Fun Friday is about my dumb ideas, and if I have none of those, it's about just plain being dumb for a day.  IJWMFTT strives to be the best at casting a critical eye on the sports landscape.  Certainly you'll begrudge me one day a week to escape.

Here are some ideas that were crazy.  Well, they were crazy because they didn't work.  But I think they could have, or maybe should have, worked:

Crazy idea: The CFL goes stateside

What was it?  The CFL made its way to the US in 1993 with the remanants of the WLAF's Sacramento Surge becoming the Gold Miners.  Baltimore, Birmingham, Las Vegas, Memphis, and Shreveport also joined the league.  Sacramento later moved to San Antonio.  These teams were initially incorporated into the league's East/West format, before trying a North/South format.

Why it failed: The Cleveland Browns moved to Baltimore.  The Stallions were the league's US success story.  They drew 42,000 fans on a regular basis.  They appeared in the Grey Cup game both years they were in the league - winning it in 1995.  The city was also supposed to host the 1997 title game.  With the news that the NFL had returned to Baltimore, owner Jim Speros felt he could not compete for entertainment dollars (a move to College Park to draw a regional fan base was briefly rumored, but never materialized).  The team relocated to Montreal as no viable location in the states could be found.  The other teams closed up shop as well.  These were southern cities, and the CFL tag didn't seem to inspire fans.

Why it should have worked: The league should have rebranded itself.  With a wider field, rules that encouraged throwing, and other nuances, the product had a certain level of differentiation.  The North/South format felt like AFL/NFL. 

Crazy Idea: "This is THE XF-ELLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL!"

What was it? A spring football league, that like the CFL, put teams in secondary markets.  They also had teams in the three biggest cities, hoping that by volume, it would work.  The coin flip was a sprint to the ball on the 50 yard line.  Punts were interesting.  There were three point conversions.  And overtime was done right.  Each team got a possession, but the second team had to score in as many downs as the first team had scored.

Why it failed: NBC broadcast the wrong game in week one.  Featuring the New York team was supposed to be a big deal.  They lost 19-0 in a terrible game.  When the game ended, the national audience got to see the end of a 32-29 game between Chicago and Orlando.  That was it.  People can talk about marketing, the link to wrestling, and the dumber things they did.  That stuff could be changed.  What couldn't be changed was the perception of 10 million fans that tuned in on week one.  The football was inferior.  Maybe yes, maybe no.  Certainly that first game was.

Why it should have worked: McMahon was right.  The NFL had become an antiseptic league.  Being a co-owner, NBC was scared off by the ratings.  The league was solvent.  The secondary broadcast partners (UPN) were able to make demands, knowing that NBC was out of the game.  The NFL won't admit it, but a lot of camera angles and field level sound are XFL additions to the game.

Any others?  Disco demolition night?  The NASL?  Discuss...

It is debatable as to whether "hype week" has a real purpose.  At some point, aren't people hyped out?  Further to the point, there isn't always that chic match-up.  Such is the case this season.  People can try as they might, but the Whisenhunt angle falls flat.  Whisenhunt may have been passed over, but Mike Tomlin has a significantly better record in this small sample size.  Plus, there were Rooney Rule implications.  All things considered, this situation has worked well.

Another drawback to hype week is the extra week to analyze the game.  By the time Jaws, Hoge, Ismail, Dilfer, Faulk, Deion, Sal Pal, Mooch, Eisen, Lindsay Soto, Mary, Strong, and Michelle Tafoya have given their two cents, one feels like the game has been palyed.  And I haven't even mentioned the cavalcade from the network that will actually broadcast the game!  I once attended a Super Bowl party, and was told to shush during the commercial breaks.  The game was incidental to these people.  The commercials?  Well that is the programming I guess.

For the most part, the Super Bowl winds up being like Woodstock.  But Woodstock was awesome!?!  I'm told that the way you can tell those who were there from those who claimed to have been there is if someone says it was a giant, stinking pit of mud with bad sound, then they were probably there.  Same with the Super Bowl.  But for home dwellers, it goes a little different.  Everyone thinks they will host the Super Bowl party during the Super Bowl when something awesome happens.  Of course what winds up happening is, you clean up, wondering why you made so much dip, whilst the season premier of The Simpsons, plays in the background.

So what about the game itself?  What is the key to winning?  Well, to be cynical, it's like winning any other game.  There is a school of thought that winning means having to break tendencies.  With two weeks of film study, do something that the other team didn't see on film.  It could explain Randle-El to Ward, or "touchdown Mike Vrabel."  No team wins consistently with all trick plays in the post-season, or the regular season.

This really is like all the other games.  The team that treats it as such will win.  The team that plays like they are chasing history will never catch it.  How many teams have won this game with a "Super Duper Super Secret Super Bowl Plan?"  Did the Bears say "Let's double down on Fryar.  It's okay if Eason has time?"  Did the Ravens say, " It's kinda warm.  How about we have Trent air it out today?"  Did Parcells say, "I think we should match Kelly's no huddle with one of our own?"

Breaking tendencies has its place.  Give them the look they have seen before, and then hit them with something they haven't.  But that doesn't work unless you have initially imposed your will on the other team.  Sure Dominic Rhodes was the de facto MVP of a Super Bowl. And Dilfer did hit Brandon Stokley for a long touchdown.  While we're at it, William Perry scored a touchdown, and Stephen Baker caught a critical third down ball.  These things only happen after you establish Walter Payton, Priest Holmes/Jamal Lewis, and OJ Anderson.  In other words, they happen after you establish your tendencies.

So will win based upon my theory?  I don't know.  We will have an idea after each team has a series.  If the Cardinals feel compelled to run the ball because, the football book dictates it, the Steelers win.  If the Steelers feel that they have to play finesse defense to prevent big plays, then Kurt Warner is smart enough to exploit that.  So I'm saying that either the Cardinals or Steelers will win.  That's the kind of insight you get at IJWMFTT.      

Last week, IJWMFTT highlighted some undervalued commodities in the MLB market place, and wondered what forces are in play.  This week, we look at teams that could be signing said commodities, but are crying poverty.  But first, a parallel in "real life."

Folks, you are being swindled by the Governor of Maryland.  The school districts of Prince Georges County and Baltimore City are having their education entitlements slashed a reported total of $58 million.  Oh, but don't worry.  The Federal economic stimulus plan (these work so well, I can't wait) will have education earmarks that will offset the shortfall.  At least, that's what the Governor believes.

The point really is, so what if the Governor is correct?  It really isn't stimulus is it?  It seems more like putting into one pocket what you already took from another.  Let me frame this issue for you.  The Governor of Maryland (Martin O'Malley, D-MD) is cognisant of the fact that schools in the poorest of areas will be underfunded by his own pen, and is willing to explain it away by saying that your grandchildren in Oregon (great-grandchildren at this rate) will make up the difference. 

I'm sorry, but that is gross negligence.  At the risk of getting too political, one side of the aisle sees government as a giant teet that can be filled or suckled at will.  "What we can't do ourselves, Washington will do for us."  Hello!  What part of $10.6 trillion do you not understand?!?  Washington doesn't have it either.  As a Nation, we bear the burden of this debt.  O'Malley is willing make some L.A. family pitch in for education in Seat Pleasant, Maryland.  Gross negligence.

Naturally, O'Malley called a special session of the General Assembly in 2008 to "fix" the inherent structural flaws in the budget.  The sales tax was raised to six percent (Brilliant when you consider that at least seven counties are within a twenty minute drive of sales taxless Delaware).  Other fees were added.  On top of that, a surplus of services were added. 

So of course, O'Malley fails to realize that HE is the inherent structural flaw in the budget.  He needed to fund his health insurance initiatives. The next time a politician tells you they will provide better health care, ask them where they got their medical degree.  The biggest con they have is to tell you that you need their plan in order to receive better care.  We have the some of the best doctors and researchers in the world.  No Governor or President can improve that.  All they can do is tinker with the insurance policies that fail citizens.  Often, it's a plan they paved they way for in the first place. 

***

The Washington Nationals have a new, publicly financed stadium, for which they sometimes pay rent (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/07/10/ST2008071002737.html) and charge higher than MLB average ticket prices.  They receive $26 million from a network they invested no capital to start (I guess one could say that the price of the team built in some of that capital in their deal with Angelos and MLB).  The payroll is twenty-sixth, behind Kansas City and Minnesota (more on them). 

The Nationals, in some sense, have a responsibility to the city.  The stadium was sold as a project that would have ancillary benefits.  A second downtown would be built around the stadium along the Anacostia waterfront.  Jobs would be falling off trees.  Neighborhoods would then rejuvenate.  It would all come together with this baseball team as the centerpiece.  If the team isn't worth watching, will people really care about job seeking in this congested area?  If the team isn't worth watching, will the City reap the amusement and concessions taxes?

The argument is that investing money on players is not guaranteed to provide a return, financially or competetively.  Minnesota's late Carl Pohlad was perhaps the biggest offender.  The guy was rich.  He could write the checks.  He just didn't do so until revenue sharing took effect.  Even then, what he spent on Livan Hernandez and other mediocre talent, could have gone to Johan.  Do you think Johan had a WARP above 1 (the number of games out of the playoffs they finished)?  Kansas City, Colorado, and the Florida clubs have said, "thanks Misters Henry and Steinbrenner for the free money."  Well I guess it isn't free.  Someone has to go out there and provide the Yanks and Sawx with the wins needed to keep the franchises booming.

The Lerner family appears to be willing to underfund the Major League product, banking on big brother to help maximize the team's profits.  While I never cry for the Yankees (who spend money like its water on players, but cry poverty on a stadium), it does seem negligent that they are forced to be the Oregonian grandchild paying for today's Baltimorean education.

Baseball needs to sure up its revenue sharing standard.  The standard is vague in that the money needs to be used to help the on-field product.  Instead of paying for stadium repairs that might already cost less than an increase in payroll, teams can use the funds to make those repairs and cover other expenses, declaring that the stadium experience is part of the on-field product.  Of course, the Nationals don't have to worry about such things.  They keep sending a punch list to DC. 

So I ask, why is Oliver Perez likely headed back to the Mets?  Why can't someone get an incentive laden deal done with Ben Sheets?  Why won't an AL team make Adam Dunn their DH?  Big brother is paying for it.  Get to it!

Link to deadspin and Elijah Dukes' issues.  Hey how about saving the $40k and buying players who don't need to be baby-sat?

If you haven't read IJWMFTT's economy watch, then what you have missed is that economic news is bad.  The fundamentals, and this got someone in hot water, are still strong.  Unfortunately, the fundamentals aren't driving this ship.  Reporting the news always as bad keeps the media relevant, and gives Congressional busy-bodies something to do.  That something is typically what creates the hiccups in the first place, that the media says, "needs fixing."  It's a vicious cycle.

Nobody has addressed the major ill of our economy - the desire to show impossible levels of sustainable growth in certain assets.  If the GDP grew at a lower rate than the previous quarter, this was bad news.  "The economy is growing less.  It's a recession."  Now we're in a REAL recession, and we don't know what to make of it. 

Sensible growth should be the goal.  But Congressional terms are two years.  We don't have time for Congressman to show how long term policies work for you.  No, asset bubbles are how we define the economy.  First it was stocks.  Then it was housing.  Then it was oil.  Now it appears to be gold.

Loans for everybody who can't pay them, and loans for flippers who drive up housing prices under the name of regentrification!  When the money was "free," sellers had no qualms about selling at inflated prices.  Now, the money is somehow more free (shouldn't rates be rising as default risk rises - does the Fed even underrstand the composition of its own interest rates?), and that market has stalled.  Oil was being purchased by those who had no intent to distribute it.  As long as we had the demand, oil companies paid the premium price, and so did we.  Once demand fell (in quantity and ability to purchase), prices plummeted.

In baseball, the Texas Rangers once bid against themselves to secure the services of Alex Rodriguez for $252 million dollars.  Kevin Brown, Roger Clemens, Manny Ramirez, Jason Giambi, and Barry Bonds received deals this decade that created a magnet for the next tier of free agents. 

Now there are concerns about fan demand.  We hear baseball attendance is at an all-time high.  Demand, in classic economic terms, is the ability to purchase.  If revenues are threatened, so too should salaries. 

Despite the Yankees binge, they have shed about $40 million in payroll.  The Orioles just locked up Nick Markakis, perhaps the best right fielder in baseball, to deal that pays $11 million per year.  That is a relatively cheap deal considering Bobby Abreu made $16 million, and Vlad Guerrero on the edge of prime made $14.5 million in 2008.

We have been conditioned to believe that markets are entitled to rise.  Any blip must immediately be fixed (pulls a number out of a hat - yeah $700 billion should do.  No?  Let's try again.  How does $825B sound?).  In baseball, it would seem that Markakis should be making "Abreu money."  Market correction?

Also look at the current free agent market.  Ben Sheets is still available.  So too is Ivan Rodriguez, after Greg Zaun goes for $1.5 million.  Certainly I-Rod can still fetch $2-$3 million coming off a $12.3 million campaign at age 36. 

The question should be asked - is this a much needed market correction, or are we talking about the dreaded c-word?  If the asset bubble on baseball players has burst (as others like the ones above), will ticket prices fall in line?  Some teams (Washington for example) have lowered prices.  Others like Toronto and Minnesota are selling some "creative" season ticket packages.  If we are talking the c-word, the owners are doing a more clever job of disguising it than when they jobbed out Andre Dawson in the late 80s.

FOX community, have at it.  Are the owners up to something, or is the econimic writing on the wall for the players? 

Ben sheets via SI.com (linked) is available.  Could he be yours at $13.3 million?  How about an Oliver Perez at $7 million?

First off, for those keeping score, that's a Moody Blues, Gregg Easterbrook, and Peter King reference - all in one title.  This is why you should be reading IJWMFTT.

Today's Talk Tuesday topic is Cowboy fan NFL writer and blogger extraordinaire, Peter King.  Peter is a good interview, but I find myself disagreeing with many of his points.  To that end, he's good radio.  Not every listener needs affirmation.  Confrontation is good too. 

Last week, Peter King made sense of the Arizona Cardinals by declaring they are, "borderline the Rays making the World Series in my opinion."  Okay, as IJWMFTT readers know, just saying "in my opinion" does not absolve you from being subject to critique.

To help make my point, I enlist the help of this video


Of more help is a concept brought forth by Ian (Sports Through My Eyes in the favorites section right about here ------------------------------------------------>) Ian referenced game overdogs and franchise overdogs.  A game overdog is the favorite.  A franchise overdog draws on the tradition, intangibles, or just the plain old aura a team exudes in a match-up.

Peter King made his assessment by viewing the teams as "franchise underdogs."  The Rays and Cardinals have no winning tradition in their favor.  Both have a hard time selling out their building.  Both play indoors, and oddly enough, I can't think of many teams this side of the Colts that have maintained success indoors.  Does that matter?  Who knows?  Franchise overdogging is about perception.

The similarities end at the franchise underdog door.  The Cardinals and Rays, from a seasonal outlook, took different paths to get to the cusp of greatness.  The Rays won two September series from the second place Red Sox in order to win the division title.  Even if the Rays had blown two of those games, they would have won the wild card by six games.  They Rays started the month of September thirty-two games above .500, and ended it thirty-two games above .500.

The Cardinals headed into Thanksgiving at 7-3.  They ended the season 9-7.  The lowest point total surrendered to close the season was 35.  The second place team in the Cardinals division did not receive a wild card berth.  In other words, it was take the West or stay home.  Remember that video?  If the Gore call goes the other way, we're talking tiebreakers for this team.  That's hardly similar to how Tampa made the playoffs and won the ALCS.