JOCK ENGLISH

2006-01-08T11:28:00.000-08:00

JOCK ENGLISH:

Here’s the letter I wrote to the LA Times, along with responses. If you want to add yours, feel free:

To: Sports@latimes.com:

The most shocking part of the Rose Bowl was the illiterate interview given by the MVP, Texas third year student Vince Young ("They was doin' a great job," among many others). Don't major universities have an obligation to educate the athletes they exploit?
Tony Medley

From screenwriter/columnist Burt Prelutsky:

****(I guess not. But considering how much moolah guys like Young and Bush are going to sign for, thanks to their "exploitation," I'd have to say, if that's exploitation, where do I go to get myself exploited?)
Burt

You're a writer; you've been exploited all your life. Tony

****(It was my choice to be a writer, though, just as it's a football player's choice to play for USC or Texas.) Burt

Well, I know nobody gets the last word with you, but universities exploit players because they make millions off of them and don't pay them a dime. Anything they get out of it is on the come, which is still a long shot, even if they don't get hurt. And they don't educate them or make them go to class, so they are depriving someone who really wants an education of one. Tony

****(That doesn't constitute exploitation. Keep in mind, though, that I am anti-college sports. I think it's shameful that college coaches are paid millions of dollars and that athletes take up space that should go to actual students. I think grads are silly who determine whether to contribute to their alma maters based on how well the teams perform are a bunch of bozos. Professional teams, be they football or basketball, should have minor league systems just like baseball. For good measure, I would do away with the NCAA. I would also put a halt to Olympic Games.) Burt

The only thing wrong with this is that it does, indeed, constitute exploitation. In fact, it's a poster child for exploitation. Tony

****(How so? They play football in exchange for room and board, an education if they want it, good coaching, and the opportunity to display their wares to potential employers waiting in the wings to make them millionaires. Exploitation, to my mind, consists of little kids earning pennies in Third World countries making over-priced sneakers so that Michael Jordan can become even richer than he already is.) Burt

I'll be happy to explain it to you. They take in people unqualified to be studying at their university for the sole purpose of them playing sports (UCLA, to my knowledge, doesn't even have a physical education major, so they have to major in something like kinesiology even if they never go to class). The only reason they are there is to play football or basketball. They think they are going to play in the NFL or NBA, but the odds are hugely against them. But the school makes millions off of their labors and gives them nothing in return. Don't talk about room and board and an "education if they want it." You and I know that's piffle. If the university said, "we'll give you room and board and an education if you want it and in return we 're going to make millions off you and cut you loose and the odds are you are going to be unemployable as an athlete and will end up doing manual labor," how many would take it? Virtually none. That, my friend, is exploitation.

****(Sorry, but I have to disagree. Whether the school makes money isn't the determining factor. If you told an ignorant 18-year-old that the odds are slim that he'll have a professional career, but for the next four years, you will get to play all the ball you want, have easy access to thousands of coeds, get to see your name in the paper, perhaps get to play before TV audiences in the millions...or he can go get a job doing manual labor starting tomorrow, I doubt if he would view the scholarship as exploitative. And neither would I. A slim chance at making millions beats no chance at all, which is why so many people play the lottery.)

Burt

2005-10-23T19:57:00.000-07:00

Removing Starting Pitchers

Andy Pettite is pitching a masterful game. For no reason he’s pulled after six innings. Chisox load the bases on the first reliever. He’s pulled. Second reliever allows a grand slam home run to the first hitter he faces. Yet nobody in the world but me questions why a perfectly good starting pitcher is pulled after six strong innings. This is why modern day baseball stinks. Starting pitchers should finish the game. Managers lose more games by pulling starting pitchers for no reason than they win with all the other decisions they make.

2005-10-20T10:34:00.000-07:00

Handling Pitchers.
Cardinal manager Tony Larussa epitomizes the ineptness of baseball managers when it comes to handling pitchers. In the second inning Houston had runners on first and second and the batter put down a sacrifice bunt. Mulder, the Cardinal pitcher, had the runner at third out by 20 feet, but he choked and went to first. I would have had the bullpen up in a trice because my pitcher was clearly choking. Then he threw a wild pitch, so wild it was BEHIND the batter, allowing the runner to score from third. I would have pulled him, and I’m the guy who believes starters should finish games. Then he allowed a hard single to left driving in the second run. If I hadn’t pulled him after the wild pitch he would have been out of there after the single. This guy clearly did not have it. But Larussa is so clueless he didn’t even have anyone get up in the bullpen.

Later, in the top of the seventh, down 4-1, he was doing that idiotic thing of pulling his pitchers after each batter, the lefty-righty absurdity (a right hand pitcher to a right hand batter, etc). These guys just don’t understand pitching, and since pitching is 80% of baseball, they don’t understand baseball.

Random Thoughts

JOCK ENGLISH