Weekly Sporties

-Apparently, this was the week for everyone in college athletics to lose their minds. Of course the biggest story of the week was a tape featuring Rutgers basketball coach Mike Rice physically and verbally abusing players during practices coming to light. Apparently the University was aware of the tape several months ago and suspended Rice for three games in December, as well as fining him and ordering him to undergo anger management treatment. However, once the general public got a look the punishment didn't seem severe enough and Rice was fired on Tuesday, with Athletic Director Tim Pernetti following him out the door when he resigned on Friday (University President Robert Barchi should probably start updating his resume just to be safe). Look, I'm all for intensity and agree that some players need a coach up in their face to motivate them, but if you saw this tape Rice clearly crossed the line. There is a way to coach players up without having to break them down first and by kicking and throwing basketballs at their heads while calling them a homophobic term Rice demonstrated that he obviously didn't know how to do that. But, make no mistake about it, Rice didn't get fired because he is an asshole coach. Bobby Knight did many of these same things and he became a god in the state of Indiana. Rice got fired because in three years at Rutgers he never had a winning record and finished near the bottom of the Big East every season. You can be an asshole if you want, but you can't be an asshole, terrible at your job and an embarrassment to your school, especially when it is the largest state-school in New Jersey. Winning covers up a lot of personality flaws and Rice didn't do enough of it. Plus, this is not the kind of attention Rutgers wants as it enters the Big 10 next season. The good news is that since this is Rutgers basketball all the attention should die down quickly and most of the sports world can go back to it's natural state of not thinking about Rutgers 99% of the time.

-The other thing Rutgers has going for it at the moment is that their scandal is focused on just one person, which means it can be easily contained. Late in the week a report surfaced which says that during its National Championship run three years ago the Auburn University football team was breaking just about every rule under the sun. According to a report from former Sports Illustrated reporter (and Auburn alum) Selena Gomez, the coaching staff at Auburn was changing grades to keep players eligible, covering up failed drug tests for synthetic pot and paying players in an attempt to keep them from declaring for the draft (and then talking poorly about them to scouts if they went through with plans to leave for the NFL). If true, these allegations would be the very definition of 'lack of institutional control' and could bring severe penalties to Auburn. All that being said, I wish I could care, but I just don't. Seriously, at this point I half expect this from most major college football programs, especially at the schools were football is seen as the only thing that matters. Plus, what could the NCAA really do? Get rid of the coach? Too late, Auburn fired Gene Chizik for daring to have two bad seasons in a row after he won the title. Ban them from a bowl for a couple of years? The program is already rebuilding and probably won't be bowl eligible this year anyway. Take away their National Championship trophy? Vacating victories is the most useless penalty the NCAA has, because we all saw the game and it is not like they can wipe our memories. Not to mention, the NCAA was performing a massive investigation into rumors surrounding Cam Newton while all this was supposed to be going on and missed all of it, plus they have botched their investigation of the University of Miami at every turn, so it is not like I would trust their findings. This should just show other schools why playing within the rules in pointless, because nothing happens to you when you don't.

-It is not like the people in charge of keeping order in college athletics had a much better week. The Pac-12 head of officials, former NBA referee Ed Rush, was forced to resign late this week after it came to light that during a pre-game referee meeting Rush offered the officials working the UCLA/Arizona game $5,000 or a trip to Cancun if they gave Arizona head coach Sean Miller a technical foul. Miller was assessed a technical during the game for what looked like a minimal amount of complaining (coaches have certainly gotten away with more), by an official who rarely gives out techs and Arizona went on to lose that game by two points. While we shouldn't assume the two things are connected because it could just be a coincidence, it was enough to raise a few eyebrows. Rush claims the statement was made entirely in jest and that he never paid out the 'bounty'. However, just the appearance of the referees having a bias against one team is enough to throw the whole system into disarray. What happens next season when a Pac-12 official makes a dubious call? People are just going to assume the fix is in, which is bad news for basketball. College athletics are never more than one point-shaving scandal away from falling back into irrelevance because if people can't trust the results of your sport they stay away in droves, which means Rush shouldn't have been saying things like this even as a joke. But, worse than that was that Rush didn't really seem to know why what he did was so wrong because he talked about how college refs don't respect 'the code' the NBA officials have regarding things which are said in the officials' room staying in the officials' room. Considering the NBA officials aren't that far removed from a former official admitting that he used to change the score of games for gambling purposes, maybe it wouldn't be the worst thing in the world if they were a little more loose-lipped. The only one who comes out of this looking good is Miller, because I'm pretty sure he can say whatever he wants to that official next year and he's never going to get a technical called on him. Seems like a fair trade-off.

-Even the companies who make the uniforms in college couldn't escape controversy this week. After Louisville guard Kevin Ware suffered a truly gruesome injury last Sunday the rest of the Cardinal players made it a point to have his jersey with them during their celebration to let him know he was still part of this run. Inspired by their loyalty, Adidas quickly began printing shirts for the team to wear with the slogans, "All in for #5" and "Ri5e Up". (The 5 is supposed to look like an S. I assume it is a texting thing.) But then, never one to let an opportunity pass them by, Adidas began to sell the shirts to the general public for $25. This awoke the sleeping giant that is the controversy surrounding whether players should get paid, considering both Adidas and Louisville will profit from the sale of this shirt but Ware himself is going to be cut out from the profits, even though it was his leg which shattered and his likeness they are using. The people who still foolishly believe college athletics will say that this is just part of the deal, because Ware is getting a free education. I say that's fine, but the second the school makes more than the cost of 4 years at Louisville by selling these shirts (which it probably already has), they need to cut Ware in on the profits. They don't have to pay him now - I've always maintained colleges should put this money into some kind of trust which athletes get when they forfeit their remaining eligibility. The way I see, everyone wins: the schools and shoe companies can stop talking out of both sides of their mouths, certain players would be motivated to stay in school and increase their jersey sales (solving the 1-and-done problem for players who are on the fringe) and any kid who isn't going pro gets a nice nest egg when they graduate to get them started in the real world (or, in Ware's case, pay for medical bills). It may not be a perfect solution but it certainly beats the one in place right now.

-It takes a lot for me to consider anything an 'upset' in men's college basketball. As we saw this year, the playing field is ridiculously level and the #1 team losing is actually quite common. But in the women's game there aren't enough strong programs, which means it is shocking if all the #1 seeds don't make it to at least the Elite 8. That was the case when overall #1 seed Baylor and star player Brittney Griner were knocked out during their Sweet 16 match-up with Louisville. But, it doesn't look like Griner's days of playing on the big stage are over, because Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban has said he would think about drafting Griner in the second round and giving her a shot to make the Mavericks by playing in the Summer League. I'm sure Cuban is just saying this to be provocative, but it feels rather forced. First off, from a purely organizational standpoint there is no need to draft Griner - she'll be available as a free agent, so no need to risk missing on a second round gem and Cuban knows this. I'm also pretty Cuban also knows that Griner is a force in the women's game because at 6'8" she is the tallest and most physical player on the court. (Seriously, most night it looked like Shaq versus a bunch of high schoolers.) To put that into perspective, LeBron James is the same height, weighs 40 lbs more than Griner and is a small forward, which means she will no longer have the advantage she has enjoyed her entire career. Every college player faces an adjustment period when they make the leaps to the professional leagues, but I am not sure she would be able to handle going from being the strongest person on the floor to the weakest. On top of that Griner has expressed frustration when other teams play her physically, which means every NBA team already knows how to get her out of the game. It all adds up to this not working out. So while I appreciate what Cuban is trying to do in advancing the cause of women's basketball I just don't think we are at the point where a woman can play in the men's professional league. The good news is that when there is a woman who is ready she knows there is a team out there willing to giver her a shot.

-One of the loudest secrets in the world is that going to see an NFL game in person kind of sucks. You're paying $40 to park a mile away, the tickets, food and beer are incredibly over-priced and depending on where your seats are you may not even get that good a view of the game. Plus, between tailgating and then sitting in traffic waiting to leave, it is pretty much an 8-hour commitment. In some ways, the NFL is a victim of its own success - because football fans are now interested in the entire league as much as their own team they want to watch every game possible and not miss anything. That is why more and more fans are opting to stay home, watch the game with friends in their living room, throw on "Red Zone" and still have the rest of their afternoon available to them. To make sure stadiums remain packed the NFL is trying to spruce up in the in-stadium game-day experience by offering things like exclusive looks into the locker room and mandating that stadiums show all replays on the Jumbotron, even when they go against the home team. (I know I haven't been to a game in a while, but I didn't even know that last one was an issue.) I feel like the locker room cam idea is interesting but dangerous, since any kind of language could go out to the masses. However, what this story really made me think of was golf, because like the NFL golf is always trying to think of new ways to get people to come out and play while neglecting the most obvious and logic step - make it cheaper. You want more people coming out to watch the NFL? You don't need to offer them the chance to hear Bill Belichick break down the second half adjustments, just don't have the cheap seats cost $65 and beers $10. People don't need to be as entertained when they aren't paying as much for the experience. Of course, the NFL will never cut ticket prices as long as there are people willing to pay them, so they will try to keep them at the same level while doing the cheapest thing they can think of which will still appear like they are giving you a deal. It's a nice try, but my new couches are really comfortable, so what else you got?

-I have no real love of Fenway Park due to its cramped features but I can appreciate that Red Sox ownership has tried very hard in the past decade to make it slightly more tolerable. Still, even they would admit there is only so much they can do to make a 101 year-old stadium more modern. No one knows this better than former Sox General Manager and current Chicago Cubs President Theo Epstein, which is why I was rather surprised to read an item which reports that the Cubs are going to announced a new deal to make lots of upgrades to Wrigley Field, their home since 1914. You would think Epstein would know that players are more interested in spacious lockers than history. Still, that is the least of the problems for the Cubs with these renovations, as there are reports the upgrades would include a big new scoreboard in right field which would obstruct the views in Wrigleyville - the bleachers set up on buildings across the street which can see into the park. Now, normally I would think any sports team trying to prevent people from sneaking a peak into their stadium would be fully within their rights, only in this case the Cubs would be biting their nose to spite their face, because they have an agreement with these people to get 17% of their profits. Not bad considering they didn't have to pay to establish it or spend any money to maintain it. It is as close to free money as they can get and while I know the Cubs are one of those teams which doesn't have to worry about funding, free money is still free money. Plus, after a few years of contention the Cubs are back to being the Cubs, which means they can't risk running off fans no matter where they may be sitting. Now, the plans aren't officially being unveiled until later this week, but the Wrigleyville people are ready to sue if the Cubs do anything which would damage their businesses. Considering this is a team which hasn't won a World Series since 1908, reportedly because an usher wouldn't let a man bring his lucky billy goat into the stadium, you would think they would be more conscientious about their customer relations. As a man who is rooting for their long-suffering fans to finally have a winner I would hate for the Curse of Wrigleyville to add to their misery.