Anthony only rebounds if the ball comes directly to him. Also, Griffin is five years younger with the higher upside. I know the Clippers want to win now but they shouldn't sacrifice their future to do so.] There was just one little problem with this rumor - the two teams never talked to each other about it. Apparently both the Clippers and Knicks talked independently about a Griffin-for-Anthony deal but both sides decided against picking up the phone and calling the other team to even check their interest. The fact they both thought of the same potential trade was nothing more than a coincidence, but that was enough for it to become national news. This is the problem with the way the media operates right now - any little tidbit is immediately touted as a "confirmed" story as everyone races to be the first one with the scoop. I don't want to turn this into a journalism discussion because I know most of trade reporting is dealing in rumors but somewhere along the line sports stopped demanding accuracy and started accepting anything which sounded plausible enough to be true. That is why I want to institute a new rule for all sports - before a trade can be reported as a credible rumor the two teams have to have at least talked to one another on the phone in the last week. It seems like such a simple thing to check but apparently many journalists have to be reminded to do it going forward. Especially when the Knicks are supposed to be involved because at this point NBA fans believe those guys are capable of anything.