Le’Veon, Dez, and Mr. Eric Reid

November 17th, 2018

by Gus Griffin

gus

 

 

 

 

(Photo by Justin K. Aller/Getty Images)

(Photo by Justin K. Aller/Getty Images)

The sagas of Steelers running back Le’Veon Bell, former Cowboys receiver Dez Bryant, and Panthers safety Eric Reid are all different and yet the same in a very important way: they all represent NFL players attempting to exert their considerable leverage against the company line narrative that most go along with like sheep.

Even as a Steelers fan, I initially supported Bell’s holdout on the basis of one indisputable fact: why should the best running back in the league settle for the average salary of the top 5 paid running backs in the league? That is what a second franchise tag would have paid Bell, or 120% of his 2017 salary…whichever would be highest.

But as current Steelers feature back James Connor continues to be close to, if not as productive, as Bell would have been, and the Steelers “righted the ship” from an early-season stumble, it just seemed to me that Bell’s holdout was more about winning a pissing contest and personal ego, and thus pointless. Then I recently learned something I did not know that might explain Bell’s tactic. Even though Bell has not reported and is being docked pay, he will get credit for having been franchised-tagged a second year. Why is that important? Because tagging him a 3rd year would oblige the Steeler’s to pay him the average of the top 5 highest paid quarterbacks in the league, or 140% of his 2017 salary (which would have been about $14 million)…whichever is highest.

What does Bell get out of all this? A healthy year and he is certain to either be traded or allowed to hit the free agent market, where he can negotiate that any team add his 2017 lost salary into his signing bonus. Todd Gurley got just under $22 million as a signing bonus. Is it out of the realm of possibility that a team would give Bell the same $22 million plus the $14 million in lost salary as a signing bonus, IF he surrenders some back-end and annual salary? We will see.

Dez Bryant is another story.

DBThe receiver was let go by a Cowboys team with hardly an elite receiving corps. My guess is that he could have come back had he been willing to redo his contract, or in other words, take a pay cut. He was not, and so essentially bet on himself in the free agent market. He was reportedly offered a 4-year deal from the Ravens at $7 million per, just before the draft.

I will stop right here to point out an example for media literacy. There is perhaps nothing in sports journalism that is more misleading than the headlines of NFL contract values. Very few players actually see that back-end of a contract, which is often where much of the money is back-loaded to allow the team salary cap flexibility.

With that said, Dez Bryant once again bet on himself and turned the deal down, instead preferring a 1-year deal, after which he could hit the market, hopefully on the momentum of a comeback year and cash in long term.

Bryant expected another call from a team after the draft. Other than the Browns, the phone never rang. He had been sitting at home waiting ever since, until the red-hot Saints called to add to their receiving depth down the stretch. Tragically, Bryant tore an Achilles tendon in his second practice with the team and is now not only done for the year, but has yet another red flag attached to him when and if he returns to try the free agent market.

His is a cautionary tale of how important it is to accurately assess one’s value. The fact is from a pure football standpoint, Bryant was never a speed burner and his capacity to get separation had decreased over the years. Add to that a reputation, true or not, for being disruptive, and Dez simply never had the advantage that he thought he had.

The third saga is by far for me the most intriguing, and that is of Mr. Eric Reid. I call him “Mr.” because the value of his narrative is far larger than football, and instructive in our everyday lives, particularly for those of us who believe in speaking truth to power.

ER

Reid, you may recall knelt alongside Colin Kaepernick, when both were with the 49ers. Both were clearly blackballed from the league as a result. Since the Panthers signed Reid earlier this year, he has been drug-tested 5 times in 6 weeks. He has been ejected from a game and had what was clearly a game-winning turnover overturned. Why? Because he continues to kneel and the league would just as soon wish that Reid go away, along with his collusion suit that he filed against it, along with Kaepernick. As much of an offense it was, Reid breaking away from a group of NFL players who “negotiated” an $89 million payoff to the group of money supposedly aimed at addressing the issues that have led to the protest in the first place. Upon closer exam, a significant portion of those funds is going to local police departments.

Why would you pay the people who are doing the killing?

The most instructive piece of the Reid saga is why he called Eagles safety Malcolm Jenkins a NEO-ER2COLONIALIST. Unlike some who use terminology that they may have heard others use but really do not understand the concept themselves, Reid understood exactly what he was saying and explained as much when question by reporters.

According to Reid, the group had decided before meeting with league officials that giving up the right to kneel during the anthem was not a negotiable point. It seemed to be the league’s primary objective. After the meetings took place, Jenkins calls Reid and asks, “How much would it take for you to stop kneeling?”

In simple terms, a Neo-Colonialist is someone from the oppressed group that does the bidding of the oppressor, while promoting the notion of post Colonialism. It aptly describes a pitiful number of African, Central, and South American governments upon post-formal Colonialism. It goes on all around us today from most members of the Congressional Black Caucus, to the activist industrial complex, to the Black police chief hired in response to yet another unjust killing of a Black man or woman. Their fundamental role is to keep the “natives” in line. If we calculate 30 pieces of silver in today’s money, sadly, it would not even take that amount for some to turn.

When a well-paid professional athlete that could just as easily take the money and keep his mouth shut continues to speak truth to power as well as call out those who have willingly collaborated with the enemy, he is entitled to be addressed as MISTER!

 

Gus Griffin, for War Room Sports

The Trouble with Rewarding “The Biggest Loser”

October 11th, 2018

by Gus Griffin

gus

 

 

 

 

Image courtesy of TeamRankings.com

Image courtesy of TeamRankings.com

A friend of mine plays several weekly football pools…straight picks…no point spreads, with the Monday Night total being the tiebreaker. He showed me the payoff breakdown of the largest, which has a pot of over $5000 per week.  First place takes home over $3K. Second about $1K, third about $500, fourth is about $400, and fifth about $300. Considering it’s only $10 per week, per sheet to play, and one can play as many sheets as one likes, it is a good deal. Merely placing once would get a weekly 1-sheet player his/her money back, plus extra.

All good, until I noticed a sixth payout slot: $100, regardless of pot size, would go to……………..get ready for this……….THE BIGGEST LOSER!

That is right. The person who wins the least gets $100.

When I first saw this, my thinking was it keeps the struggling players engaged, which after all, keeps the money pot high. More money for the winners and everybody is happy right?

Wrong!

THIS IS AN OUTRAGE!

Why reward the Biggest Loser when those who consistently miss only two games get nothing?

Understand that this particular pool has nearly 700 entries. It is not uncommon to go into the Monday Night game with only one loss and be out of the money because five with one loss picked the same team as he did, which means he cannot catch the five leaders. To consistently get through an NFL Sunday with only two losses takes some skill, and yet you walk away with nothing. However, the Biggest Loser gets $100? What this means is that in theory, one could tank the pool, lose on purpose, and win $1700. I know that this would never happen because losing the most has a degree of chance just as winning the most does. However, even if you were the Biggest Loser twice; the $200 would pay for your season and then a $30 return.

So, I asked my friend about this and his response was that they do not let anyone win “The Biggest Loser” prize more than once to prevent just what I feared.

Now here is how a “scheming demon” would get around this: He would simply pretend to have recruited new players, which would all in fact be him, so that he could continually tank games and pocket the $100 per week. Again, even though he would not be the Biggest Loser every week, he still games the system because we have set it up to essentially reward losing.
Now some will expand this concern of mine to the larger society and the debate over entitlements and a larger social safety net, and even calls to move toward a collective first society and away from predatory Capitalism.

It is not that deep.

Those of us who are adamant about moving away from Capitalism are simply saying the basic needs the collective 99% should take priority over the selfish desires of 1 percent and their never-ending attempt to horde the world’s resources for themselves.

The key term is needs.

Winning a football pool is not a need. Nor is the Biggest Loser’s plight the result of a rigged system, both historically and til this day.

He simply either does not pay attention or does not know what he is doing. It is ok. It does not make him a bad person, but it also does not warrant him a reward for his “pick em” incompetence.

Let everyone win by putting the work in and paying attention. Otherwise, this pool is destined for the participation trophy category.

 

Gus Griffin, for War Room Sports

Where have all the Aces gone?

October 4th, 2018

by Gus Griffin

gus

 

 

 

 

Ver

As the Major League Baseball postseason begins and one tries to assess which teams have the best chance of winning the World Series, the first thing to consider is starting pitching. Historically, even in today’s hyper-power-hitting era, the teams that pitch the best in the postseason usually win, anchored by their top of the rotation “Ace”!

It is not a question of depth. The Astros and Indians became the fourth and fifth teams in baseball history to have three different pitchers log 200 strikeouts. In the Astros case, their fourth starter, who did not strike out 200, is Dallas Keuchel, a recent CY Young award winner. In the Indians case, they actually had four pitchers strikeout at least 200 batters. That has never happened in baseball history. Power arms are in long supply. However, who do you really trust?

Consider the “Aces” or opening starters of each of the teams:

Jhoulys Chacin of the Brewers is a solid middle of the rotation pitcher who won a career high 15 games this year. He just is not an Ace.

 Kyle Freeland of the Rockies won 17 games and had a 2.88 earned run average (ERA). Anyone with that kind of ERA pitching half his games at Coors field, where he actually had a lower ERA than on the road, has to be straight “dealing”! He validated their hopes last night with six and two-thirds shutout innings on the road in the Wild Card game, which the Rockies would eventually win in extra innings.

Mike Foltynewicz of the Braves won 13 games and had a 2.85 ERA, with over 200 strikeouts. He is only 26, so the Braves are hopeful.

Liam Hendrix of the A’s is not even a starting pitcher. How they managed to win 97 games with no pitcher able to win more than 12 games is beyond me.

Luis Severino of the Yankees won 19 games and has some of the best swing and miss stuff in baseball. However, his post All-Star break ERA was 5.57.

Chris Sale of the Red Sox also has the kind of stuff that Severino has but has a history of wearing down.

Both Sale and Severino have small postseason samples (2 starts each). The eventual champion Astros lit both up in last year in the playoffs.

Even more unsettling are the bad experiences of the more established top starters. Consider the career ERAs vs their postseason:

Clayton Kershaw of the Dodgers (2.39/4.35) is by far the most perplexing example of Aces that underperform in the postseason.

David Price of the Red Sox (3.25/5.03) in 17 postseason appearances. The record is clear: He simply cannot be trusted.

Cory Kluber of the Indians numbers are not as bad but his failure to close out the Cubs in the 2016 World Series stays on my mind and was compounded by his postseason ERA from last year, which was over 12.

Compare the results to the Aces of days past who actually raised their performance when it mattered the most:

Mickey Lolich of the Tigers (3.44/1.57) was the last man to win 3 starts in the World Series, accomplishing the feat in 1968, beating the great Bob Gibson in game 7, on the road.

Orel Hershiser of the Dodgers and Indians (3.48/2.59) won the 1988 NLCS and World Series MVPs.

Curt Schilling with the Phillies, Red Sox, and Diamondbacks (3.46/2.23) won the 1993 NLCS MVP and was 2001 co-World Series MVP

Dave Stewart with the Dodgers, A’s, and Blue Jays (3.95/2.77) won a World Series MVP in 1989 and 2 ALCS MVPs.

Scot McGregor with the Orioles (3.95/1.63) is the only pitcher in history to throw complete game shutouts in both LCS and World Series clincher games, both on the road.

Orlando “El Duke” Hernandez with the Yankees (4.13/2.55) won an ALCS MVP and had a .750 postseason winning percentage.

And none of the above is in the Hall of Fame. The following three are:

Bob Gibson with the Cardinals (2.91/1.89) won a record 7 straight World Series games, holds the single postseason game record 17 strikeouts, and won 2 World Series MVPs.

Sandy Koufax with the Dodgers (2.76/0.95). The 0.95 ERA is not a misprint and he also won two-time World Series MVP.

John Smoltz with the Braves (3.33/2.67) won an NLCS MVP and has a .789 postseason winning percentage.

So, who is the best big game/postseason pitcher in the game today? That distinction would go to Mr. Madison Bumgarner of my San Francisco Giants (3.03/2.11). His resume includes two complete game shutouts on the road in the sudden death Wild Card game, as well as an NLCS and World Series MVP.

However, my Giants are at home with me. In the playoffs, there are only two: Justin Verlander of the Astros and John Lester of the Cubs (3.50/2.55). Like Randy Johnson, Verlander was anything but reliable early in his postseason career. However, today, other than “Mad Bum”, he is on the short list of the pitchers you least worry about in the postseason. Lester has been “the man” in both Boston and now Chicago, and he validated himself again Tuesday night, even though the Cubs lost. He also has a co-NLCS MVP award.

So, on that basis; I say the Astros return to the Series and best the Dodgers again, but this time in six.

 

Gus Griffin, for War Room Sports

The Kryptonite to the Belichick G.O.A.T. Claim

September 20th, 2018

by Gus Griffin

gus

 

 

 

 

BB

As Bill Belichick’s Patriots prepare to meet his former assistant, Matt Patricia’s Lions, it is hard to overlook the nagging blemish on Belichick’s claim as the greatest NFL coach of all time; the abysmal record of his professional coaching disciples.

BBCT

The collective NFL coaching records of Romeo Crennel (28-55), Eric Mangini (33-47), Josh Daniels (11-17), Bill O’Brien (31-34), Nick Saban (15-17), and now Patricia (0-2) is 118-172 for a winning percentage of .406.

One can be written off as an aberration. Two a concern. Three is a pattern.

So, what do we make of six, and not a one of them have a winning record?

BBCT2Some might ask how I can blame Belichick for the failures of his disciples. Valid question, to which I say, the same way we give him credit for winning five Super Bowls when he never made a tackle or caught a pass? Much of the discussion about coaching effectiveness is subjective, associative, and situational. The other factor is that several of Belichick’s competitors for the G.O.A.T. have compelling cases precisely because of their coaching tree.

Take the late great Bill Walsh. Not only was his offensive innovation the most impactful of the last 40 years, but his coaching tree has won seven Super Bowls, none of which were by the winningest coach in his tree, which is Andy Reid…whom I believe should go into the Hall of Fame some day.

Don’t we all consider that a part of Walsh’s legacy? Then it is fair game for Belichick.

New England Patriots quarterback Tom Brady, left, celebrates with head coach Bill Belichick after defeating the Miami Dolphins 41-13 in an NFL football game Sunday, Dec. 14, 2014, in Foxborough, Mass. (AP Photo/Charles Krupa)

New England Patriots quarterback Tom Brady, left, celebrates with head coach Bill Belichick (AP Photo/Charles Krupa)

In fairness to Belichick assistants, none of them had Tom Brady as their quarterback. The fact is that Belichick is sub .500 without Brady as his starting QB. The common response to this is, “but he won 11 games with Matt Cassel in 2008”.

That is absolutely true…and highly misleading.

The 2007 Patriots went 18-1. They clearly had a great deal of additional talent to Brady on the 2008 team, including a “pretty good” wide receiver named Randy Moss. He had a track record for making average QBs look better than they really were.

Furthermore, other candidates for the NFL coaching G.O.A.T. have managed to fare much better than Belichick without elite QB play. His mentor, Bill Parcells, won his second Super Bowl despite losing a former Super Bowl MVP quarterback in Phil Simms to an injury. Don Shula managed to get to a Super Bowl with a two-headed QB combination of David Woodley (he was out of LSU…need I say more about him as an NFL QB) and Don Strock. Joe Gibbs won three Super Bowls with three different starting QBs, none of whom were Hall of Famers.

I am not suggesting that Bill Belichick is not a great coach. He absolutely is…perhaps the best ever. He has a case with the five SB wins, and coaching in arguably the toughest era to date. I also do not take it for granted that having a great QB makes winning automatic. In fact, there have been five Hall of Fame Coach/QB combos that never won a super bowl. It is nowhere near as easy as Belichick has made it look.

I am only saying that those of you who want to crown his ass, pump the breaks just a little bit. It is hardly an open and shut case.

 

Gus Griffin, for War Room Sports

Understanding Serena’s Supporters…and the Flaw in Their Defense of Her

September 16th, 2018

by Gus Griffin

gus

 

 

 

 

SW

This is not going to be an apologist piece for Serena Williams in the wake of her epic meltdown during last Saturday’s US Open final loss to Naomi Osaka. She does not need that or anything else from me. Nor will I be pontificating about sportsmanship, a concept that I have long felt is grossly overrated on the professional level.

For me, I am usually more interested in coming to a better collective understanding than being right. To that end, we should be clear about the position of Serena’s supporters. For them (us as I am one of them), she is not just a great tennis player. We vicariously live through her as she represents triumph in a white and male dominated world, that has NEVER fully embraced her. It is an easy case to make:

 For years she stopped playing at Indian Wells due to racists jeers and treatment from the fans;

 Despite dominating Maria Sharapova on the court and winning more than 4 times as many major tournaments, she has helplessly watched Wall Street send more endorsements to Sharapova;

 A rare foot fault was called on her against Kim Clijsters at a US Open, which essentially ended the match;

 She has apparently been overly tested for performance enhancing drugs, which reinforces the blatantly racist narrative comparing her to an animal;

 She has had her outfits restricted by a French Open official (I suppose her learning and being fluent in the language does not gain her admittance to the club); and finally…

 Both Andy Roddick, a former US Open champion, and James Blake, once ranked number 4 in the world, concur that they have said much worst to officials and has never been sanctioned as Williams was last Saturday

The case that Serena has been treated unfairly by the tennis world is beyond dispute and every additional example simply reinforces the resolve of her supporters to defend her. I get it!

The flaw in their defense is the fact that none of the things cited here, even though all true, were the primary root cause of her frustration Saturday. The primary cause of her frustration was the beatdown she was taking at the hands of 20-year-old Naomi Osaka. Whether Osaka summoned a Japanese Samurai Warrior or the great Haitian Revolutionary General Toussaint L’Oveture, it was clear who the better player was that day. She knew it, anyone that actually watched the match knew it, and even Serena knew it. To deny this reality, and cite Serena’s history and current unjust treatment as the reason that she lost is to be disingenuous.

Serena has a champion’s edge. It is no different from what Michael Jordan had. He once punched teammate Steve Kerr when the second stringers beat Jordan and the first stringers in a practice scrimmage. It is no different from what Tom Brady has, who when sacked, acts as if defensive players, by rule, are not allowed to touch him. What do all three and many other elite champions have in common? They are accustomed to imposing their will on opponents to get their way, and when they cannot, graciousness will rarely be what we see. Giving a quarter is not in their DNA and if you want their throne, you must come and take it from them.

For the entire decade of the 1960s, Wilt Chamberlain was the dominant big man in the NBA. Do not give me Bill Russell. He was simply on a better team. Then in the early 1970s, along came Kareem Abdul-Jabbar and Wilt’s place on the top was over. He did not graciously cede to Kareem and till the day he died, never recognized Jabbar for the talent he became.

When John McEnroe finally learned how to beat the great Swede Bjorn Borg in major Tournaments, Borg retired at 26 years old. He will never admit to this, but I have always believed that Borg knew his days beating McEnroe were over.

Champions are not good losers. If they were, there is a good chance that they would not be the champions that they are. Oh, some are good at faking it, such as Peyton Manning.

Don’t drink the kool-aid.

Change anything in the makeup of Michael Jordan and I do not believe he is a five-time MVP, nor a six-time NBA Finals MVP and champion. Nor would Tom Brady have five Super Bowl rings and all his other accolades. If Serena Williams were any different from what and who she is today, I doubt she has 23 majors.

The late Hall of Fame baseball manager Leo Durocher was right when he wrote the book, “Nice Guys Finish Last”. The only caveat would be, “Nice Guys and Ladies finish last”. Serena is not always nice when the going gets tough, and given the results, I would not have her any other way.

If her haters would like her to be all nice and cuddly, go get a dog. To her supporters, the out of line official was not the root of her frustration or defeat. It compounded her frustration and perhaps hastened her defeat. Acknowledging such does not make one a hater. It just means you are not willing to be a blind loyalist or cult follower in the making.

For all of the above reasons, in the end, the greatness of Serena Williams has not been modified one bit. We were simply reminded of the inevitable, which is that she will have to make room for the greatness of others…whether she wants to or not!

 

Gus Griffin, for War Room Sports

The One Thing the Umpire Couldn’t Take from Serena

September 12th, 2018

by Jaesun D. Campbell

JC

 

 

 

 

 

 

SW

I’ve not said shit about what happened to Serena at the U.S. Open, but let me be clear. The warning, point, and game penalty are all legitimate tennis “fouls”, and were correctly applied in the order in which they’re supposed to be applied… *takes deep breath*

HOWEVER, after 20+ years of playing, it’s notoriously known that Serena doesn’t and hasn’t ever got on-court coaching, even when it’s allowed and she’s losing. Never.

You’ve got to keep in mind that this is the woman who was so blatantly cheated in a 2004 U.S. Open quarterfinal, that the umpire was dismissed, and they were forced to implement a system to challenge the line calls.

This is no exaggeration. I’ve watched tennis for the past 18 years or so, like clockwork. No exaggeration… I’ve watched in class, church, school, clubs, parties, gatherings, probates, the shower (don’t ask), and even at work; and I’ve NEVER seen a player go from a warning to point penalty to game penalty in a matter of games, let alone the same set.

Sound judgment was not applied here. It’s a Grand Slam Final and a player is going for an all-time record in her sport, and you chose to apply the rules THAT tough? The officiating was horrid. Never once did Carlos Ramos attempt to explain what a coaching violation entails (remember, she’s never gotten one). Also, after Serena tells him she’s never cheated, he nodded her off as if they were squared away but then assessed her a point for the racquet smash, and still didn’t explain how or why he did it. Communication is paramount but even NBA Refs take the time to fully explain a call to a player or coach if/when need be.

Am I about to play the “but this player did that…” game? Yes, yes I am.

Novak Djokovic is notoriously known for yelling at his player’s box and at ball kids, however no name-calling or mockeries are hurled at him.

Karolina Pliskova lost a match after getting a bad call on a clay court and at the end of the match she and the umpire did not shake hands, and she proceeds to whack the chair the umpire is sitting in 3 times with her racquet, frightening her opponent. No suspension or outcries for bad behavior.

Rafael Nadal threatened to have the same umpire from Saturday removed from his matches and said some not-so-nice Spanish words. No penalty, no warning.

“What the hell is wrong with you?” – Novak Djokovic, as he waves his racquet (not finger) in his direction, to the same man who took such offense to Serena calling him a “thief”, that he gave her a game penalty.

Was Serena out of line? Perhaps… but for the last 20+ years, her skills have been belittled to brute strength instead of IQ and strategizing, and rumors of steroids. She’s been called “a man”, “tranny”, “hermaphrodite”, as well as being told to play on the men’s tour, mocked for her body, called racial slurs, disrespected by peers, coaches, and commentators alike; yet, regardless of it all, they’ve never been able to question the legitimacy of her incredible win/loss record, and how she’s solved many puzzles.

What you saw on Saturday wasn’t a meltdown or a simple overreaction. It was a Black woman holding on to the one piece of her reputation that has never been questioned. If you’ve never faced persecution for things beyond your control (upbringing, body type, skin tone, etc…), save me the self-righteousness regarding Serena Williams.

The very thing that’s made Serena Williams, Serena Williams, is how many times she’s been on the brink of defeat and found ways to win. Yes, she was losing when this debacle took place, but the umpire inserting himself the way he did took away from Osaka’s win or potentially one of the most special comebacks in Serena’s career. One thing he couldn’t take was Serena Williams’ desire to stand up for herself, and she did exactly that.

Jaesun D. Campbell, for War Room Sports

It’s Just About Selling Shoes, Folks

September 6th, 2018

by Gus Griffin

gus

 

 

 

 

CK

I am happy for Colin Kaepernick. He has clearly been blackballed from the NFL, even if there is no smoking gun paper trail to prove such in a court. So, if he can recoup some of the money he has lost for taking a principled stand, good for him. He has earned every dime.

I am also happy that his many detractors are mad. Of all the things that actually warrant a protest, they choose this? To them I say, go ahead and burn your already paid for property.

I am not happy about the narrative some are painting of Nike becoming some corporate ally of social justice. It makes about as much sense as believing that Exxon is going to be a partner in combating climate change.

How do I know? You are what your record says you are and Nike’s record is the polar opposite of a corporation interested in social and economic justice.

For years, it oversaw what amounted to sweat shops and facilitated, or at the very least, ignored child slave labor. Nike was the posterchild for international corporate exploitation of populations that had little other choice but to participate in their own oppression. So bad was Nike that at one point, reporters pressed Michael Jordan about the issues.

Reportedly, it has improved its wages and working conditions, but it is hard to tell by how much. About 80% of its production factories are in Cambodia, Indonesia, and Vietnam. Some of the workers are paid as little as $102 per month. Do the math on a 40-hour week (though many routinely work more), and it amounts to 63 cents an hour. Regardless of context or where it operates in the world, I am not patting a multi-billion-dollar corporation on the back for raising its wages for workers to 63 cents an hour, and I damn sure will not be hoodwinked into thinking it is in anyway an ally for social justice.

For those who contend that Nike has changed, as recently as July of this year, it raised the wages of about ten percent of its employees. There is a catch. Most view this as a sort of internal settlement for widespread workplace misconduct and discrimination against women.

It is not that Nike cannot afford to care. The corporation that is paying some of its workers in Asia 63 cents an hour reported 2017 revenues in the range of $34.4 billion dollars up 8%.

There are a few things that Nike could do to become an ally:

  • Pay all employees worldwide a living wage, not minimum wage, but a living wage, plus full benefits;
  • Allow its employees to organize and collectively bargain around wages, working conditions, etc.;
  • Build a factory in the top 10 urban areas of America, which are where the majority of police brutality takes place, and give residential credit in the application process for jobs;
  • Finance the renovation and (where needed) rebuilding of athletic facilities at the high schools in those same areas

If they did any of the above, it would put some substance behind the symbolism of endorsing Kaepernick. Of course, they will not do any of them because it is not what Nike is about.

When in a battle, it is important to understand how to make a distinction between a “ride or die” ally and an opportunist. Nike is an opportunist.

So let us keep everything in perspective. Nike could not care less about the cause that Kaepernick has championed. For Nike, it is just about selling shoes, folks.

 

Gus Griffin, for War Room Sports

The Cesspool of CREAM called College Football

August 28th, 2018

by Gus Griffin

gus

 

 

 

 

UM

The investigation about the domestic abuse of Courtney Smith by her then husband, a receivers coach, institutional bystander behavior and attempts to cover up both at Ohio State is complete. As disturbing as the actual findings are, is the fact that the outcomes and “sanctions” or lack thereof, were so foreseeable?

The simple explanation for what did and did not happen is C.R.E.A.M., the acronym many of you know to mean, “Cash Rules Everything Around Me!”

To that end, the fact that there were 115 deaths statewide due to domestic violence in Ohio in 2017 played little to no role in the decisions about accountability. The fact that the football program generates about $90 million per year and is deemed by the Wall Street Journal to be worth about $1 billion if up for sale on the open market, is seemingly all that mattered. Simply put, short of Aaron Hernandez-like murder charges, there was NEVER a time when Coach Urban Meyer was in danger of losing his job. A 73-8 record with a National Title in College football is the equivalent of Teflon.
Speaking of the late convicted murderer Aaron Hernandez, Meyer actually coached him at Florida, where Hernandez was one of 31 different players arrested during Meyer’s tenure…a tenure that included two national titles. Therefore, it is safe to say that at two different venues, Urban Meyer has presided over a football culture that would seem to be relatively permissive at best.

It is hard to know where to start with this episode of ‘The Cesspool of CREAM called College Football’, but for contextual understanding, let us talk about Title 9. It was established in 1972 and largely deals with the issue of gender equity on college campuses. It has been instrumental in expanding athletic opportunities for women. Study after study has shown that women who participate in sports tend to have higher self-esteem and are less likely to find themselves in abusive relationships. It also charges a college to provide a safe and abuse-free environment by requiring any college employee to report instances of alleged abuse to the college’s compliance office. There are exceptions to this requirement called confidential reporters, which typically are counselors, health care professionals, attorneys, and their staff.

No coach or athletic director ever falls under that umbrella, and both Meyer and Athletic Director Gene Smith knew this.

As for the “punishment” of a three-game suspension for Meyer, think of it this way: when former Ohio State QB Terrell Pryor and several of his teammates traded memorabilia for tattoos, they were suspended for five games. But in a state where nearly 20 people a month die from domestic abuse, the University saw fit to sanction an enabler of such abuse with a three game suspension?

Let that sink in for a moment.

There are at least two things that Ohio State and other such programs can do about this issue immediately; 1) in the hiring process, never ignore the red flags of an abuser. Human behavior is relatively predictable IF we review the history and resist cherry picking or denying information. While there are exceptions to every rule, abusers largely do not change. Meyer knew more than enough about this assistant when he was with him at Florida, to know the risk, and even if he didn’t, a program with a $109 million budget can surely do a thorough background check…if it wants to; and 2) immediately began a college-wide ‘Bringing in the Bystander’ training sessions, which show bystanders how to effectively intervene in cases of intimate partner abuse. I am proud to say that my employer, Montgomery College, conducts these trainings for all incoming athletes and as many other students as our volunteer resources allow. But the reality is that Montgomery Community College is not generating $90 million a year through its athletics, which bring us back to the primary culprit: the Cesspool of CREAM.

In some ways, big-time college sports, like mega religious institutions, have the best of both worlds in that they can generate enormous amounts of money without being accountable in the ways commercial for-profit entities are. They pay no taxes. Short of a ‘death penalty’, such as what was endured by Southern Methodist University in the 1980’s, I do not see any deterrent or incentive for big-time college football programs that will counter the profit motive. This challenge is beyond sports and manifests itself on all levels of society, from Wall Street to Health Care. There are two kinds of verifiable power in America: organized money and organized people. Ohio State and other big college football programs are a part of organized money. It is our responsibility, be we sports fans or not, to organize as people to counter organized money interests by insuring, among other things, that the provisions of Title 9 are adhered to within the college setting. Otherwise, who will intervene on behalf of the Courtney Smiths of the world?

 

Gus Griffin, for War Room Sports

What to Make of Maryland’s Mea Culpa

August 17th, 2018

by Gus Griffin

gus

 

 

 

 

UMD

In the wake of learning more about the circumstances that led up to the tragic death of Maryland
offensive lineman Jordan McNair from heat stroke related exhaustion, I was ready to write a column
that defined exactly what toxic culture is and why it should be called out and resisted at every turn.

After all, a 19-year old young man is dead.

Not hurt: one assumes the risk of injuries when playing football. The game cannot be made safe.

Not paralysis: one assumes the risk of that as well, though it is tragic when it happens.

But surely no player or parents can reasonably be expected to accept death as a likely or probable
outcome from playing football, and for this to happened would seem to lend credence that only a
toxic culture would be permissible enough to allow.

Basic factors of the neglect such as not cooling the body down at the first signs of heat stroke or
waiting an entire hour after a seizure before calling the paramedics support the notion as well.
The family of McNair, with good reason, has hired superstar attorney Billy Murphy, in preparation for
a wrongful death suit against the University. Anyone that knows Maryland, will tell you that Murphy
is the closest thing in the area to Johnny Cochran. He is a mover and shaker and feared by both
police and corporate entities. Murphy has already called for Maryland coach DJ Durken to be shown
the door following the primary culprit, strength coach Rick Court.

So the stage is set for the typical corporate/organizational reaction, which goes about as described
thus far. Then denials of any wrong doing by the university, which then only attracts more external
scrutiny, that demands a pound of flesh…as it should.

You see the typical response to such happenings, be they of an institution or individual, is to go into
CYA mode, straight from the Scandal 101 playbook. It’s next to never about finding truth. It’s about
damage control over the damage itself. Because it is not about a finding of truth, what typically
happens is that a few mid-management folks are thrown under the bus, regardless of their culpability
(in this case, I can’t see a plausible defense for Durken). A few reforms of protocol will be put in
place, which usually do more to simply push the cultural toxicity underground than to uproot it, and
the institution proceeds over time to “just get past it”.

One of the best and yet pathetic examples of such institutional behavior is the Catholic Church.
Its latest is currently unfolding in Pennsylvania, where the behavioral pattern of abusing children and
then covering it up is on display. Insult to injury is the fact that if a priest abuses children, he is
transferred and unlikely to be held criminally accountable. But if a priest steals from the church, he
will go directly to jail! PROFIT OVER PEOPLE prevails yet again!

But a funny thing happened on the way to the standard script:

The University of Maryland refused to play its part.

In a press conference, University President Wallace D. Loh not only apologized to the family but took
moral and legal responsibility for McNair’s death. Of course this was the right thing to do, but it next
to never happens.

This was the equivalent of a vehicular manslaughter suspect admitting that he was driving the car
intoxicated. To do so is to make his own conviction a slam dunk and make himself liable for both criminal and civil
consequences. As a result, human nature being what it is, very rarely does an institution or
individual actually do this….even if they know full well that they are indeed responsible.

There are two primary reasons people and institutions are reluctant to admit when they are wrong;
one is ego, which is more prevalent among individuals. The other is liability, which is more common
among institutions.

Maryland’s actions will not save it from liability, nor should they. So why the change in script?
Some will contend that Maryland’s mea culpa was a desperate attempt by the president and athletic
director to save their jobs. Still others might say their admission was aimed at mitigating possible
NCAA sanctions, in the hopes of avoiding a Penn State-like fate.

As cynical as those reasons may sound, they are possible.

I would like to believe that this one time, a powerful American organizational entity is doing the right
thing, regardless of the price, simply because it is the right thing to do and in doing so, can possibly
reverse a sorry trend by its contemporaries, such as the Catholic Church.

Simply put, when such tragedies occur, you don’t need Olivia Pope to do the right thing. An honest
process of candid self-assessment, though difficult and expensive, will serve the aggrieved family,
the institution, and society in general, much better.

 

Gus Griffin, for War Room Sports

The Trouble with Dak Prescott

August 10th, 2018

by Gus Griffin

gus

 

 

 

 

DP3

When Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones doubled down on his total disregard for player protest and specifically Black Lives in general, he was simply being who he is; a “good ole boy” who takes a great deal of pride in his role as a modern-day plantation overseer. Jones declared that anyone that does not come out for the anthem and stand will be cut. I hardly think that anyone was surprised.

The team’s African American QB from Louisiana and Mississippi, Dak Prescott, essentially agreed with his owner. The phrase many of us Black folks use to describe his behavior would be “cooning”. For those who don’t know, it is a phrase Black people use to describe other Black folks who are obsessed with staying in the good graces of whites.

This is the most troubling quote:

“I never protest during the anthem. I don’t think that is the time or venue to do that.”

Are you f$%%#@%* serious?

Is that all you got?

It’s a good thing that one cannot be sued for plagiarizing the thoughts of others because Dak would be in big legal trouble if it were possible. He may as well have said to Jerry Jones, “You tell em massa”.

DP2

The issue is not that he refuses to kneel during the anthem. I actually believe that form of protest has about exhausted its effectiveness. I have 4 basic issues with the position:

  • Zero creativity: This is a classic case of someone simply repeating a narrative that they heard someone else say, without any critical independent thought of his own. If you are going to shovel BS, at least make sure it has a unique aroma;
  • Pitifully elusive: Whenever someone says it’s not the right time or place for resistance to injustice, you can be sure that for that person, there is NEVER a right time or place;
  • Stockholm Syndrome: is a condition that causes hostages to develop a psychological alliance with their captors, as a survival strategy during captivity. Dak’s position clearly sides with his oppressor….I mean boss.
  • Illusion of separation: one gets the impression from this comment that Dak thinks he is above that which has stung Black America. It’s as if he feels his status would have saved him from the terrorist that went into a Black church in South Carolina and shot nine people to death simply because of the color of their skin.

I could go on and on about how problematic his position is on so many levels, but at the core is simply that the statement is not true. If it were, that would be tantamount to saying that all those prior, who used the athletic venue as a platform to advance the struggle for social justice to include Muhammed Ali, John Carlos, Tommie Smith, Mahmoud Abdul-Rauf, and yes, Colin Kaepernick, were all wrong. If that were true, there is no way that Dak would be the quarterback of the Dallas Cowboys.

The most hopeful thing to do is just assume that Dak is young and not fully conscious of how treasoness his position is to those whose lives are at risk every day.  After all, even the great Jackie DPRobinson stained his reputation with public criticisms of both Paul Robeson and Ali. To his credit, before he died, he came to realize the error of his ways and by the late 1960’s was supportive of the many student-athlete protests around the country. Maybe Dak will develop in a similar way and let’s hope it’s sooner than later. Right now, he is clearly in a “sunken place”.

This weekend, White Supremacist will be descending on Washington, DC on the anniversary of them literally killing Heather Heyer. She was the social justice activist killed when she joined many others to confront the Nazis at the University of Virginia. She was not a celebrity or of great wealth. She, nevertheless, chose to risk her life and ultimately gave her life to stand up for what is right. Oh, and Heather Heyer was White. That is relevant because she could have chosen the path of many whites and simply ignore the reality of racism, since it does not have the immediate impact on her that it does on Black people. For that reason alone, she should always be remembered and revered.

Dak Prescott, on the other hand, does have celebrity and wealth. Oh, and he is Black…..whether he knows it or not. If Heyer saw the need to take a stand, what possible excuse could he have?

It is for these reasons, with this backdrop why Prescott’s pitiful declaration of where the struggle should not take place is so shameful.

Dak Prescott is the quarterback for the Dallas Cowboys, “America’s Team”. With that title comes the capacity to represent what America has been and is, or what America should be and can be. The choice is his but no choice is not an option. It’s the price of the party.

Just as frustrating about Prescott’s failure to take a stand is the fact that he is one of two players that could cross Jerry Jones’ line in the sand and not be cut (the other being Ezekiel Elliot). As much as Jones detests non-compliance, he loves to win even more. There is no way that he would cut either. There is precedence. Before the 1993 season, Hall of Fame running back Emmitt Smith held out fresh off the Cowboys winning the Super Bowl. Jones refused to budge……..until the Cowboys started the season 0-2. Emmitt was back for the 3rd game and the Boys would go on to repeat and win again after the 1995 season. If the “stars” take a stand, Jerry will stand down.

It’s fourth and goal in the red zone of America, Mr. Prescott. You do not get to sit this play out.

 

Gus Griffin, for War Room Sports