Around the Arena (Championship Game ... Winner: ApolloSmieGirl)

Yes, because one great scorer does not make up for someone who can make an entire team great.


I went to a Hornets game this year. Chris Paul scored something like 2 points, but had about 18 assists or something crazy like that. I can't really remember. Anyway, the point is, it's easier to defend against one great scorer than against someone who doesn't score as much, but makes his team better overall.

 

I'm going to sell. Even if they get Beasely or Rose, A) they don't have a coach, so who will be in charge of making that pick? The same incompetent management that fired their last coach on Christmas Eve (Still one of the most heartless move I've ever seen by a pro team BTW)? B) Look at what happened when Portland got the pick last year and thought THEY were the team to beat. Their star pick ended up injuring himself and being out the entire year.

Ultimately I buy them getting Rose as he's been the more publicized player despite the fact that Beasely is an all - american.

Seems to me having the #1 pick is more of a curse than a blessing.


Please tell me the next topic is Jason Taylor/Dolphins. I've got more than a few cents on this matter.

 

These are the choices that the Bulls now have with the number 1 selection:

1) Grab Beasley with his 26.2 PPG average and NCAA best 12.4 rebounds per game.

or

2) Grab Rose because he was the point guard who carried Memphis all the way to the National Championship game and within minutes of the national title.

or

3) Trade the pick away and get as much as they can get for the pick.

or

4) Do something incompetent since they are a team without a coach. They have to besides hiring a coach, make contract offers to restricted free agents Luol Deng and Ben Gordon.

"As I sit here tonight, what I think is again you've got two players who are different and unique," Paxson said. "One is point guard. The point guard is a natural leadership position on a team. It's something every team covets. And the other ... just has the unique ability to put the ball in the basket, just will be a go-to scorer.

"I'm certainly not going to throw myself into this thing and do something quickly."

So, I think that they will select Beasley. They cannot pass up this kind of a scorer and rebounder.

 

Time to score the arguments once again ...

EF: +2 (they do need leadership ... but can they get it from a rook?)
A_J: +3 (great point and playing off of EF ... good job)
Juliet: +2 (great point on a cautionary tale)
RX: +2 (good information)

Scoreboard

This round:

A_J: 3
EF: 2
Juliet: 2
RX: 2

Overall:


Armenian_Jedi: 17
EmpireForever: 16
Juliet316: 16
RX_Sith: 16

And we've got one more buy-or-sell left. Someone gets banned after this question, and with a race this tight it could be anyone. Make sure for tie-breaking purposes you indicate to me if you're wearing a tie when you post your answer.

 

or if you're a Cleveland supporter.

 

We go, as Juliet hoped, to the <img src="http://espn.go.com/i/teamlogos/leagues/sml/trans/nfl.gif">, but not to Jason Taylor.

Instead, to talk of a 17th regular season game. You guys buy or sell this as a good idea ...

Let's go Around the Arena and find out ...

 

I think that this is a BUY especially if the NFL needs the extra money to entice players with.

A player makes a little more than $1,000 in that fourth preseason game. Based on the current salary structure, a rookie earns a weekly regular-season game check of $18,437.50. A 10-year veteran earns $51,875.

If Upshaw can come back to his players with an extra $50,000 for a 17th game -- or even $100,000 if the league goes to 18 -- he might be willing to make enough trade-offs to satisfy some of the problems owners face with the current deal. Minimum salaries for veterans would climb closer to $1 million. Rookies could earn annual base-salary paychecks closer to $400,000 eventually.

The main problem would be the uneven schedule that would result from it. 17 games means that half of the league gets that extra home game a season and the other half doesn't (not counting the international game). This might cause one of two things to maybe happen. The teams with that extra game are obviously elated while those that are not aren't. Of course, if they alternate it every other year, then it will all even out.

But, here is another proposal. Use that extra game in more international (or national) places. Scheduling games from London, Montreal, Toronto, Los Angeles, Las Vegas, Japan, China, etc. would definitely make the NFL tons of money.

American cities without a team and international cities are starving to host an NFL game right now. This is the best time ever that the NFL can choose to have more than one game a season at an international location (or non-NFL American location). Just give the teams their bye weeks the following week to recooperate and everyone will be happy.

The preseason right now for that fourth game is such a joke (with no starters hardly playing) that it makes no sense to play it anymore. After getting use to the idea, eventually the league can float out the 18 game season to even out things once again. Plus make even more money for everyone.

When the league voted to void the CBA, they knew that they needed a bargaining chip. The 17th game is that bargaining chip. It offers a huge difference in pay both for the players and the owners. And it appeases the fans as well. They are already paying full ticket prices for preseason games. Having one less preseason game that it totally useless anyway is a win for everyone. Expect it to happen starting in either 2010 or 2011.

 

I'm selling this. It's a horrible solution to the preseason problem.

Instead of just getting rid of the last preseason game, they're gonna convert it into a regular season game? What a joke.

The 16 game schedule is perfect right now. With 32 teams, 8 divisions and 4 teams in each division, everything evens out perfectly. You add an extra game and not only do you have the home/road issue that RX pointed out, but you have another game where the starters play all the way through. An increase in injuries is obviously expected. But what will really bug me is... all the records that will be broken in the last game of the season!!! We have a Roger Maris situation going on here! This must end. No 17th game. Please.

 

Sell. Please, the NFL is struggling for money? They need another game in there? That's absolutely bogus. You're right, RX, most starters don't play in the preseason because it doesn't matter. Sure, they could play if they wanted to, if it wasn't so risky(Michael Vick's broken leg?). They don't play because that's another game to wear them down. Changing one into a regular season game only means some starters are going to have to play one more game, because those playoff bubble teams are going to be trying to get in still. But if you can't get there in 16 games anyway, maybe you don't need to be there in the first place. But let's make them do it, because we're sick of paying the players sixty percent, and we're not making enough money(forget that parking is $40 dollars, drinks are pushing 10, and tickets are 200). Poor, pitiful owners.

It'll also make standing records seem diminished. Stats will get a nice pad at the end of the season with one extra game. I bet Rich Gannon wishes he had had one more game(Thank God Rich Gannon didn't get Marino's record).

And why would you ruin such nice symmetry like that? Scheduling is going to be hell.

 

I'll buy. At this point we don't really need a 4 game preseason, especially since at this point we've seen time and time again star players getting hurt at some point during the preseason dooming a team's season before it really starts. While I agree some owners (*coughgreedyJerryJones*cough* don't need the extra revenue, there are small market teams like Green Bay and Kansas City that will need the extra revenue in this struggling economy especially when salaries escalate to ridiculas levels in the 2011 year with no salary cap.

Of course everything will go into oblivion when the players strike the year after that but that's for another debate.

Also I miss the season starting labor day weekend. I would love to go back to that. It would be a nice way to end the summer season and kick off fall.

Plus who wouldn't want more NFL in a season.

I'm a girl, so I have no tie, but I have an orange and brown pantsuit.

 

And I was wondering if anyone would get around to even mentioning the ties! LOL.

 

Let's score the argument again ...

RX: I don't buy the NFL needing money, but I like the neutral site idea (+2)
A_J: Good information on injuries and scheduling (+2)
EF: Very good points, and I love your sympathy for the fan (+3)
Juliet: Very good points on the small market teams (+2), and yes, who doesn't want more football (+1) ... plus you answered the tie question (+1)

By the way, EmpireForver and Armenian_Jedi ... neither of you have a problem with comparing records from 16 game seasons to 14 game seasons, but you have a problem comparing 17 game to 16 game? *mutes you both* (-1)

Scoreboard

This round:

Juliet: 4
EF: 2
RX: 2
A_J: 1

Overall:

Juliet316: 20
Armenian_Jedi: 18
EmpireForever: 18
RX_Sith: 18

Well, we need a tie-breaker, and since none of you answered the tie=breaker question, we have to do things the way I think Tony Reali would ... we have two names that start with vowels, and one name that doesn't, so the odd man is out.

Say goodbye, RX_Sith. Out of Bounds is next.

 

OJ Mayo has cut ties to his agent, citing "the overwhelming intensity of recent allegations regarding the recruitment of O.J. Mayo". This comes after reports of his receiving payments from the agency while at USC.

What does our panel of experts make of the entire O.J. Mayo situation?

Let's go Around the Arena and find out ...

 

I was going to say "going from 14 to 16 was bad enough" I swear!


Whenever these allegations of college stars taking money comes up, I always think 'why is this so wrong?' I understand the NCAA doesn't want colleges going around throwing money at recruits to get them to come to school, but I don't see why they should regulate any other source of income. You don't think these kids make their school enough money, that they shouldn't be able to have some kind of project on the side? why not have a college player on a Nike ad?

This situation is a bit different. Whether or not he received money, and for what, I don't know. It seems like he didn't take it though, as you would think him denying it and then cutting his agency would make them say he did, but they have denied it as well. but maybe they just don't want to look bad, giving a kid 30,000 dollars. It does look a bit suspicious, though, him dropping them after the allegations, but I can understand wanting to seperate yourself from that.


It's not like this is drug money or something though. Everybody wins in a situation of giving a college student some kind of advertising income. The player gets exposure, and so too then, does the school. If I were the NCAA, I would look at reforming that rule to only restricting the schools or professional teams giving the players money. I understand not wanting certain organizations to prey on the players, but I think they should look at giving this rule some flex.

 

When it comes to college players receiving money from their school(or any other source for that matter) I've always been in the "Who cares?" category. Who exactly is this hurting? The smaller schools who can't afford to bring star players aboard? That's about it. And this wasn't even USC paying the kid, it was an agency doing it so he would sign with them after he leaves college. Not one person was hurt by this... except for the agency who now has spent the money to get their star and now no longer has him.

College kids have as much right to cash in as anyone else.

 

I hate to jump into your game, but this topic would make a really good thread. Sports fans are all over the board on a topic such as this.

 

I think it's kind of another example of the seemingly archaic rules the NCAA have today. These poor kids are made to be stars at such an early age and yet the NCAA seems to be the only entity that profits from them. With the revenues from TV, advertising and sponsorship that the NCAA employs themselves these kids who are thrust into the limelight don't get anything.

I understand why these rules exist, but with the cost of higher education ever soaring (which is probably why many of these kids go pro early), perhaps the NCAA should grant a exemption to these athletes with perhaps a cap on how much sponsorship money they can make. It would probably help out the kids, and perhaps keep them in school and allow them to continue their education longer.

Mayo was probably right in this case to cut ties with his agent but it's brought about another hit to his NBA stock. An NBA team will probably pick him up, but it probably will not be in the first round of the draft now, or at all except in free agency. (If I'm wrong about how the draft/free agency for rookies works please tell me, I know nothing about how the NBA draft works. I'm basing this on my knowledge of the NFL draft system).

 

There's not really a question if Mayo will be drafted. He's still going to be a high first round pick. Beyond that though, solid arguments all around. I'll give everyone a plus 3.

And that leaves us with a tie, and since AJ and EF made similar arguments, I'll give a bonus point to EF, since he made the argument first.

Scoreboard:

This round:

EF: 4
AJ: 3
Juliet: 3

Overall:


Juliet316: 23
Armenian_Jedi: 21
EmpireForever: 22

And so a close game, but only two can move on to Showdown, so we say goodbye to Armenian_Jedi. Hope to see you next game.

And it's showdown time. Two users enter, one leaves horrified, stupefied and petrified.

 

<img src="http://blogs.msg.com/gameon/images/2007/12/21/joba122107.jpg">

Showdown starts with Joba Chamberlain. The set-up man with a 100 mph fastball the Yankees are now seemingly transitioning into a starter. This a good idea or a bad idea for the Yanks?

We start with Juliet ...

 

You will regret the day you banned me Inty. This will come back to haunt you.

 

Bad idea. Why make such a transition mid - season. I know the Yankees are desperate for the good pitching they haven't had in several long years, but this could be a disaster on so many levels. What if changing Jaba's playing time causes him injury? Where would the Yankees be then? And even if Jaba doesn't get injured and is as good as a starter as he is a closer/relief, who do the Yankees put in that role to replace them? One of their ridiculously high price, but now ineffective starters?

Bad, just terribly bad idea.

 

This is a great idea. Why make such a transition? Because they need a good starter. You said it yourself, they're desperate. Could be a disaster? Their pitching already is a disaster. What if it causes him injury? This is a pro sport, you're always running that risk. If that happened, they'd be in exactly the same position they are in now. They need help at the beginning of the game, not when it's already too far gone. Joba is pitching better than anyone else they have right now(besides Rasner, but you need more than one guy in your rotation).

Ok, I get that he is a relief pitcher, but he didn't grow up relief pitching. All they need to do is change up his conditioning and he should be good to go. He's young, his body can handle it at this point. You need better starters than you do relievers. You do need good relievers, but if the relievers are relieving someone who just gave up 5, 6, or 7 runs, what's the point, really?

They need help. Who else is going to help them? You can't worry about what might happen to the guy(honestly, he's going to be pitching a few extra innings. This is the pros, isn't it? He is an athlete, isn't he? Injured?), you have to worry about what is happening right now to your team. They are stone cold right now, they need to get some heat, and Joba is bringing it.

 

That it's being done mid-season is the real question to me.

Point to Juliet

Now, we go to Lacrosse, and the NCAA finals. John Hopkins and Syracuse. Break it down for me and give me the winner.

Let's here it from you first, EmpireForever

 

John Hopkins is going to want to slow the game down and keep control of the ball, but that's going to be tough against Leveille and Syracuse, because they can score quickly. But JH is rolling right now, and I tend to like a team that can keep the ball with them and score on the opportunities that are presented to them. I think Syracuse is going to have to try to make a lot happen, and mistakes can start to pop up when you do that. I like John Hopkins here.

 

Well despite the fact they beat Virginia ( ), I'm going to go with Syracuse. I think it'll be a close game, but when you have a player that can score five goals in a game, then you probably have a good shot at winning a championship game.