Weekly Sporties

-It is a well-known fact that hockey coaches are the most interchangeable in all of professional sports. It is not usual for them to be fired in the middle of the season or even right before the playoffs start and then have multiple stints with the same team. It would take a lot for a firing to shock the people who cover hockey for a living, so their stunned reaction to the news that the Philadelphia Flyers had fired coach Peter Laviolette 3 games into the season should tell you all you need to know about that decision. Look, I'm not saying Laviolette was above reproach. He was never able to duplicate the consistent success he'd had in Carolina in Philly, then he started this season 0-3 and even worse the team appeared to not be putting up much of a fight in those loses. Also, if an owner or GM doesn't think a coach is the right person for the job they have every right to get rid of that coach and in fact should do something to make sure the season doesn't go down the drain. But, getting rid of Laviolette so quickly leads me to believe this decision had already been in the works for a while, which makes me wonder why didn't the team just fire him in the offseason? He clearly wasn't in the team's long-term plans, so give him his walking papers after the playoffs and start fresh next season. It is not like firing him was going to kill ticket sales because no one goes to a hockey game to watch the coach. By allowing him to start the season but firing him so quickly it looks like the team either doesn't really have a plan, are making one up as they go or (and this would be the worst-case scenario if you were a Flyers fan) have a plan but don't really love it so are only taking the steps of that plan when the absolutely have to. The only good news for the Flyers is that they have plenty of time to save their season (they've split their two games since Laviolette's firing) but that does require strong leadership at the top and right now that has to be a pretty big question mark. The only one who comes out of this with his dignity intact is Laviolette because he is still a Stanley Cup-winning coach and hockey coaches get replaced all the time, so he should have a new job by Christmas. He may have set some kind of record for being the quickest-replaced coach in professional sports but he certainly won't be the last guy who gets fired this season.

-I make no secret of the fact that "Hard Knocks" is one of my favorite mini-series every fall. The in-depth documentary provides unprecedented access to an NFL training camp and is always an entertaining program, even when I don't particularly care about the team involved (hell, half the time I end up rooting for that team to succeed during the regular season as long as they aren't facing the Patriots). The problem is the cameras and added personnel can be quite a distraction and if there is one thing and NFL coaches hate, it is distractions. The mere thought a player could be doing something for the sake of the camera is enough to make most coaches refuse to allow their team to be the team in the spotlight. On top of that the teams which have been on "Hard Knocks" in the past always seem to go on to have so-so season, which has lead some to speculate there is a Madden-like curse on the show and thus finding a franchise willing to volunteer for it has gotten pretty hard for HBO. With that in mind the network turned to their partners at the NFL to do something about it and this week the NFL responded by implementing new rules, essentially forcing teams to appear on "Hard Knocks". The new rules state that a team can not refuse to be on the show if asked and there are only three ways a team can be exempt: 1) they have been on "Hard Knocks" in the last 10 years 2) they have a new coach and 3) they've made the playoffs the last two seasons. Now, I know what you are thinking - this only leaves the mediocre teams as options. But, that is kind of the beauty of this show - it makes even the most mediocre teams appear to be interesting and actually gives them more attention than they will get from regular football pundits. Look, I get why a team that has Super Bowl aspirations would want its players focused solely on football during training camp but I would think a team with a so-so chance of competing and nothing particularly interesting going for it (I'm looking at you, Vikings) would be chomping at the bit to get some media attention. Still, mostly this news makes me happy as a Patriots fan because there is no way Bill Belichick wants a show like "Hard Knocks" within a hundred miles of his football team, so that means he is going to be coaching his butt off to make the playoffs and keep his team ineligible. As much as I like "Hard Knocks" I like it when my team is winning a whole lot more.

-Speaking of something which is being done strictly for media purposes, this week ESPN's Jalen Rose tossed out a rumor that Michael Jordan would come out of retirement to play one game for the Charlotte Bobcats. Obviously this sounds like a crazy theory but at the same time I can't completely dismiss it due to Rose's uncanny ability to get these things right. Plus, on the surface there is a little bit of sense to this. The Bobcats are last in the league for both merchandise and ticket sales. Tickets for that game would sell out in about 10 seconds and everyone in the building would be wearing a brand-new Jordan Bobcats jersey. Plenty of people have said that don't believe this would ever happen because the image of a slightly chubby, 50 year-old Michael Jordan playing 5 minutes in a game for a team that would be in the middle of 20 win season would forever tarnish his legacy. Well, if we learned anything from his stint playing for the Washington Wizards it is that the person who cares the least about Michael Jordan's legacy is Michael Jordan. Hell, he is so competitive that he probably thinks he would be able to go out and dominate for those 5 minutes (and the fact he would have the highest jersey sales in the league for the year doesn't hurt either). It is for all those reasons I can't totally ignore this rumor but at the end of the day I just can't see the NBA allowing this to happen. I have always thought there were rules preventing owners from playing and even though the NBA could waive them for one night I don't see why they would. A stunt like this would essentially be admitting that the Bobcats are a joke of a franchise and that Jordan is only one step away from being Jackie Moon, Will Ferrell's character from "Semi-Pro." Lastly even though he is notorious for only having people in his inner circle who tell him how great he is and bend to his every wish, I would like to think that there is at least one person in Jordan's inner circle who would stop him from going through with this. There has to be one voice of reason in the building who is willing to put the good of the franchise before the ego of the owner. If that person doesn't exist than the larger issue isn't that the league needs to stop Michael Jordan from trying to be a player, it's that someone needs to stop him from being an owner.

-As I said the day after Lane Kiffin was fired from his job as head coach at USC at 3AM on the tarmac at LAX, the job at Southern California is one of the most attractive in all of college football. It is one of the few college jobs that an NFL coach would think about leaving for, so when someone pretending to be a USC official called the Denver Broncos and tried to get in touch with defensive coordinator (and USC alum) Jack Del Rio they had no trouble getting through. (They also reached out to Tony Dungy but with less success.) At first I thought it was a group of alums who didn't trust Pat Haden to be thorough in his search but eventually it was a revealed to be a comedian who likes to do this sort of thing as a prank. Apparently he has also called around asking various NFL coaches about their interest in the Texas job. I have to admit, I don't see the joke. Maybe it is just because I am not much of a prank fan but there seems to be no real payoff here. First off, what are you going to do if a guy like Tony Dungy actually expresses interest in the position? Hang up on him and giggle to yourself? Also, what exactly are you hoping to accomplish by doing this - prove that an NFL defensive coordinator who was once a pretty good NFL coach would want another shot to be the man in charge, especially if it included the opportunity to return his Alma Mater to glory? I could have told you that without racking up the long-distance charges. But mostly, as a comedian, I think my problem with this is that the joke was too easy. Like I said, everyone who coaches football is slightly interested in the USC job. It's a great program willing to pay its coaches a ton of money, no NFL team to compete with and all you have to do to recruit players is show them the campus. Even a guy like Bill Belichick probably toyed with the idea for a few seconds before deciding he was fine where he is. So, really, calling a coach proclaiming you want to talk about the USC job and getting them on the phone is a little like the head cheerleader asking out a kid in the band - she knows her answer going in. If this guy really wants to impress me, act like you represent a mid-level college football team and see how far you get. If you can get someone on the phone who wants to talk about applying for that job then I will be impressed.

-Last Saturday star defensive end JaDeveon Clowney sat out South Carolina's game against Kentucky with a muscle injury near his ribs, one which had been plaguing him all season. Normally a player missing a game against a team his school should be able to beat with or without him is not exactly newsworthy but it made some waves because afterwards head coach Steve Spurrier implied Clowney had been cleared by doctors and those doctors told the coaching staff he would be playing. This meant JaDeveon had come to the decision to sit out the game by himself. As you would imagine this cause the usual shitstorm among the rank-and-file old-timers club, who brought out the standard club line about how today's athletes are too pampered and self-involved to put the team ahead of themselves. I do agree with a few of those media pundits that if Clowney took himself out the of game it was out of self-interest. The difference is I also think it was the right thing to do. Clowney came into this season as a potential Heisman candidate and the consensus first pick in next year's NFL draft. But his injury and lackluster play has ended his Heisman hopes and made some people question his passion for the game, which has also impacted his draft stock. As soon as the Gamecocks lost their first game of the season any chances for a National Championship also ended so I wouldn't blame Clowney if his thoughts turned to going pro and his future in the NFL. He has literally tens of millions of dollars at stake and it all depends on how he plays the rest of this season. I would have more of an issue with his decision if he suddenly decided he was going to miss the rest of the season to rest for the Combine or something but if he wanted to sit out a game South Carolina was going to win anyway and make sure he is healthy going forwards than he shouldn't be shamed for doing so. Any other student planning for their life after college is allowed to do so without criticism so I don't know why people were so upset about Clowney doing it. The good news is that Spurrier quickly saw the error of his ways and backed away from his post-game comments, saying it was simply a communication problem and the coaches need to do a better job of remembering that Clowney has kept up his end of the bargain (the old ball coach is always recruiting). Besides, I am a fan of anything which reminds the NCAA that they wouldn't have these huge TV deals if it weren't for their labor force, who never see a dime of that money. No one in college football has any right to complain when a player does something in the name of money because they just learned that behavior watching their schools administration.

-Actually, it was just a couple days after the Clowney incident that the NCAA went out of its way to prove that very point when they announced Virginia Tech and Tennessee are going to play a football game on the infield of Bristol Motor Speedway in 2016. Ever since the NHL was able to turn the Winter Classic (having NHL teams play an outdoor game in unusual settings, normally a baseball stadium) into a big money-maker and marketing spectacle other sports have been trying to replicate the phenomenon and cash in. College hockey had already replicated the feat when they had Michigan play a few of their hockey games in the Big House and drew almost 100,000 fans to the games. This was followed by basketball teams playing on the deck of aircraft carriers. Even though the locations were probably a terrible place to watch the games (seriously, humanity spent hundreds of years perfecting the sporting arena and now we take the leap backwards of playing anywhere we can fit the field?), I'm assuming most of those fans showed up just to say they had been there and thanks to big TV numbers both events were big money-makers for the schools involved. Therefore it was only a matter of time before college football, the biggest money-maker of them all, tried to shoehorn its way into the act. In some ways I have to give the NCAA credit because I didn't think they would ever be able to find a place which would be big enough. I mean, when regular football stadiums can hold 80,000 people how can you possible expect to top that? Yet, by playing at a NASCAR track they found a venue which can allegedly hold 160,000 fans. Also, Bristol is the best track to do this because it is a short, banked oval which means it is already shaped like an arena and by using Virginia Tech and Tennessee they have found two fan bases who have proven they will travel no matter how the team is playing, mostly because they don't have pro teams to compete with. (The Grizzlies and Titans may be in the same state as the Volunteers but they are hours away.) I'll be very interested to see how this goes and where they will try to go next if it is as successful as they expect it to be. I just know this - if they ever get to the point they try holding a hockey game in one of these southern cities this trend will officially be out of hand.

-In the last couple of years I have given the Golf Hall of Fame a good amount of ribbing over their election process. A quick reminder: anyone who gets over 75% of the votes is in. However if no one gets over 75% the top vote-getter with more than 50% is elected. What that has done in the last few years is resulted in a few questionable entries. (To the Hall's credit, it has not lessened the ceremony. Fred Couples was enshrined last year and while people could question his resume no one could question how thrilled he was about it, giving one of the best speeches of the night.) At the time I joined in with the chorus of people who were saying the Hall needed to look into this policy and suggested that they do away with the idea of having someone elected every year. Some times there are just no worthy candidates and since it is supposed to be the Hall of Fame and not the Hall of Quite Good, putting people in who may not belong brings down the prestige of the entire place. Well, they may have listened because this week the Golf Hall of Fame announced they will not be having any inductions next year while the voting board "reevaluates its voting process". They will take 2014 off but have already set the date for the 2015 induction ceremonies. Now, part of me wondered if this was nothing more than a stalling tactic as the voting board was hoping some new, more worthy candidates emerge in a year. However, I couldn't think of any fresh names which would turn 40 (thus making them eligible) by 2015, so that can't be it. Plus, it is not like any of the resume of the guys currently up for election are going to suddenly look better in a year. Perhaps they really do want to take a new, fresh look at the voting process. It could be as simple as expanding the number of people who vote or allowing different people on the nominating committee. Both of those would be fine with me but what I would not want to happen would be for their solution to include changing the criteria be eligible. As an individual sport Golf's Hall of Fame is entirely based on personal statistics. Currently you have to be 40 years old with 10 years of PGA Tour service, 10 worldwide victories and at least 1 major (the Player's Championship also counts as a major). I think setting the bar any lower than that would be worse than letting in a player who meets all that criteria but didn't get a high enough percentage of the votes. After all stats may not tell the whole story but they certainly provide a nice outline.