UA-59049186-1 What's Going On Sees The Sailboat - Good if it Goes
Home / Extra Points / What’s Going On Sees The Sailboat

What’s Going On Sees The Sailboat

Don’t know much about geography

To the surprise of no one, the south screwed up on geography.

If you’re still staring at this like Willam looking for the sailboat, you should be ashamed of yourself. I mean, unless you’re not from the U.S. If you aren’t from the U.S., that’s awesome. Nice to see we’ve got an international following. If you are from the U.S., you should know that’s Mississippi, not Alabama. (Also, if you didn’t get that joke, go watch Mallrats. Great movie. It’s not on Netflix, so you’ll have to find it somewhere else. Check your local video store. Maybe check at RST Video. (If you, didn’t get that joke, go watch Clerks. Another great movie. That one is on Netflix.))

I can’t believe Barry Petchesky is really this idiotic. Actually, I totally can.

Richard Deitsch wrote an article for SI asking sports media members about voicing their political opinions. On the topic of whether or not sports media members should do so, Adam Schefter said no. Barry Petchesky had a problem with that. If you want to read the article, click that link. If you don’t, I don’t blame you. I read it and found the only benefit to doing so was having fodder to call him a dope. But hey, to each his own. If you didn’t read the article, the jist of it is that it’s impossible to separate social issues from sports, “stick to sports” is a political take, and you can’t truly use sports as an escape. Problem number one here is that Petchesky completely misses the point of what Schefter was saying. This was the question:

In your opinion, should people in the sports media make their political viewpoints known publicly? If yes, why? If no, why?

This was Schefter’s answer:

No. Politics is not a normal day-to-day topic of discussion and reporting. It does not impact how we go about our jobs. Sports figures who publicize their political viewpoints only serve to divide the audience. People are drawn to sports as an escape from politics. Even for someone like Andy Katz, who gets President Obama’s NCAA picks, Andy should not have to disclose his political views because he’s doing the interview. The focus of their interaction is basketball, not politics, as it should be. Though also allow me to say that while we’re on the topic of reporting and the White House, no President ever has invited me to make his playoff picks up to and through the Super Bowl. If whichever President is in office will have me down to Washington to do this story in January, I’m all in, Democrat, Republican, independent or any party.

Tl;dr: Don’t act like Curt Schilling. Schefter answered the question in the literal sense: “no, sports reporters should not make their political viewpoints known publicly.” That is a perfectly reasonable answer. Others interviewed looked at the matter deeper than Schefter did. That’s fine, too. But to criticize Schefter for his answer is nitpicking for the sake of nitpicking and that’s coming from a nitpicker. As for my own personal feelings on the matter, I have no problem with anyone discussing politics as long as a) they stay out of Schilling territory (read: act like a clown. That’s not a problem exclusive to conservatives; a conservative just happens to be the loudest.) and b) do so in the appropriate setting. If you want to voice your opinions on the presidential election on Twitter, that’s your prerogative. I do. Others do. It’s really no big deal. Nobody’s forced to follow anybody. (Hey, Luke Harper, how ya doin’?) The actual reporting of sports is another story. Sometimes, the story calls for political discourse, i.e. a discussion of the life and career of Muhammad Ali. Other times, not so much. Like, really, what was the point of Vin Scully blasting socialism while calling a baseball game? Is nonsense like that Petchesky’s goal here? Put politics in everything? Anyway, it can be a tough line to walk, but that’s what I try to do here. If a story extends from the field and into an area where it’s impossible to not discuss politics without losing credibility in the discussion, then I talk about it. If it can be avoided, then I avoid it. Like in this piece where I mention the fall of the Canadian dollar after the Brexit, I keep it at that and talk about what that might mean for the NHL. I didn’t feel the need to insert my commentary on the Brexit because a) it wasn’t necessary and b) there are people more qualified to talk about it than me. I don’t watch NFL Insiders to hear about U.S. foreign policy, just like I don’t watch Bill Maher to hear his analysis of the Bears game. If somebody wants to host a show blending the two, that’s also their prerogative. Nobody’s forced to watch anything. Petchesky’s technically right in that everything is political – if you dig to enough degrees of Kevin Bacon, a political component really can be found in anything. But the idea that it must be addressed at every opportunity is asinine. Sports can absolutely be an escape from politics. A game can just be a game.

Bilas for NCAA Commissioner

Jay Bilas tweeted this out after the NBA Draft:

Jay went on to discuss a system somewhat similar to hockey’s, but not entirely. Bilas said players should be able to return to their teams if they don’t get drafted, or (I’m assuming) if they’re drafted late and the team wouldn’t actually be required to take them back. In hockey, 18-year-olds and players who will be 18 by September 15 of that year can declare for the draft and 19-year-olds are automatically eligible to be drafted. If a player is drafted and not signed within two years, they go back in the draft so long as they are do not turn 20 before December 31 of the draft year, as anyone not drafted by age 20 becomes a UFA. The exception here is NCAA players, whose rights the drafting teams hold their rights until August 15 after they graduate. In any case, he big difference from the NHL’s system and what Bilas proposed for the NBA is that in the NHL, teams draft you at a certain age regardless of readiness to play in the league and then bring you in when you are ready. I have been a proponent of bringing that system to the NBA for quite some time now, as it is the best answer to the one-and-done situation. The kicker here is that in order for this to be effective, the scholarship limit for basketball may need to be raised to 15 or 16. Hockey’s limit right now is 18 for D-I, but since partial scholarships can be offered, there’s no set limit on how many players teams can have on the roster. For example, Michigan had 25 on their roster last season. North Dakota had 27. Two or three extra scholarships are probably not a big deal from a Title IX perspective. If it would throw the proportions off, raise the scholarship limits for some women’s sports. That would not be such a big problem that it’s not worth doing the basketball draft the right way.

Twitter: @KSchroeder_312

E-mail: schroeder.giig@gmail.com

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *