Sports fans and pundits all share the same feeling.  It's the feeling that the NFL shield is impenetrable.  IJWMFTT loves the NFL.  Any league where non-game days are still dominated by headlines from the last game has to have some juice to it.  Whoops!  Wrong word to use nowadays.

At the same time, IJWMFTT has documented some issues with the NFL.  These issues will likely come to light in the upcoming season.  The home blackout rule will have an adverse affect on teams like the Lions, Jaguars, and Bengals.  The bungling of the roid issue in baseball has masked issues in the NFL.  The NFL is lucky that the NBA was the first to reach the matle of "thug league," so as to be sure that its problems are covered as stories of intrigue, rather than police blotter stories.  Deep pocketed owners may create a fracture in the ownership bond to create an uncapped 2010.  And of course, the NFL is trying to quietly replace NFL Films with productions from its own network.

MLB launched its own network in 2009.  Two months into its existence, it has caught the NFL network in qualtiy of content.  Grading on the curve that the NFLN has operated for over five years, and MLBN has surpassed NFLN.

The MLBN is what NFLN needs to be.  NFLN started way too late with original programming.  The "America's Game" series on NFLN is quite good.  But why wait three years.  Did the NFLN really think the public was that sgtarved for football that it could broadcast "Total Access" and "Playbook" around the clock?  The lack of original programming turned off distributors - meaning, they couldn't see paying NFLN for what they were getting,a nd then giving it away on free tier programming. 

MLBN has its flagship show called "Hot Stove."  During Spring Training, the network has an hour long show called "30 in 30," where each team will have its fifteen minutes of fame.  "Prime 9" is a list show - good for starting discussion in a sports bar.  "The Seasons" goes in depth into some of baseball's most romanticized seasons (1986, the Bob Gibson year, "Giants win the pennant"). 

Then of course, rebroadcasts of actual games.  These are great blasts from the past.  Every now and then, something pops up a la "Pop Up Video."  For instance, who hit the most home runs in the American League during the 1980s?  If you saw Fisk's return to Fenway, you would have found out that it was Dwight Evans (Eddie Murray was traded to the NL in 1988).  Many fans know that Harry Caray was also a White Sox broadcaster.  What I didn't know was that it was as recent as 1981.  That's why rebroadcasting games can be interesting.  You get to go back and hear Harry wonder as to whether this Harold Baines fellow will make something of himself.

The NFLN isn't the only guilty party in accessing its own library.  ESPN Classic is such a botched operation, that its continued existence can only be explained as ego boosting.  Branding!  "We have nine brands we maintain here at the four letter."  In fact, if you can catch any NHLN, that's a pretty good network - considering the negative pub the NHL gets for lack of television accessibility.

So the MLBN is getting it right, but it's not perfect.  It does fall into the trap of "you can never have too many people on your network."  Maybe the network is trying to establish its core players to compete with Ravech, Kruk, and Phillips.  If so, not a bad plan.  Though many seemed to dislike Harold Reynolds, I always thought the best BBTN line-up was Ravech, Reynolds, and Gammons.  If HR can go head-to-head against his old mates, it could be an interesting arms race.  For my money, I'll take Vasgersian, HR, and Mitch Williams with Tom Verducci playing the current Gammons role of insider.  

Other personalities used thus far are Mark McLemore, Al Leiter, Dan Plesac, John Hart, Jon Heyman, and Joe Magrane.  Victor Rojas and Hazel Mae have also been used in the anchor role.  McLemore would be a good "next man up," the way Eric Young is on BBTN.  McLemore has a good personality, and played different positions, so he'll have some valuable input for most situations.  Plesac and Leiter are regular, straight to the point folks.  Jon Heyman seems very "old guardy."  I remember that he picked the Diamondbacks last year as sort of a cause celebre against all those who called the 2007 season an aberration.  That's why I prefer Verducci.  He doesn't seem agenda driven.  Magrane is sort of in the Heyman camp, using baseball coloquialisms like "clutch" to make a point.  Ask him to define clutch, and I'm sure it gets murky.  But once a guy is clutch, he's clutch, and don't you question it.

All in all, it will be interesting to see what happens when the season starts.  BBTN versus MLBN.  What will you be watching?  

Ten days into his Presidency, Barack Obama signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act.  The law is designed to allow people to sue for back pay lost due to gender discrimination.  In 2007, The Supreme Court interpreted the 1963 equal pay law to mean that lawsuits had a 180 day creation window from the start of the discriminatory act.  The logic holding here was that one could accept the implied contract of a paycheck for a week of work, and then sue for a windfall.  The new law specifies that this 180 day window re-starts with each paycheck. 

So this law really doesn't guarantee equal pay (the 1963 law was supposed to cover that) as social champions would have us believe.  All it does is keep the door open for litigation under an existing law.  It's an easy campaign slogan or photo opportunity to simply declare that one is guaranteeing "equal pay for equal work."

The slogan brings me to my main issue with a left leaning social agenda.  Don't get me wrong.  Social activism has its place.  It integrated busses, made everyone five-fifths of a person, and provided voting rights that everyone was supposed to have from the beginning.  But there is a difference between crusading and muckraking.  So I guess I'm taking on the muckraking here.  Anyhow, the most left of the spectrum view work as being done for work's sake.  If we're being honest, work is done for production's sake.  That is to say, its purpose is to create value.

In the case of Lily Ledbetter, if she were as productive - or more so than her counterparts, she should receive pay with some semblance of equality.  Factors like tenure, cost of living, and basic bargaining power are included.  But all in all, it should be close, with subordinates making less.  I'm not tackling her struggle.  I am tackling those who continue to thoughtlessly trumpet the phrase, "equal pay for equal work."

Let's take the WNBA.  I worry that the activists touting "equal pay for equal work" will try using the law as a dangerous precedent.  The players, like their male counterparts, wear tank tops and try to place a ball in  a hoop that's ten feet off the ground.  "Female players should be paid similarly to the male players," would be the battle cry.  Once could say that the WNBA has no male players, but doesn't the league operate at the behest of the NBA?

Now let's look at the numbers.  The average NBA salary is $5.2 million, but any good statboy will tell you to use the median salary of $2.71 million (max deals drive up the average).  The average WNBA salary is $50,000 with a median of $40,000.  The NBA schedule is 82 games with a length of 48 minutes.  The WNBA schedule is 36 games with a length of 40 minutes.  Per minute, the NBA median pay is $688.  Per minute, the WNBA median pay is $28.

It would seem that an equal pay activist would be all over this discrepancy.  When and if it happens, I think we will finally see the flaw of the philosophy.  Per game NBA revenue (tickets only) is $857,500.  Per game WNBA revenue is $118,500.  Per player NBA revenue is $71,458.  Per player WNBA revenue is $13,166.  Over the course of a season that team figure is $70,315,000 versus $4,266,000.  Of course, this fails to incorporate revenue from merchandise and television; however, in terms of "work" the players are incidental to those revenue streams.

Another factor ignored to this point is the $12 million subsidy the WNBA receives from the above revenues, to cover operating losses.  That is a per player per minute subsidy of $66.14.  The per minute return on investment in terms of revenue and salary is $3.50 for WNBA players (salary plus subsidy).  In the NBA, this figure is $2.60.

Solely in terms of gate revenue (ignoring concessions), there is a 25% discrepancy in terms of pay and work.  But here's my question, can people sue for this 25% when their salaries have been collectively bargained?  There are many laws on the books that protect unions and the concept of unionization.  It seems that the union could ask for more.

But in the end, we're talking about the real world.  Adding concessions, merchandise, and television to the mix does matter, and that 25% quickly disappears when you factor in what that NBA player at that time ultimately means to his employer.  Without the product (the players), there is no demand.  Without demand, there is no revenue.  Without revenue, there is no profit.  Even when we dumb business down to "equal work for equal pay," shouldn't we really be talking about "eqaul pay for equal value added to the organization?"  In the case of Lilly Ledbetter, she has a case.  But for the activists out there (they exist - I know some - that's why I wrote this), you have been given a dangerous precedent to run with.  Tread lightly.  Sometimes the backlash is worse than the initial injustice.

Perhaps number forty-two feels as if he should receive the Jackie Robinson treatment.  "Retire my number and only use me in a ceremonial fashion," is the attitude of our former President.  The actual quote was, " My question to them is: Do any of them seriously believe if I had been president, and my economic team had been in place the last eight years, that this would be happening today? I think they know the answer to that: No!" http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20090216/us_time/08599187977400

This is what we despise more than anything at IJWMFTT.  This is fanboyism at its finest.  Clinton has bought into his own mythos.  His record is infallible.  After all, while he was in office, everything was great.  Well, everything he wants you to remember was great.  No mention of the fact that the Congress of 1994 was a wake-up call that businesss as usual would no longer be accepted.  A large chunk of the economic success came from budget groundwork laid in 1990, and the Telecommunications Act of 1996.  He was shot down on his primary initiatives, and rode the Congressional wave to success.  It shouldn't be shameful to say, "I executed the duties of the President per the Constitution, and it worked out well." 

So the successes are all Bill, and the failures are someone else.  Heck, just the very sight and presence of Bill and his cronies can make all problems disappear.  That's how he feels at least.

This is a problem in Major League Baseball.  The game is being led by Emperor Bud.  Can I get suspended from ESPN for badmouthing the guy?  Don't get me wrong, the guy has had some successes in his tenure.  But if he were being honest, he would admit that those successes were born from an earlier failure. 

*We have revenue sharing in MLB.  That's great, but it arose from all the other league's implementing a parity plan, whilst payroll discrepancies soared.

*We have interleague play, which has helped attendance.  That's great, but the concept has been around since the NFL merger.

*We have a drug testing policy.  Well that's great, but your most hallowed records are falling.  Furthermore, a pariah has been made into an anti-hero of sorts (Canseco).

Now Bud Selig says he isn't to blame for the steroid era.  To be fair, he claims to have pushed for testing since the mid-nineties.  And as stated many times before on this bandwidth, Faye Vincent oulawed them in 1991.  With one work stoppage in under Bud's belt, he was powerless to invoke any type of enforcement.

My problem with all of this is the marketing of the game.  Remember the home run derbies from 1998-2002?  How were they promoted?  The participants were shown in cartoon form as cyborgenic comic book heroes.  If there were no problem, why would Bud have wanted testing?  He knew there was a problem.  How did he cope with it?  He perpetutated this myth of the superhuman ballplayer.

This episode is why I call him "Emperor Bud."  He has an "aw shucks" attitude.  He's the perpetual victim - a guy in an off-the-rack brown blazer who gets the short end of the stick.  He's Jerry Lundergaard.  He goes on Dan Patrick's show eating his daily dose of hot dogs, saying things like "I, I have done what I wanted to do.  When my contract expires, I'm stepping away."  Of course, when the Mitchell Report comes out, and it gives the Commissioner carte blanche to act in the best interest of the game, who suddenly extends his term for a seven figure salary?  It's so Machiavellian.  It's right out of Palpatine's book Taking Over The Galaxy For Dummies.

That tie was all Joe Torre's fault.  Yes.  Yeeeeessssss.  Everything is going according to plan. HEH HEH HEH!

It's the middle of Fabruary, and you know what that means.  Yep, two weeks from now, Garth Brooks and Billy Crystal get their name in the box score whilst some NRI starts making plans for Rochester.  Since Joaquin Phoenix is "switching careers" (If you're buying into this, you've been had.  This is clearly an emo version of Sasha Baron Cohen.  Plus, hello, it was Letterman.  Andy Kaufman anyone?), why not play some ball?

Hey, it would be worth five good minutes on PTI (Links to pics below):

"I'm here with Joaquin Phoenix.  He claims he is retiring from Hollywood and joining the Washington Nationals as a non-roster invitee. You know of anyone else who flip flops on retirements?"

"Gwyneth paltrow named her kid Apple."

"How about some dap for my Cubs.  They landed Bill Murray today.  You think he can hit your fastball?"

"I don't know.  Playing in fornt of so many people is hard."

"I'm sure you'll agree with me that Isabella Rosellini still gets it done."

"I don't know who that is."

"Is that tobacco?"

"They made me give up the gum."

This week's TMT is a tete-a-tete with another blogger.  Unfortunately, tigervidmar didn't know his tete would be ramming into my tete.  It is great that this forum allows us to show them our tetes.  And with that, I lose all credibility...

In light of the recent news involving middle infielders, some names of the past are popping up as cases for re-evaluation in the court of public opinion.  Case 1AAA is that of Pete Rose.  As tigervidmar points out, Rose is a choir boy, relative to the current crop of cheats. 

The implication here is that we should, perhaps, tolerate a certain level of cheating.  Gaylord Perry cheated.  He's in the Hall of Fame.  Both statements are true, but I would suggest you take that gripe to the BBWAA - not the court of public opinion. 

The funny thing about public opinion, and our perception of it, is that we project our beliefs onto the public.  We are shocked to learn that people may, in fact, frown upon cheating in sports.  After all, we have come to accept that these men are paid handsomely because we pay to see them do something we can't do on a level playing field.  But it has become apparent that this isn't a level playing field.

Some would say that the playing field was level because everyone else was doing it.  Please see my Tuesday entry as to why that high school excuse doesn't hold water.  Basically, 104 out of 1200 (40 man rosters, 30 teams) tested positive.  What is apparent is that some teams seemed to have a drug culture, thus making players believe everyone was doing it.  Furthermore, if you tell the lie enough, perhaps the public will believe you.  

That public relations theory seems to have some effect.  Some people just don't care (and that's fine for you and your dollars).  Just don't project and say that "nobody" cares, or that those who care are moralists. 

This brings me to Pete Rose.  The PED story has given people the ammunition to carry the banner for old Charlie Hustle.  After all, "He always bet ON the Reds."

AHA!

That line of logic is my gotcha moment.  When he bet, he bet on the Reds.  What does that say about Rose's allegiance and competence on the days when he placed no bet on the Reds?  What would go through his head on those nights?  "This is a good situation for Ron Robinson.  We're down a run.  He can hold it here.  Aw heck, I like our odds tomorrow.  I'm sure Ted Power has another inning in him."   

The fact is that we may not know to what degree his rulebreaking benefitted him.  Just the same, an A-Rod 430 foot dirty shot might have been a 415 foot clean shot - both for home runs.  We know there was an effect, we can't quantify it.  But that's why we have rules.  If everyone plays by them, we close the door on these possibilities to doubt what we see. 

Rose broke a rule that is posted in every clubhouse.  Posted, folks!  It's kind of like a no parking sign.  Someone went through the trouble of posting it.  Perhaps they really mean it.  If you don't like the rule, fine.  This isn't a dictatorship.  There are means through which rules can change.  For now, we live with the ones we have.  For now, those operating outside those rules are rightfully branded as cheaters.  It's not a moralistic crusade, it's a statement of fact.