Sunday, September 11, 2011

Redskins DoD Bounty Scroll (Updated 27.Sep.11)

 
 

Hakeem Nicks (knee/wrist) - Giants
Jake Ballard (hip -- was out for a quarter but finished the game) - Giants
Paris Lenon (knee) - Cardinals
Felix Jones (shoulder) - Cowchicks
Terence Newman (hamstring) - Cowchicks
Jacob Bell (hamstring) - Rams
Gary Gibson (hip) - Rams






Dear Kyle Shanahan,

Thank you for utilizing the run more this time around. It made a huge difference. Also, send another memo to Hefty Rexy to lay off the booze and twinkies... those interceptions could have been avoided.

All that aside, great job today. :-)

#RedskinsNation

P.S. - Send a thank you fruit basket to Haslett, the Lions and the Niners when you get a chance please... Thanks!



Follow me on Twitter: @NFLHustleBabe

Thursday, August 25, 2011

Pull Your Pants Up!!!

Many teams have dress codes for the members... whether it be college, high school or pro. I can remember back to high school where on game day, football players were walking around the school like they were going to job interviews.  I ran track but on meet days we would just wear our unis/warm ups. Same thing in college. Nothing wrong with either approach. Some teams even go as far as to have restrictions on facial hair. Ehhh... I can understand that it goes along with the business like appearance, but I don't see how it effects how someone plays.

But today a story came out about Carolina Panthers owner Jerry Richardson telling their first round draft pick Cam Newton not to get any tattoos or piercings. I'm not sure how I feel about this, but I'm leaning toward "disagree."

You sign Jeremy Shockey to your team, who has more tattoos than free skin, but your franchise player has to be the clean cut, tat/piercing free person you plan to plaster all over Charlotte to market your organization. Is he saying he doesn't want a black guy looking like some sort of gang member or thug to be the face of the franchise? Is he saying he just doesn't like tattoos and he wants his star employee to ride along with his beliefs because he's paying him? I have no idea. 



 
Can having an altered outward appearance in this day and age have that rough of an effect on how people view your team if you're the franchise player? It didn't affect the Ravens (Ray Lewis). Didn't affect the Skins either when CP was the face. What about the Chicago Bulls circa Dennis Rodman? Some people found his appearance entertaining while others found it scary/repulsive but no one can dispute his play as being one of the best (if not the best) rebounders the game has ever seen. Did it change how people looked at Phil Jackson? Michael or Scottie? No. They were Phil, Michael, And Scottie. Same thing with the Ravens. Ray is Ray. Flacco is Flacco. Ed is still Ed. No one is worried about Ray's appearance because he's one of the best defensive players in the game... period (people were more concerned about him staying on the field after his run-ins with the law). Same with the Skins... CP was CP... Sean was Sean (RIP), Tana was Tana... and so on. No one in the DMV was concerned about CP's sleeves when he was rushing for 1400 yds (or after for that matter). Heck, I can guarantee that people in Philly are less concerned with Mike Vick's tatts and more concerned with him leading them to a Super Bowl victory.

So is Richardson implying that a certain appearance will put more butts in the seats of Bank of America stadium than a winning team? If he is, then he has lost it. He should be more concerned with Cam's performance than what he does with his body.

If you don't want your players to wear a certain color suit on game day, sounds a little extreme, but I'll go with it. If they wear a whole suit, it covers up most of people's tattoos anyway. If you don't want them to wear earrings in piercings anywhere but their ears, still a little extreme, but okay I guess I'll live. But to go as far to tell someone they can't go into a tattoo parlor or get a piercing is way off. There are more important ways to control the appearance of your guys.



Like tell them to pull their friggin pants up. Fruit of the Loom and Hanes will probably be very upset at their free advertising but I don't want to see that crap, and millions of others don't either. Buy them all new belts. Fine them. Do something.You want to change the "face" of a franchise??? Tell them to pull their pants up during practices/team activities. 

It's hard as hell to run like that anyway.





Follow me on Twitter: @NFLHustleBabe

Wednesday, August 17, 2011

NCAA, LLC

Well that's what it may as well be called. They make enough rules to keep themselves in business till kingdom come.

From NCAA.org:

The NCAA makes $10.8 Billion in rights agreements with CBS and Turner Broadcasting alone (over 14 years), just to show Division I sports on TV. Out of the $771M a year they receive, approximately $740 goes to conferences and schools. For what else, intercollegiate athletics funding (i.e. - athletic department staff, facilities, and more... including scholarships).

That still leaves $31M that they pocket (and this is just from these two networks). What about the hundreds and hundreds of other networks that broadcast NCAA Division I sports? I wonder how much Comcast and ESPN gives the NCAA to broadcast sports...

Their website says this:

"The NCAA is no different than other highly visible nonprofit organizations that raise significant revenue but spend it in beneficial ways that are consistent with federal law. In the case of the NCAA, the benefit is the education of student-athletes within the collegiate model of athletics. That model calls for student-athletes to participate in sports as an avocation while balancing their academics, social and athletics experiences. The NCAA believes the entertainment qualities of intercollegiate athletics do not diminish the educational value of those programs."


They spend their money in "beneficial ways that are consistent with federal law" but create rules that back student athletes into a corner while allowing them to pull in billions of dollars displaying their gifts and talents on national platforms.

Under NCAA rules, an athlete on full scholarship may work but may not be allowed to earn more than $2,000 during the school year. Let's break this down:

A school year is roughly 9 months. That averages out to about $222/mo an athlete is allowed to earn before taxes. After taxes it's about $180 (or $90 every two weeks). Hardly seems worth it, eh?

So unless you make up the difference of what you may need over the summer (vacation time... no such limits during this time), you're broke. I mean, really broke.

Under these circumstances, what can you say to athletes who are in school and have children when someone offers them $1,000??? What do you say to kids who get their utility bills paid by people because their own parents can't help them do it because they're just as broke as the student?

What about the Ohio State kids who traded memorabilia for tattoos? Some yo-yo wants an autographed baseball cap from a player to give him a tat -- and the baseball cap was probably GIVEN to him in the first place (by "given" I'm implying that the article of clothing/item belongs to the athlete, not the school). What happens, the rules get him suspended for half the season next year and/or possibly kicked out of school. Could these athletes have had the money to afford to pay for these services? Probably. Who knows. What's next... is the NCAA going to keep tabs on kids' bank accounts too?

When I ran Division I track/xc in college, I had a car that I had to keep gas in, keep up insurance payments on (that were high at one time because I hadn't had my license very long), and keep up maintenance on. If you add that up, I'm well over the monthly limit that the NCAA allows. Fortunately, God blessed me with summer internships and great parents. Whenever I needed anything, I was able to get it. However, I knew some other athletes who were not so fortunate.

I watched students on full scholarships have issues getting books from the bookstore because their "vouchers" didn't cover enough. I watched students struggle to pay phone/utility bills in school because they were living in an on-campus apartment setup under scholarship but they were broke and their parents were too. Heck, when I was running, I remember I had to ask my mom to mail care packages to me because we didn't get out of practice early enough to get a decent selection of food out of the cafeteria before it closed. Consequently, one year I ended up losing over 20 lbs in one month because of it and when I came home my mom thought I was sick (she never questioned my care package requests again).

I wish the NCAA knew how many athlete friends of mine had come to my apartment for pot lucks, etc just to get a decent meal because the rules won't allow them to afford gas AND groceries (sounds a lot like what America is going through now). If I was in their situation and needed food for my apartment, a couple bags of groceries for a track sweatshirt seems like an unfair trade, but if I'm hungry, I might have done it. If I needed books, I might have considered it (and I was an engineering student... those books ran $500-$600/semester between 2000-2004).

Then if you break the rules, you can get suspended, or worse, have your scholarship taken away (or in some cases kicked out of school). If they take your scholarship, where does the money go? Back to the school. Usually to fund another puppet. Where did the money come from? Oh yeah, television network deals, fines, etc. paid out to the NCAA. Just one crazy cycle.

So Dear NCAA, If you really want to spend your money in a beneficial way, how's about making it possible for students to earn more than milk money while being an athlete or give them some sort of stipend that would cover their survival expenses while being a college student. And don't tell me you don't have the resources to do it either.

Follow me on twitter: @NFLHustleBabe