It turns out that Oregon State had a little more up its sleeve on Wednesday than just the plans to finish the Reser Stadium expansion. In fact, it's now pretty obvious why they feel confident they can fill the extra seats.
Though I will admit that I was not initially very excited about the hiring of Gary Anderson from Wisconsin, I have come to realize that my apathy was due mainly to ignorance. Not only did Gary take Utah State from 4-8 to 11-2 and their highest AP rank in school history in only four seasons, he actually had a better career win percentage than beloved Coach Alvarez did at Wisconsin.
But then Oregon State isn't exactly Utah State or Wisconsin. While the football history of the two State schools is eerily similar, something tells me it is a bit easier to win games in the WAC and MWC than it is in the PAC 12. And though he has proven he can succeed in a power conference, can Coach Anderson succeed in one when he has to start from scratch?
I guess we will have to wait and see. In the meantime, I do hope that he is the perfect hire; my due diligence tells me he is. If he can combine even a modicum of his ability to take a conference doormat to the top with his proven success in a power conference, there is no telling how high Oregon State can climb.
Though some around the country see the move as lateral at best, Coach Anderson obviously missed the West Coast. Here's one better educated Beaver fan who is thankful he did.
Wednesday, December 10, 2014
Friday, December 5, 2014
Hip-Hip Hooray!
Careful what you wish for Beaver fans...
Good Luck to you, Mike, you will be missed!
If you care remotely about College football you have, by now, heard that Mike Riley slipped out the back door of Reser stadium and hopped a flight for Lincoln. Waiting for him there? Nothing short of an opportunity to prove that he is as good a tactician and coach as he a builder of men.
I was a fooled as everyone. No ONE saw this coming. Ignorantly we mistook the chapstick and bubble gun smacking, hip-hip hoorayer for someone who cared only about securing his retirement. We all missed the simple truth: underneath the kind exterior still beat the heart of a competitor beginning to see the horizon.
How else can you explain Riley leaving a low pressure job in a town he has called home for most of his life for one of the most pressure packed jobs in all of the FBS?
How else can you explain Riley leaving a low pressure job in a town he has called home for most of his life for one of the most pressure packed jobs in all of the FBS?
Maybe it was our fault. It wouldn't surprise me if, when the phone rang, Riley picked up the phone thinking it was another booster calling to complain. I wonder at what point during his conversation with Shawn Eichorst it hit Riley, "Well, shucks. Though I love it here, these people just don't seem to grasp how difficult it is to recruit here. There are more four and five star recruits on Nebraska's current roster than I've ever seen here in Corvallis, even if I throw in all the guys that came on a recruiting visit. And a pay raise?".
It's easy to forget how difficult the OSU job actually is, especially when playing in one of the nation's toughest conferences. If you've never been to Corvallis, the only PAC12 school that remotely compares in terms of "middle of nowhere" is in Pullman, Washington. There is a reason both schools are highly regarded agriculture schools.
Before Riley, OSU was in the middle of TWENTY-SIX consecutive losing seasons. The most wins they had in any single year during that stretch was five; Riley reached five wins in his second season and was rewarded with an NFL contract. On his heels came a coach (Dennis Erickson) that many Beaver fans revere simply because he had one good season. I guess it is easy to forget that after going 11-1 with a team comprised of mostly Riley recruits and one and done JC guys, Erickson came into the following season ranked as the #1 team in college football and promptly went 5-6.
Before Riley, OSU was in the middle of TWENTY-SIX consecutive losing seasons. The most wins they had in any single year during that stretch was five; Riley reached five wins in his second season and was rewarded with an NFL contract. On his heels came a coach (Dennis Erickson) that many Beaver fans revere simply because he had one good season. I guess it is easy to forget that after going 11-1 with a team comprised of mostly Riley recruits and one and done JC guys, Erickson came into the following season ranked as the #1 team in college football and promptly went 5-6.
For anyone who thinks "if the Ducks can do it, so can the Beavers", spend a day in both towns and try to imagine yourself as a an 18 year old. Not only is Eugene three times the size, but it's vibrant, diverse downtown is a bit more appealing to kids who want to do more than crowd a Buffalo Wild Wings. Throw in Uncle Phil's money and it's like comparing Iron Man to Napoleon Dynamite.
Though our negativity may have contributed to his departure, nothing we may have said can tarnish what Riley has done for OSU. The sheer number of two and three star guys he has helped into the NFL is beyond the scope of his record. Truly though, the heart of Riley's legacy at OSU lies in how great his influence has been throughout the lives of the guys he's coached.
How will Riley fare as the head of a program that he can actually recruit to? Guess we will have to wait and see. My prediction? If Riley can win 9 or 10 games in a season at OSU, he can surely reach 11 or more in Lincoln.
Good Luck to you, Mike, you will be missed!
Hip-Hip Hooray! Hip-Hip Hooray! Hip-Hip Hooray! Hip-Hip Hooray!
Wednesday, October 29, 2014
Is Riley's contract fair to Beaver fans?
If, as a member of Beaver Nation, you have yet to hear about John Canzano's article regarding Coach Riley, allow me to give you a quick summation: though he can find no fault in coaching or recruiting, Canzano wonders if Riley's "lifetime contract" has affected the coach like it does most NBA free agents after they sign a multi-year deal. In essence, does giving Riley security (through a guaranteed contract extension of one year for every 6 win season) create complacency?
Now, before too many Beaver Believers get riled up, Canzano does bring up some valid arguments that should cause us all ponder: win total in the years pre-"lifetime" contact: 10, 9, 9, 8; Pac-12 record post contract: 18-22 (including 1-8 in the last 9 games). His likening that sweet of a deal to what happens when any free agent not named Bryant signs a big deal, well, let's just say that there is evidence abound in EVERY sport. The truth is that all but the most driven of competitors would lose a least a little of their drive when what they have been chasing is suddenly secured. As sad as this fact may be, loyalty to team no longer exist. Instead, the only true loyalty we regularly see is to self.
I contemplated this while arguing whether Riley is good or bad for OSU with some friends and ultimately came to understand that Riley, so long as he keeps the Beavers bowl eligible, is good for Corvallis. You see, if you lived here during the tenure of the Erickson days you probably recall with fondness what it felt like to win week in and week out, but I wonder if you remember that he went 5-6 the next season when most of Riley's recruits were gone? His 8-5 record the year after that? Riley matched it upon his return.
You see, Erickson was a high profile coach like many Beaver fans are currently coveting. He understood that to "win now" he had to bring in JC transfers. But how well did this work? More important, can you recall how the attempts to appease this athlete changed the landscape of Corvallis?
We know the type of kid Riley recruits, and their potential level (as evidenced by the 37 ex-Beavers playing in the NFL recently). How he finds these kids, especially knowing very few will ever come from an inner city (small town Corvallis doesn't quite have the same appeal) sets him and his staff apart. I will agree with Canzano though, it would take a rare competitor to keep battling when the carrot is removed from the end of the stick and placed so readily at their feet.
Here's hoping Riley remains diligent and that his passion to produce wins stays as fueled as his passion to create good men. If not, I for one hope that the OSU administration recognizes the changing landscape as well as its town did.
SEC + ESPN = SPENCES (which, not so ironically perhaps, is defined as a monetary allowance)
I guess some would call me a conspiracy theorist but, as I look over the current AP top 25, I am left to wonder how exactly one conference could be THAT dominant. Now, don't get me wrong, I am not going to attempt to argue that the SEC isn't and hasn't been one of the strongest conferences in the past decade, that would be idiotic. But strong enough that the 2nd AND 3rd place team are ranked higher than the BEST team in the PAC 12 and Notre Dame? What's worse is that according to the supposedly unbiased pollsters, the best of the Big 10 wouldn't even place fourth in the SEC and the best of the Big 12 wouldn't even finish 5th.
The conspiracy aspect of all of this comes further to light when one starts to dig a little deeper. You see, the SEC network is owned and operated by ESPN, and ESPN owns the rights to the FBS playoff through 2025. Makes one wonder how this system could be viewed by any to be fair, but it does make it easier to understand how the parity that existed in the preseason polls became so heavily skewed towards the SEC by week 4. Week 7 gave us the true intent of those in power. Even though multiple teams tasted their first defeat, only the SEC fared the storm well (they actually strengthened their place). Not only did Mississippi State jump from 13 to 3, they now found themselves in a tie with an Ole Miss squad that leap frogged a still undefeated Baylor team. What's stranger still was that even though Oregon was ranked higher, and lost to an Arizona team the pollsters saw as a top 10 side, somehow they fell ten spots while Alabama fell only four. Couple that with the fact that sitting ahead of Oregon, and yet still somehow behind Alabama, was a Michigan State team Oregon had previously dismantled.
Clever how all of the works, huh? With every other major conference "voted" to positions on the outside looking in, it seems that now only FSU stands in the way. DOn't worry, ESPN is working to handle that. Don't believe me? Examine two examples of college football players in recent weeks. While I appreciate the article outlining FSU's Karlos Williams and possible domestic violence charges, I am left to wonder why ESPN neglected to cover with anywhere near as much zeal Alabama TE Kurt Freitag's drug deal involving 100 grams of marijuana and $4600 in cash?
The answer is simple if you truly want to look. The powers that be have shown us their plan. In week 10, three of the top five teams in all of college football are from the SEC. Not only that, but there are also two more cleverly sitting in the top ten should any of these stumble.
Whether one chooses to accept it or not, the world of college football is never going to be free of corruption, not with that many zeros at stake. The only saving grace is that there is finally a playoff. Here's hoping the other conferences use the opportunity to shut out the SEC. I hope more thought that the "unbiased" selection committee does it's job more honestly than the pollsters.
What's up with Seattle?
Well it looks like the Percy Harvin debacle has inspired the Seattle front office to clean house. If one believes the rumors, Marshawn is taking his Skittles (and fat contract) back home to the sun and fun of California. I guess his need for more money, coupled with his apparent lack of understanding what it meant to truly be a teammate, finally wore thin with the front office. I wonder though, does the 4th round draft pick he is slated to be traded for indicate that he is indeed past his prime and a real distraction, or is the trend of trading of obviously talented guys for next to nothing a bigger indicator of something broken in the front office?
Let's face it, in one off-season Seattle has gone from league best to (honestly) just above average, and it is bound to get worse before it gets better. After signing a starting secondary to contracts that eat into roughly 20% of the overall space cap space (and watching as that exact secondary repays the love by giving up 50 yards more per game) one has to wonder how the front office will manage the extension of Russell Wilson and the rumors that he is looking for around $25M per season. I would like to remain optimistic and believe that Russell is grounded enough to realize that no one individual can win a championship. If not, hopefully he realizes that, at $25M, he would be far and away the highest paid QB in the league, an honor he is not yet deserving of (not with guys like Manning, Brady, or even Rodgers still playing). Mostly, I would like to believe that he is wise enough to calculate that if QBs with far better credentials routinely take pay cuts in exchange for wins, that maybe he too should do the same.
Regardless of what Russell chooses, I hold onto the hope that this season's turnaround opens the eyes of the front office about how to build (and keep) a contender. If you need the blueprint, look to Denver. Maybe the front office can also convince the Seahawk players that the title of highest paid isn't as catchy as multiple time Super Bowl Champion.
Thursday, July 31, 2014
My delving into Economics (with a lot of help)
So I have a very good friend, Nick Rosson, who is a dual degree undergrad (econ and chemistry) that decided to drop out of a doctoral program in chemistry to pursue a career in finance (overall point: he's fairly bright). He and I love to talk finance and investing (though, truth be told, it is more so him talking and me gleaning as much information as I can out of the conversations. Needless to say, I wish I had more money to invest....) and I thought the conversations warranted our sharing some thoughts.
Since he has some great ideas about what is not only wrong with our current economic climate, but also what the average American can do to gain a slice of the ever growing pie, Nick has written some blog posts (NREconBus.blogspot.com) that I rewriting here (as much to promote his ideas as to tone down what I feel is a lecturish format). Know that I am not giving you info out of my own mouth (as I am certain many of you would wonder what in the world I know about finance), rather I am rewording from a very informed source.
The first conversation we'd like to have is about saving accounts, specifically how investing through them is actually costing you money every year. Yes, you read that right, having money in a savings account is actually causing your investment to depreciate in value every year.
(HUGE DISCLAIMER: I - and on behalf of Nick - want to stress that ALL investing means ownership and understanding of inherent risk)
How Banks work, just not for you:
Banks operate as the middlemen in our world, matching buyers and sellers while making sure to take a rather generous cut for themselves for their efforts. Though the buyers and sellers vary depending on the product, most times the sellers are the common American hoping to save a few bucks (for a rainy day fund, that new car, or a down payment on a new house) and who do so by putting their money into savings accounts. Banks collect and then pool all of this money by offering people interest on their "investments" (usually somewhere in the realm of .01%). The bank then turns around and loans this money out to buyers (usually those same Americans looking for a loan to cover any shortfall they may have between what they have saved and what they need to purchase their dream) at an interest rate somewhere in the realm of 5%-15% above and beyond the principle.
(Quick lesson, just in case: Say you take out a loan of $10,000 to buy a used car. This amount is now your principle. If you are charged 5% (a "good" interest rate) you will be expected to pay $500 per year in interest should you never make payments (principle now becomes $10,500 after year one). Every time you make a payment interest is paid off first, then the remaining payment (if any) goes towards your principle. Since most "minimum payments" rarely go above what is owed in interest every month, those people paying only the minimum usually notice that their principle amount rarely changes.
What seems like a fantastic idea on the surface, having a place to "save" money for say a 2014 15" retina MacBook Pro, actually turns out to be a bit of false advertising. Though convinced that banks are great places to safely save for a purchase we foresee making in the next six months to a year, the only thing a bank is truly good for is storing a catastrophe fund (three to six months of bill should something catastrophic happen to you or your family). What's worse is that many people actually are lured into believing that savings accounts are not only the best way to invest, but often the only way. This is almost always untrue, especially long term.
To show why, first we need to understand a little bit about our economy and the banking system. As mentioned before, banks pay people an incredibly nominal amount to "save" their money in their institutions. This amount is your interest rate. Let's say that you have a fairly good amount of money in your savings account and you qualify for the highest interest paying account (It appears for Wells Fargo that amount is: a minimum $100,000 to receive a 0.05% Annual Percentage Yearly and Bank of America: min $250,000 for 0.04% - Please keep in mind that the AVERAGE savings account pays less than .02%).
Using the Wells Fargo data, since it pays slightly more, and based on the calculator found here (https://www.bankofinternet.com/calculators/apy-interest-calculator), we can run some values. For kicks and giggles, lets just say we all have an extra $100,000 which we invested in 2009 through Wells Fargo at 0.05% over a five year (60 month) timespan. Using the compounding daily option (this means getting interest on a daily basis, which, to be fair, is VERY optimistic) we can calculate that, in five years, our $100,000 would be worth $100,250.31. That seems pretty fantastic; you've made just over $250.
Remember when we told you that banks are actually costing you money....? Well, this is due to inflation, a factor of economics that is essentially "set" by our nation's top bank, the Federal Reserve. Though how it is done is beyond the scope of this article, know that the Fed currently tries to keep inflation at about 2% yearly.
This means that, every year, your money actually loses 2% in "buying power" (means that what was once say $1 costs, a year later, $1.02). For an example, and in comparison to our $250 earned over our five years of "saving", let's say you had put that $100,000 in your mattress in 2009. Using the calculator here (http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl) we can see what inflation, over the course of five years, has done to the buying power of our money. As you can see, that $100,000 now has a value of $111,096.45. Though this sounds awesome, what this shows is that what you could have bought for $100,000 in 2009 (cars, groceries, gas, clothes, electronics, etc) now would cost you $111,096.45 due to inflation.
And therein lies the problem. While you "saved" your $100,000 from 2009 and added $250.31 in profit, by the time you actually want to use it your money is actually worth $10,846.14 less in 2014 dollars. You are actually significantly worse off saving your money in banks, and the $250 you got from the bank is only slightly better than saving it in your mattress!
So, the question becomes, why do so many people invest in banks, and what are the alternatives? The answer to the first question usually surrounds safety (ironically maybe the only justifiable way to call them "saving"s accounts) in that, so long as the global economies don't crash, your money (up to $200,000 per institution) is protected. With the volatile market, many people don't want to take the risk of the stock market.
There are however, many "safer" options, namely CDs and money market accounts that have a higher paying interest rate than a bank. To truly get ahead though, you must start to look into bonds for a small, real return (greater than inflation), or stocks and mutual funds to actually generate profits.
If you want to never think about it, to trust that your money will always be there, go ahead and keep it all in a bank, just know that "saving" money in a bank is only making one person money, and that person is not you. If you want to start to delve into the world of actual investing, we will begin, over the course of a few articles, explain a little more clearly the world of investing and finance.
If you are truly nervous to do it yourself, ask around within your friend groups, we can guarantee there is at least one who has a lead on a good financial manager or advisor. Though the idea of giving 1% of your investment to someone may seem contradictory, when they return 5, 8, even 12% or more, 1% becomes nothing (especially since you are making far more than .02%).
Since he has some great ideas about what is not only wrong with our current economic climate, but also what the average American can do to gain a slice of the ever growing pie, Nick has written some blog posts (NREconBus.blogspot.com) that I rewriting here (as much to promote his ideas as to tone down what I feel is a lecturish format). Know that I am not giving you info out of my own mouth (as I am certain many of you would wonder what in the world I know about finance), rather I am rewording from a very informed source.
The first conversation we'd like to have is about saving accounts, specifically how investing through them is actually costing you money every year. Yes, you read that right, having money in a savings account is actually causing your investment to depreciate in value every year.
(HUGE DISCLAIMER: I - and on behalf of Nick - want to stress that ALL investing means ownership and understanding of inherent risk)
How Banks work, just not for you:
Banks operate as the middlemen in our world, matching buyers and sellers while making sure to take a rather generous cut for themselves for their efforts. Though the buyers and sellers vary depending on the product, most times the sellers are the common American hoping to save a few bucks (for a rainy day fund, that new car, or a down payment on a new house) and who do so by putting their money into savings accounts. Banks collect and then pool all of this money by offering people interest on their "investments" (usually somewhere in the realm of .01%). The bank then turns around and loans this money out to buyers (usually those same Americans looking for a loan to cover any shortfall they may have between what they have saved and what they need to purchase their dream) at an interest rate somewhere in the realm of 5%-15% above and beyond the principle.
(Quick lesson, just in case: Say you take out a loan of $10,000 to buy a used car. This amount is now your principle. If you are charged 5% (a "good" interest rate) you will be expected to pay $500 per year in interest should you never make payments (principle now becomes $10,500 after year one). Every time you make a payment interest is paid off first, then the remaining payment (if any) goes towards your principle. Since most "minimum payments" rarely go above what is owed in interest every month, those people paying only the minimum usually notice that their principle amount rarely changes.
What seems like a fantastic idea on the surface, having a place to "save" money for say a 2014 15" retina MacBook Pro, actually turns out to be a bit of false advertising. Though convinced that banks are great places to safely save for a purchase we foresee making in the next six months to a year, the only thing a bank is truly good for is storing a catastrophe fund (three to six months of bill should something catastrophic happen to you or your family). What's worse is that many people actually are lured into believing that savings accounts are not only the best way to invest, but often the only way. This is almost always untrue, especially long term.
To show why, first we need to understand a little bit about our economy and the banking system. As mentioned before, banks pay people an incredibly nominal amount to "save" their money in their institutions. This amount is your interest rate. Let's say that you have a fairly good amount of money in your savings account and you qualify for the highest interest paying account (It appears for Wells Fargo that amount is: a minimum $100,000 to receive a 0.05% Annual Percentage Yearly and Bank of America: min $250,000 for 0.04% - Please keep in mind that the AVERAGE savings account pays less than .02%).
Using the Wells Fargo data, since it pays slightly more, and based on the calculator found here (https://www.bankofinternet.com/calculators/apy-interest-calculator), we can run some values. For kicks and giggles, lets just say we all have an extra $100,000 which we invested in 2009 through Wells Fargo at 0.05% over a five year (60 month) timespan. Using the compounding daily option (this means getting interest on a daily basis, which, to be fair, is VERY optimistic) we can calculate that, in five years, our $100,000 would be worth $100,250.31. That seems pretty fantastic; you've made just over $250.
Remember when we told you that banks are actually costing you money....? Well, this is due to inflation, a factor of economics that is essentially "set" by our nation's top bank, the Federal Reserve. Though how it is done is beyond the scope of this article, know that the Fed currently tries to keep inflation at about 2% yearly.
This means that, every year, your money actually loses 2% in "buying power" (means that what was once say $1 costs, a year later, $1.02). For an example, and in comparison to our $250 earned over our five years of "saving", let's say you had put that $100,000 in your mattress in 2009. Using the calculator here (http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl) we can see what inflation, over the course of five years, has done to the buying power of our money. As you can see, that $100,000 now has a value of $111,096.45. Though this sounds awesome, what this shows is that what you could have bought for $100,000 in 2009 (cars, groceries, gas, clothes, electronics, etc) now would cost you $111,096.45 due to inflation.
And therein lies the problem. While you "saved" your $100,000 from 2009 and added $250.31 in profit, by the time you actually want to use it your money is actually worth $10,846.14 less in 2014 dollars. You are actually significantly worse off saving your money in banks, and the $250 you got from the bank is only slightly better than saving it in your mattress!
So, the question becomes, why do so many people invest in banks, and what are the alternatives? The answer to the first question usually surrounds safety (ironically maybe the only justifiable way to call them "saving"s accounts) in that, so long as the global economies don't crash, your money (up to $200,000 per institution) is protected. With the volatile market, many people don't want to take the risk of the stock market.
There are however, many "safer" options, namely CDs and money market accounts that have a higher paying interest rate than a bank. To truly get ahead though, you must start to look into bonds for a small, real return (greater than inflation), or stocks and mutual funds to actually generate profits.
If you want to never think about it, to trust that your money will always be there, go ahead and keep it all in a bank, just know that "saving" money in a bank is only making one person money, and that person is not you. If you want to start to delve into the world of actual investing, we will begin, over the course of a few articles, explain a little more clearly the world of investing and finance.
If you are truly nervous to do it yourself, ask around within your friend groups, we can guarantee there is at least one who has a lead on a good financial manager or advisor. Though the idea of giving 1% of your investment to someone may seem contradictory, when they return 5, 8, even 12% or more, 1% becomes nothing (especially since you are making far more than .02%).
Wednesday, June 18, 2014
How FIFA can save soccer
It is very simple to see why the average American sports fan hates soccer. In a country where football dominates and MMA gains popularity yearly, there is little patience for a bunch of fully grown men acting like babies.
When did soccer turn into this?
I suppose, if I were to look back decades, I would find players flopping in an attempt to win a free kick, but at no time can I recall such a prevalence of this disturbing trend. Today, instead of actually reacting to a foul, it seems that the slightest touch means the end of the world for some of these players. The graze of an opponent's leg, an elbow a mere six inches from one's face, all of these are presently turned into episodes so full of writhing and wailing that anyone watching would be left to expect that there must be a broken leg or nose.
There is a simple solution to this epidemic, in fact there are a few.
You see, as a part of a supremely wired generation, we have more access to information than ever before. This means that we no longer have to accept what our eyes, at full speed and from a singular angle, saw; now, through the advent of instant replay and an army of high resolution cameras, we are able to see, from every angle, exactly what transpired.
This makes the answer very simple. If you want to stop the flops, fine the floppers. If FIFA were to have an individual watch a replay of every game and fine any flopper $25,000, how long do you think this epidemic would persist? If this is too harsh, how about imposing a five minute penalty for any player needing the "magical" water or medical attention during the course of a game? Simply take them off the field and have them watch as their team plays down a man while they recover. How fast do you think the writhing and wailing would last then?
If it were up to me, I would take it a step further. Since the referees are connected via microphone to someone, have FIFA place a referee upstairs who is watching the same feed as the average viewer. After any call, as the center ref is walking slowly towards the player down, quickly relay whether it was a foul or a dive. If it was a foul, play it as is; if it was a dive, instant yellow. If the ref upstairs cannot determine which it was by the time the center referee arrives at the spot, then play it as called.
As a fan of the beautiful game I am not asking FIFA to callously overlook protecting their assets. What I am asking is that they move soccer back to a time when it was a game of equals battling it out with skill, athleticism and drive, not acting lessons.
When did soccer turn into this?
I suppose, if I were to look back decades, I would find players flopping in an attempt to win a free kick, but at no time can I recall such a prevalence of this disturbing trend. Today, instead of actually reacting to a foul, it seems that the slightest touch means the end of the world for some of these players. The graze of an opponent's leg, an elbow a mere six inches from one's face, all of these are presently turned into episodes so full of writhing and wailing that anyone watching would be left to expect that there must be a broken leg or nose.
There is a simple solution to this epidemic, in fact there are a few.
You see, as a part of a supremely wired generation, we have more access to information than ever before. This means that we no longer have to accept what our eyes, at full speed and from a singular angle, saw; now, through the advent of instant replay and an army of high resolution cameras, we are able to see, from every angle, exactly what transpired.
This makes the answer very simple. If you want to stop the flops, fine the floppers. If FIFA were to have an individual watch a replay of every game and fine any flopper $25,000, how long do you think this epidemic would persist? If this is too harsh, how about imposing a five minute penalty for any player needing the "magical" water or medical attention during the course of a game? Simply take them off the field and have them watch as their team plays down a man while they recover. How fast do you think the writhing and wailing would last then?
If it were up to me, I would take it a step further. Since the referees are connected via microphone to someone, have FIFA place a referee upstairs who is watching the same feed as the average viewer. After any call, as the center ref is walking slowly towards the player down, quickly relay whether it was a foul or a dive. If it was a foul, play it as is; if it was a dive, instant yellow. If the ref upstairs cannot determine which it was by the time the center referee arrives at the spot, then play it as called.
As a fan of the beautiful game I am not asking FIFA to callously overlook protecting their assets. What I am asking is that they move soccer back to a time when it was a game of equals battling it out with skill, athleticism and drive, not acting lessons.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)