we as bloggers all have opinions as to how sports can be altered to better meet our needs as fans.  while we all have differing ideas as to how this can be accomplished, but we generally require lots of scoring (why soccer hasn't taken off), lots of action (why baseball games are tedious to watch in their entirety), and a solid understanding of rules and strategies (why hockey fails to crack the top three in america). 

but beyond those aspects of on-the-field rules changes (perhaps the subject of a later posting), there are many "behind the scenes" changes i feel are needed in the current sports environment.  these are manipulations of rules regarding issues in sports that do not directly affect the on-field performance, but are still ifluential in how we watch and perceive sports.  here are five such changes i believe are necessary:

1) Enact a salary cap in baseball

why its needed: while parity in baseball has been more substantial during the last decade, with teams like the marlins and diamondbacks winning the world series and wild card and smaller market teams succeeding deep into the playoffs, the larger markets and more powerful teams still drastically attract the talent pool.  bottom-dwelling teams like the devil rays, royals, rockies, marlins, and pirates act as an extended farm system for the yankees, red sox, cubs, mets, angels, and dodgers.  to put this in perspective, last year the yankees' payroll was just under $200 million, compared with the marlins' $14 million.  you read that correctly; you could square the marlins' payroll and it would still be less than that of the yanks.  each year, it is a case of the smaller market teams bringing up their young talent (acquired through their good draft positions and trades with the larger market teams) and having them individually succeed while the team fails.  following this "tryout," one of the more prominent teams offers up more money than the weaker team could ever hope to match, and that player moves out of an area where he is beloved and offers a ray of hope to a fledgling franchise.  don't be surprised if carl crawford, alex gordon, hanley ramirez, carlos quentin, and other young studs end up in new york or boston.

how it can happen: just like the nba and nfl, cap the salaries that can be offered to a full roster of players.  instead of wild spending sprees each offseason that encourage teams to bid up mediocre players and lavish good ones, have the contract negotiations mean something.  have general managers and scouts do their job by identifing bargain and bust players, and operate within the salary cap.  there is no need to drastically cut salaries overnight - the cap could start at $180 million and shrink by $10 million a year for 3-5 years.  that way, teams like the yankees would need to curtail spending, while owners of the pirates, marlins, and royals could increase theirs with the knowledge that they can't always be outbid.

why it won't happen:  the player's union and larger market teams would never agree to this, since it is these groups who have originally inflated player salaries and now reap the benefits.  also, smaller market teams gain funds through revenue-sharing and the luxury tax.  these teams make more money (as a percentage of total income) than larger market teams since their payroll is so small and their take from revenue sharing is so high.  while fans of these teams have long complained about the ownership inactivity, the owners themselves see these teams as business ventures set up to bring in revenue, and under the current system that is precisely what they do. 

2) Establish a tournament in college football   

why its needed: championships, seedings, careers, legacies, memories, and livelihoods of college student athletes, coaches, and fans are decided by computers and out-of-touch sportswriters.  the former of these ranking systems is too objective and the latter too subjective.  with so much riding on each game, including the lifelong dreams and livelihoods of so many underprivledged young adults, any discrepancies in rankings and seedings should be played out on a field where the individuals the outcome effects are the only ones who have an affect on the outcome.

how it can happen: immediately following the end of the regular season, begin playing a 16-team tournament with the top 2 teams earning first round byes.  there is well over a month (and sometimes close to two) between the end of the season and the bcs bowl games, which is ample time to play through the rounds of the tournament.  other non-bcs games are irrelevant the way it is, and can be played during the week between these tournament games.  can you imagine watching bcs tournament games friday night and saturday throughout the day, then nfl on sunday for a month and a half straight?  the whole tournament would be over by the time the nfl playoffs roll around, and wouldn't take away any viewership or interest from the pro league.  the higher-ranked teams would get homefield for each matchup, with the "final four," third place, and championship games being played on neutral sites, which would constitute the 4 existing bcs games we have now, rotating each year for the championship.  this way, teams like boise state, who finish the year undefeated, would have a chance (albeit slim) to knock off ohio state and florida, negating any guesswork about who is college football champion.

why it won't happen: there is too much money to be made by schools, administrators, ncaa officials, and bcs system supporters to have them change the current methodology.  year after year there exists a split national title, or several schools who stake some claim to the trophy, clouding the awarding of the championship in controversy.  likewise, year after year bcs supporters point out the flawlessness of their system (its computer-based and objective, it rewards playing tougher opponents, etc.) while attacking several aspects of an idea such as this (the season would be too long, recruiting would be cut short, there is a risk of injury, the other bowls would be negated, etc.).  basically, those with the power have too much invested interest in maintaining the status quo.

3) Allow basketball players to skip college and enter the NBA draft

why its needed: i am a staunch proponent of an 18-year-old age indicating one becoming a consenting adult in all ways, shapes, and forms.  if one can be sent to fight and die for a cause determined by one's nationality, then one can also make his or her own decisions within the confines of the law.  in the case of basketball, i believe david stern was misguided in his attempt to "save young men from themselves" by instituting the rule requiring players to attend at least one year of college or turn 19 before entering the nba draft.  not only does it prohibit young men with a talent from earning money and providing for their family as an adult, it has also damaged the college game as well.  while many will point to durant, oden, conley, wright, and others enhancing the college game, there also exist many negatives to this rule.  first, these student-athletes are failing classes knowingly because they will be gone the following year, jeopardizing the academic integrity of the school.  second, the turnover on teams will be too great, hindering the recruitment process and making it hard for fans to establish affinity for a player.  finally, each year many players will be in the national spotlight for many months, taking away from the team concept and being a distraction as they look toward the future.  

how it can happen: simply put, david stern must revoke the ruling and allow 18 year old adults to enter the nba draft.  if he is concerned about these young men getting misinformed about their future and promised riches and influence they can't acheive, then enact a rule that allows high school players who sign with an agent and go undrafted to re-enter college for another year or have a supplemental draft for the nbadl.  if funding and marketing efforts are increased for the dl, then these players can still support families, as well as build a name for themselves.  if done correctly, the dl can act as a farm system for the nba, and more prominent and recognizable faces will enter this league for grooming before their time in the nba.

why it won't happen: america has already fallen in love with durant and oden, and many believe that they would not have seen these stars in action before the nba draft if not for this rule.  a higher percentage of draft picks will be more recognizable, as there will be more from american colleges, less foreign players, and no high school players.  we like to know our stars, and this rule allows us the opporunity to get to know them before they are professionals.  the only problem is that this rule violates their rights as americans.

4) Universalize or eliminate the DH  

why its needed:  in no other professional sports league are two divisions or  conferences seperated by an on-field rule such as this.  imagine if only the afc counted safeties, or only the nba's western conference allowed dribbling with either hand, or only the nhl's atlantic division enforced power plays.  this drastically changes the way the game is played, and as teams go through a season, their mindset, strategy, etc. are completely different than other teams in the same league vying for the same title.  its somewhat comforting to know that when the heat play the bulls, they will be playing by the same rules and using the same positions as the clippers do when they play the spurs.  in mlb, this isn't the case.  when the indians and red sox duel, ortiz and hafner slug it out and then ride the pine while their team fields.  however, when the cardinals and cubs play a series, chris carpenter and carlos zambrano have to face each other in alternating roles usually two or three times a game.  furthermore, stats and awards are heavily affected by this rule.  national league pitchers have an easier role, since they do not face a dh.  in addition, mvp awards and hall of fame honors are kept from dhs due to their role (there has not been a full-time dh mvp or hall of fame inductee in the history of the game).  i am not a proponent of either side of this coin - both have positive and negative aspects.  however, the fact that two leagues have a rule so divisive between them is absurd.

how it can happen:  perhaps a trial period can be enacted to test the alternate rule in each league prior to a leaguewide vote.  interleague play does not offer a long enough period of time to adequately test this new rule.  this way, american league managers can throw pitchers out to bat and use pinch hitters and runners more selectively, while national league teams can move an underacheiving fielder but overacheiving hitter to the dh slot, upgrading two aspects of the team (i.e. dodgers' use of piazza).  of course, players like ortiz and hafner would need to learn a position, but i don't think that too many national league pitchers (minus arroyo) would mind taking a break between innings instead of stepping to the plate.

why it won't happen: both leagues are too set in their ways and too many memorable moments have happened on either side of this rule (fisk's waving hr in boston, gibson's walk-off in la, etc.), that either side can defend their position.  in addition, too many players make too much money as dhs to ever allow that position to be given up.  the al is considered more competitive and exciting because of the dh, and the players' union would certainly never allow the dh to be abolished.  on the flipside, the nl embraces the strategic element of pinch hitting and pitchers hitting too much to give up.  being that a rule change would require 2/3 of the vote, it will not be happening in the near future.

5) Guarantee NFL contracts  

why its needed: the nfl is the only major professional sports league that does not guarantee its players the dollars for which they signed, regardless of length of time with the team, quality of play, etc.  many point to this aspect of the league as a positive, as players must keep up their level of play in order to retain the contract they were awarded.  however, there are several reasons why this is a misinformed position to take.  first, teams backload contracts in order to push players away following their prime and take the least amount of salary cap hit they can.  for instance, a player can be signed for 5 years, $25 million.  at face value, this looks like a standard $5 million/year salary, which is pretty good.  however, it could look like this: year 1 - $2 million, year 2 - $3.5 million, year 3 - $4.5 million, year 4 - $7 million, year 10 - $10 million.  the team may have every intention of cutting a player after year 2 or 3, meaning that they only pay about 20-30% of the total contract, even after the player provides almost half the service to the team.  second, if a player is injured, there is no team accountability to pay him after the injury.  football is a violent sport, marred with career-altering or ending injuries.  under the current structure, if a player breaks his leg and is unable to play ever again in the first year of his deal, he is cut and the team takes that money back, without taking a cap hit.  third, teams could not spend frivolously and overpay mediocre players.  they would be held more accountable to their financial decisions, since cutting or releasing a player would result in the team taking the financial hit for as long as the contract lasted after that.  finally, the nfl's treatment of ex-players has long been scrutinized, hindering the livelihood of a cut or injured player following their career.

how it can happen: the nfl and nflpa would simply need to agree on this change to the collective bargaining agreement, and allow players to collect all the money owed to them over the course of the contract.  although original contracts would be cheaper, the amount would be guaranteed, thus allowing the players to focus on their performance, instead of remaining healthy.  in addition, their financial future would be guaranteed, so making choices with regards to finances would be easier and less controversial.  teams would also be willing to listen to this offer, since there would not be so much salary cap manipulation year in and year out.

why it won't happen: although the nflpa would tend to agree with this stance, the owners would not.  while the owners would have a bit more simplicity and order in their negotiations, the thought of paying a player long after he has been released or injured is too much for them.  they would also be concerned with a performance drop-off with guaranteed money, as well as an inability to sell or move the club with so much already set.  

much has been made of competition throughout the history of sports.  the idea of setting, developing, and retaining a solid and consistent level of competition is at the heart of every sporting culture.  without riveting contests, the sports world implodes, as all elements of its subculture implode upon itself. 

without the realistic chance of victory, teams, players, and coaches fail to focus their energy and attention on their craft, thus lowering both quality of play and expectations.  these lowered expectations and general apathy towards a sport fails to capture the attention of its fan base, whether it be a city, region, or nation.

cases like these occur frequently in sports.  each year, there are teams designated and relegated to fail before competition begins.  as spring training is upon us and baseball season less than two weeks away, the kansas city royals once again find themselves in this cycle.  their owner has spent little money, thus the quality of players is subpar, thus the coaching and existing players will begin to exert less energy in a few months, thus the city will fail to rally behind its team.  everyone who knows baseball knows this, and it is an inevitability.

a point of contention in this debate is the existence of dynasties.  namely, the issue of dynasties as they relate to the popularity and advancement of a sport or league is paramount in dissecting parity within the sporting realm.  i believe that if a team or competitor is viewed as doing things "the right way," he/she/it is exalted and praised.  the patriots built their teams through the draft and were led to three championships in four years by a designated backup qb and a failed nfl coach.  tiger woods values only hard work and family, and exudes class each time he steps into the tee box.  these are but two examples of "the right way" to go about building a dynasty.  parity is sacrificed for the continued success of one entity in one sport, and the public accepts this because it sets a good example and warms the hearts of many.

on the other hand, think of a team or player who achieves greatness through what we deem as "improper" behavior or attitude.  all of a sudden, their acceptance is not assured, and we wait and hope for their skills to fade, replaced by a newer, fresher, and more "proper" set of competitors.  teams that employ unorthodox or unacceptable practices are not readily accepted as leaders of dynasties.  the raiders of the 70s (cheap, dirty), the pistons of the 80s (brash, inflammatory), and the unlv runnin' rebels of the early 90s (thugs, showboats) all showed the nations what we didn't want in a champion.  likewise, as barry bonds sits less than 30 home runs from immortality, we wish and pray that something breaks down, whether it is his body, psyche, or cloud of ambiguity surrounding his performance enhancer use.  we wish that innocent ryan howard or philanthropic albert pujols would increase their output enough to force barry out of our minds and off of our print pages.  aside from charging, trying, and convicting these champions in the court of public opinion, there isn't much fans can do besides wait and hope.

but what if a dynasty doesn't exist?  what if the competition is (in theory) wide open?  at that point, whether it is the retirement or movement of a key figure (think jordan leaving the bulls or montana leaving the 49ers), or simply a case of a league or the field "catching up" to the current champion, competition sets in. 

as was aforementioned, the level of competition is important to many elements of the congruity of a team and its fans.  it is also crucial to the success of the marketing of said team or athlete, and affects both the league and city which has a vested interest in his/her/its success.  in short, maintaining competition is invaluable to the success of all those associated with the sport.

certainly, the major leagues and governing bodies in both collegiate and professional sports control the element of competition in different manners.  there exist a myriad of examples - both on-field and off - to support this.  when bob gibson and pitchers became too dominant, mlb lowered the pitching mound.  when tiger outdrove everyone on the tour, the pga lengthened its courses.  when individual defenders couldn't keep up with quick guards, the nba allowed (albeit limited) zone defense. when injured quarterbacks prevented teams (without contingency plans) to compete for the remainder of a season, the nfl instituted more stringent "roughing the passer" rules.  various leagues' attempt to change rules on the field have gone a long way to maintain competition amongst its teams.

however, i would argue that off-field guidelines have done more to reach and keep a balance amongst teams.  there exists a ceiling as to how much a league's administrators can alter on-field rulings without tainting or manipulating the outcomes of games.  many of the rules have been met with disdain (i.e. steelers' lb jack lambert remarks after being informed of rules against hitting the qb: "all quarterbacks should wear dresses"), leagues risk driving away fans of the current game with too much change in a short period of time.

instead, the off-field rules, specifically economically-driven statues, have been more effective in maintaining competition.  the salary cap and free agency, now commonplace in sports, was once an exceedingly revolutionary idea.  loyalty between a team and its players was accepted and expected, and many times, the city or area where an athlete grew up and honed his skills was the same place where he showcased them.  however, some areas produce more stars than others, more prestigious institutions could easily recruit them, and more accomplished, thriving, metropolitan cities could attract them.  this created areas (and teams) of vast superiority, with little mobility possible between teams.  once a team got strong, it remained so for the foreseeable future. 

with free agency and a salary cap, players could move to teams with more need and money under the cap.  this system works exceptionally well in balancing talent amongst teams in a given league, and creates a cyclical effect capable of managing competition.  the more money a team has, the better players it can attract.  the better players it can attract, the more success it experiences.  the more success it experiences, the more money players, coaches, and personnel request.  the more money they request, the less likely the team is to be able to accommodate their needs.  the less needs that are met, the more they want to leave.  and when they leave, they go to teams with the most money (theoretically) less current levels of success.  as long as teams remain under the cap and thoroughly invested in their own success, this system will continue to work.

three of the four major sports leagues currently have this system in place.  the nhl, nba, and nfl sees a fair amount of turnover within its ranks, and even if it does not for a period of time, there still exist great expectations year in and year out due to big free agent signings or coaching overhauls (see: arizona cardinals).  however, mlb does not have a salary cap, a fact which is the main contributor to my displeasure with the sport and the league.  while the yankees and red sox and cubs spend exorbitant amounts on the best players each year, teams like the pirates, royals, and devil rays do not or cannot, rendering them irrelevant most years (the tigers' run last year and the marlins' world series in the late 90s notwithstanding).  media deals, merchandise sales, and other revenue streams that the yankees experience are not possible for smaller markets.  however, since they have no league-enforced spending limit, they are able to use this advantage to bring in the best of the best each year.  this does little to enhance parity amongst teams in baseball.

in collegiate sports, the same system applies.  while notre dame is the only ncaa school to have its own television marketing rights (with nbc), conferences have agreements with networks and media, making their schools more popular during the recruitment process.  in addition to that element, recruiting at larger, more accomplished schools is also bolstered by past success and current notoriety.  for example, roy williams can point to unc's grooming of michael jordan, record number of ncaa tournament appearances, or promise of future success, compared with thad matta selling a recruit only on the potential of “success to come" if he attends ohio state.  while there is a distinct division between the "haves" and "have nots" in collegiate athletics, that line is blurred in some sports more so than in others.

a solid case study can be seen between college football and basketball.  first of all, recruitment is the major force behind a team's success in either pursuit.  the more quality players brought in (especially since they only stay for one to four years, thus having less time to hone their skills), the more success that school will see.  as was stated before, larger and more accomplished schools have an easier time than others at attracting the best players.  one would assume that this system prevents upward or downward mobility. 

however, in only one of these sports is that the case.  in college football, there is a lack of a playoff system beyond one game.  thus, if a team has the best players and simply plays out its schedule without a hiccup, they find themselves in a bcs game.  many teams start, remain, and end on top.  that is vastly different than college basketball, where a team may begin the year on top and never fall out of the top five in either poll, but still must contend with 63 other teams each will an equal chance at the trophy to conclude their season.  they must win six games in a row to end their season if they want to be named the champions.  this is the ultimate case of injecting parity into an otherwise caste sport.

the same applies to professional sports.  like college basketball, the nfl and atp require a series of wins to earn a title.  the regular season may decide seeding, homefield, and byes, but it cannot win playoff games or matches.  a team or player must come together and focus to beat the best of the best, in succession, to win it all.  in the pga and nascar, world ranking or poll times may determine when one tees off or where one starts, but an athlete still must beat the entire field on a given day or weekend.  

the professional sports with a lower level of competition and parity are the nba and nhl, where the regular season earns homecourt or homeice and a better seeding, and there are a series of games during which some may be lost and a title still achieved.  consecutive wins are not necessary, and playing a series usually heavily favors the better of the two teams (at least more so than in the aforementioned sports).  the lowest form of parity can be found in mlb, where an abundance of regular season games determine seeding and homefield for the playoffs, but with the added spending imbalance.  again, another reason for my distaste for mlb.

every fan has their own view on issues of parity and competition.  i argue that it is a fan's loyalties which shape his or her perspective on these two elements of sport.  it just so happens that my loyalties lie with teams in various sports who do not benefit from their given league's parity rules.  basically, i am a fan of elite teams in leagues which value parity and i am a fan of fledgling teams in leagues which do not place as much importance on enhancing competition.  as a steelers and tarheels fan, i revel in their success year after year, but cringe when i know their season comes down to a series of one-game playoffs.  likewise, as an athletics and timberwolves fan, i like their ability to make the playoffs, but their consistent first-round exits to superior teams can grow old quickly.  

there is no major point to this post, just to share my thoughts about the confluent issues of parity and competition in sports.  i suppose that, come tournament time, it helps to share my bi-daily nervousness with an audience.  it just so happens that my teams never seem to benefit from the increasing or decreasing parity in any of the major sports.        

lost in the current state of affairs in the nba is the true magnificence of one of the greatest players of all time.  with so much focus on other topics - the new ball, league expansion, globalization - as well as individuals - stern, cuban, riley, artest, bryant, james, nash - the biggest ticket gets lost in the shuffle.

many analysts, league officials, coaches, scouts, and fans are likely to mention kevin garnett when talking about the league's better players...it would be foolish to think that he isn't a premier player in the nba.  but too often, those comments are followed by a qualifying statement, such as "yea, but he's never won anything" or "what a waste of talent" or "too bad he played during the same period as tim duncan." 

i agree that it is a shame his talent and ability has been utilized thus far in a mediocre city with a mediocre (at best) team, and led by subpar management.  mchale's mismanagement of the t'wolves is well-documented.  he lost three draft picks and accrued other sanctions for his illegal signing of joe smith.  his draft choices, trades, and free agent signings are suspect at best (see: olowakandi, mike james, et al.).  he assembled one solid team (with spree and cassel), in 2004, and kg led them to the conference finals, where they were beaten by the kobe/shaq juggernaut.  this year, besides ricky davis (acquired in a trade last year) and randy foye (#1 pick this year), how many timberwolves can you name? 

i was excited when rumors of a.i. to minnesota surfaced, as i am whenever talk of kg to the lakers, bulls, or another team pops up.  i truly believe that had garnett had jerry west or brian colangelo in the front office, or had a trade or a draft pick here or there went another way, we would be looking at multiple rings on kg's fingers.  i maintain that if he was in san antonio instead of tim duncan, he would have filled a hand and started on the other by now.  and if he goes to the lakers, they will contend until he and kobe choose to hang 'em up.

however, those are the wishes of the fans and pundits who know kg's true talent and know the clock is ticking on his body and his mindset.  we are the ones who want to see kg succeed at whatever cost.  no one wants to win more than he does (as is evidenced by his unparalleled work ethic and dedication, personified most often in the form of primal shrieks), but he does not agree that his loyalty to those who drafted, shaped, and aided him should be sacrificed in the process.  mchale has done juuuust enough to maintain his interest in the city and team year after year to keep him from fully engaging his suitors.

the bottom line is that as long as the status quo remains - mchale wastes time and picks/players and garnett retains his unbridled loyalty - the timberwolves will never win a championship, and kg will be remembered as a great player whose time never came.  his supporters will say he never had the talent around him, the general manager was a failure, the city never fully embraced the team, or he never received coaching necessary to win titles.  by contrast, his detractors will proclaim that his contract ate up too much of the salary cap, that he could have singlehandedly taken over any playoff series, that he choked in said series (his numbers in most categories, including scoring and rebounds, actually increased in the postseason), that if he cared about winning he would have demanded a trade, and that he was overrated from the beginning (choosing to compare him to duncan).  

while the debate over his legacy will remain long after his playing days are through, the crucial message in this post is this: realize and comprehend the greatness of what you are seeing while kg is still around.  when talking about the best players in the nba, the truly elite, once-in-a-generation players, his name should be in the first breath without question.  when speaking about dirk, nash, arenas, kobe, d-wade, lebron, etc., kevin garnett's name should be at the top of the list.  he should absolutely be considered for the mvp each and every year.  

by no means am i saying that he is always better than those aforementioned players, but his numbers, passion, personality, and uniqueness (when was the last time you saw a 7-footer with a 7'4" wingspan and a 38" vertical leap?) combine to produce a truly unbelievable basketball player.  i am not going to delve too deeply into his statistics, so i thought i would choose just two to identify his abilities, since i believe they speak to his all-around play.  first, he is the first and only player in nba history with at least 18,000 points, 10,000 rebounds, 4,000 assists, 1,200 steals, and 1,500 blocks in his playing career.  not one other player in the history of the league, no matter his talent, supporting cast, city, coach, or any other variable, has ever displayed this kind of tenacity and ability in so many categories.  second, his player efficiency rating (PER), a widely-accepted method of judging a player's effectiveness per minute on the court, has varied between 25.50 and 29.50 this century.  according to PER creator john hollinger, that range (with an average of 27.50) places garnett in the "strong MVP candidate" category (right below the "runaway MVP candidate" level)...and he has done this for 7 years now, winning the award only once.    

aside from the 10 all-star appearances, 7 all-nba teams, 7 all-defensive teams, and all the other accolades that he has compiled in his career, i believe the above lines (in bold) truly captures what kg is all about: unselfishness and team-oriented play, playing every possession as if it were your last, showing skill and desire on both ends of the floor, and stepping on the court for each game with the mindset that you want to win more than anything and can win against anyone.

off the court, his teammates and coaches sing nothing but his praises as well.  aside from one comment during the 2005 season, when he compared going into a game with going to war (blown out of proportion due to heated wartime debate in america), i cannot think of another time when he offended player, coach, group, or anyone with his language.  much of his charity work goes unnoticed, but he recently won the nba's citizenship award in 2006 for his work with hurrican katrina victims.  teammates have also never had any ill will with kg, aside from sam cassel joking that he was "too intense sometimes."  he doesn't have the rap sheet associated with stars who have been in the nba for about as long as he has (see iverson, allen and bryant, kobe).  personally, the biggest reason i chose kg as my favorite player way back when was his first act upon signing his long-term, $100+ million contract.  he moved his closest high school friends (known as the OBF, or "official block family") to houses next to his out in minnesota.  that solidified him in my mind as a person whose heart and compassion equal his talent in his craft.

i fully understand that those reading posts on this site are used to throwing around statistics and opinions, which is primarily what this author has provided in this writing.  so i ask that each person take the time out to watch a timberwolves game.  you will see kg run the offense, attract double-and triple-teams, set screens, look to pass, rebound at will, block shots, alter the direction and intention of driving guards, and he will stand out as by far the most valuable and multitalented player on the court.  statistics don't lie, and when you read in the box score that he led the wolves in 4 of 5 categories, and had 13 in the 4th quarter, that actually happened.  but look deeper into the game, and realize that they would be nothing without him...realize that this is someone the likes of whom we may not see for a long, long time. 

if you think next year will be the dawning of a new era, with the arrival of oden, durant, and wright, think again...each one of them would be lucky to be considered a "poor man's" kevin garnett. 

the recent comments made by the bulls' tyrus thomas regarding the slam dunk competition at the all-star game showed a complete lack of respect and integrity. 

in case you hadn't heard, after thomas was offered (and accepted) one of the four invitations to this year's slam dunk contest in las vegas during all-star weekend, he made some disparaging comments about his role in the event.

"I'm just going to go out there, get my check and call it a day," Thomas said. "I'm just into the free money. That's it. I'll just do whatever when I get out there." 

i have a serious problem with these statements for a variety of reasons, and on two distinct levels.  first of all, on the surface level, it is disrespectful to all competitors who could not participate due to a lack of invitation.  aside from the automatic invitation extended to reigning champion nate robinson, there were only three spots available for the remainder of the league.  assuming that seasoned veterans, benchwarmers, and the vertically-challenged do not wish to participate, that still leaves a significant talent pool willing, able, and anxious for the opportunity to showcase their skills on a national stage. 

some of the most famous dunk highlights and memorable moments (cedric ceballos' blindfold, j.r. rider's baseline between-the-legs, mj and nique's battles, vinsanity's, well, insanity) have come in the dunk contest, and have lead to notoriety and fame, along with the endorsements, fan recognition, and (albeit limited) contract leverage.  how often would you think about ced ceballos if not for the dunk contest?  

i am, however, more vehemently against these comments for what they represent about thomas' inner character.  the things he said showed an absolute lack of class and recognition of the history and integrity of the league in which he now displays his skills, as well as the means by which he earns an annual paycheck most people won't see in the better part of their lifetime.  

what has gone unmentioned to this point is a list of judges for this year's competition: julius erving, dominique wilkins, michael jordan, vince carter, and kobe bryant.  this eclectic list of dunkers (as well as nba superstars and legends) is a "who's who" of influential and irreplacable participants in nba dunk competitions, as well as the history of the league as a whole.  in fact, one could make the argument that the majority of the top plays in nba history belong to these players.  their contribution to the game of basketball, the nba, and the cities in which they played is immeasurable.

that is precisely why my blood boils when i read what thomas said about the opportunity to be judged by them on the most elite stage a dunker can imagine.  i am 23 years old, and for me, the mere thought of meeting and interacting with these icons (and i include kobe and vince in that category) would be life-altering.  if i was younger than i am, had dedicated my life to basketball, and was drafted by the city and team which called MJ theirs for almost two decades, i would be incredibly honored and would struggle to maintain composure during my performance. 

each day thomas goes to work, he must pass by the MJ statue that adorns the front of the united center, reminding him that the history of the league and his team was in part crafted and shaped by one man, with whom thomas now shares the same stage and hearts of the same fans.  now, with the chance to meet and learn from the man, he chooses to focus on the money he could see to earn, and not prepare beforehand to prove to his judges he belongs in their company and on their stage.   

thomas basically said that the opportunity to win $35,000 (prize money for the winner) outweighs the experience of sharing a special bond with these legends, and that lack of respect has lead me to cast a disparaging eye upon thomas, and i will never look at him during his career the same way.

let's hope his actions and words are not indicative of a younger, more brash breed of nba ballers devoid of a sense of history, dignity, honor, respect, and a true comprehension of how they are able to acheive all the fame and fortune that they have.