USA Basketball

Due to my new role as "stay at home Dad", I had the opportunity to watch the US men's basketball team play Greece this morning in the Olympics.  Just a couple years ago, Greece upset a heavily favored U.S. team at the world championships in Japan.  It was one of the most disappointing games in U.S. men's basketball history because U.S.A basketball had made great efforts leading up to the World Championships to better prepare the team for international competition after being thoroughly embarrassed at the Olympics in 2004.  Despite these efforts the US team fell in Japan to a Greek team that did not have a single NBA player on it's roster.   As a result, this rematch took on a special significance for team USA.  In the end, the men's team cruised to a 92-69 win and demonstrated the type of effort that spectators have rarely seen from team USA since pro players began competing in the Olympics.  

The funny thing about this game for me was that I really didn't care that much whether or not the U.S. won.  Sure, I rooted for the American men to win and I was proud of the effort they displayed but whether or not the U.S. wins the gold in basketball means about as much to me as whether or not the U.S. women are able pull off a gold medal in water polo.  In fact, I might actually care more about the U.S. women's water polo team.  (However, I enjoy watching men's basketball a great deal more.)  The reason for this is that the performance of the U.S. men's basketball team in no significant way reflects the quality or caliber of basketball in United States.  That may sound counter-intuitive, but there are several reasons why that statement is true.

First, the rules that govern international basketball are very different from NBA rules.  The international game is played at a different pace than NBA basketball and international referee's call games differently than NBA referees.  Why are all of these differences significant?  Well, imagine if Michael Phelps and the rest of the US swim team swam different types of swimming strokes and in a different size swimming pool than those used in the Olympics.  Would the Olympics really be an accurate measure of team USA's quality as a swim team?  The answer is no.  The same can be said of the men's basketball team.  Second, teams the US faces in the Olympic tournament consist of players that have played together in international competition for years.  The US comparatively has little experience in international competition and have players that have only played a handful of games together.  The fact is the NBA and ,by extension, USA basketball has never fully embraced international basketball.

That said, USA basketball and the NBA have made more of an effort over the last four years to develop an actual international men's basketball program that more closely resembles that of other countries.  In fact, if the US does win gold it will be because of these recent efforts.  Nevertheless, until the NBA embraces international basketball has full partners and/or international basketball realizes it's in their best interest to tailor their game more toward NBA basketball, Olympic basketball will never truly be a competition to determine the best men's basketball team in the world and basketball itself will never truly be an international game.

Comments on the Conflict between Russia and Georgia

While watching the news today I heard a news anchor ask an "expert" if the United States still has the "moral authority" to challenge Russia's invasion of Georgia after the United States' invasion of Iraq.  While such a such a question certainly didn't surprise me, given the general political leanings of major news networks, I still found the premise behind the question mildly absurd.

Certainly many nations around the world objected to the U.S. led invasion of Iraq and many of the reasons for opposing the invasion were valid.  There is no question the invasion hurt America's image around the world.  But to believe the idea that the United States somehow forfeited it's authority (moral or otherwise) to speak out against Russia requires one to suspend reality and ignore history.  

First of all, the differences between the U.S. led invasion of Iraq and the Russian invasion of Georgia are almost too numerous to count.  (To outline all of these differences, would be too time consuming but one simple example is the fact that the Saddam Hussein violated the 1991 Gulf War cease fire agreement and 15 separate U.N. resolutions.  While Georgian president Mikheil Saakashvili's most egregious crime appears to be distancing his country from Russia's "sphere of influence".)

Second, one unpopular war does not erase the overwhelming  number of times U.S. has sacrificed it's own blood and treasure in defense of allies and in humanitarian efforts around the world.  It also does not erase the fact that U.S. is still the most rich and powerful democratic nation on the planet.

Because the Iraq War has been such an important and heated political issue in this country over the last several years, we tend to lose perspective when evaluating it's importance and understanding it's significance from a global and historical perspective.  The U.S. has been involved in a number of unpopular military engagements over the last century, but America's positive contributions to the world (see World War II, Cold War, etc...) far out weigh her missteps and the rest of the world knows it.

What in the world is going on?

Can someone explain to me why in the world Brett Farve is about to leave the Green Bay Packers? Better yet, why on earth would Packers even be considering trading him or releasing him? Why would two groups be so amazingly intent on acting against their own best interest (particularly the Packers franchise)?

The Greenbay Packers were a field goal away from making the Super Bowl last season. Anyone who watched the Giants vs. Packers NFC championship game knows that Green Bay could have easily won that game. Last season Brett Farve had one of the best seasons of his career. In fact, he seemed to have toned down his gun slinging style and made smarter decisions in the passing game. On top of that, the man that Green Bay has slated to replace Farve has no real NFL experience. So, logic would dictate that the Packers would be thrilled to have Brett Farve back even if he jerked them around during the off-season for the third year in a row. Why would you want an inexperienced QB to take over a Super Bowl contender when you could have one of the all-time great QBs (who can still play at a high level) comeback and lead your team to promise land? Especially when the QB coming back is a SUPERSTAR, beloved by fans around the league (especially your own), and is the franchise's future ambassador. This may sound cras, but there is still a ton of money to made off Brett Farve even after he retires. It is certainly in the Packers' overwhelming, financial interest to maintain a good relationship with Farve.

There are only two reasons I can think of that might have led the Packers to not welcome back Brett Farve with a parade. The first is that the Packers coaches and management believe that Aaron Rodgers (the young back up) is going to be something special and they want to stop paying him big dollars to sit on the bench and have him as their starter for at least a couple years before he becomes a free agent. I highly doubt that this is Packers' true motivation for their rejection of Brett Farve's comeback. Being this close to a Super Bowl, you don't turn the reigns over to an inexperienced QB if you don't have to. The window of opportunity to win a Super Bowl in the NFL is so small, it trumps all other considerations.

The second is that the Packers' coaches and management were so tired of the will he/won't he come back roller coaster (a roller coaster they've been on for the last three off-seasons) that they did not receive the news of Farve's comeback with the appropriate excitement. Which in turn, offended Farve and set off a PR battle between Farve and Packers that made their relationship unworkable. This is the scenario that I think really unfolded because when a franchise acts against it's own perceived best interests it's generally because there are underlying political/personal tensions that push the franchise to take an unexpected course of action.

While I sympathize with Packers management and coaches feeling that Brett Farve was holding their team hostage for the third season in a row, they still made the wrong decision not welcoming Farve back with open arms. I believe they will particularly regret this decision if Farve somehow ends up on a team in their division. I respect that coaches and management have to draw the line and assert their authority so that players aren't the ones calling the shots. Unfortunately for the Packers there are some players in pro sports that are bigger than the coaches, management, and the rest of the team combined and Brett Farve is one of those players.

Don't you dare "go negative"!

It happens every presidential campaign cycle. The two major candidates promise to "take the high road", "stick to the issues", "not sling mud", (insert cliche here), etc... I've always found this amusing considering there's never been a candidate in the history of campaigns that has promised to "take the low road" or "play dirty". Yet, every four years we hear the same self-righteous promises of positivity followed shortly by both candidates strongly condemning the other of "going negative".

The most amazing part about this presidential campaign tradition is that the media act as though this is a new phenomenon. Columnists and reporters write dozens of articles every presidential campaign about how "negative" the campaign has gotten and how one or both of the candidates broke their promise to take the high road. It is absolutely remarkable how gullible the media is when it comes to this silly little finger pointing game that EVERY presidential candidate plays.

This past week has provided us a wonderful example of the "going negative" finger pointing game. The McCain campaign released two separate campaign adds over the last two weeks each built around the theme that Barack Obama is more popular fad than legitimate presidential candidate. In these ads the McCain campaign juxtaposes images of Barack Obama with images of pop icons that are more famous for the personal exploits rather than anything they've accomplished (see Paris Hilton). The Obama campaign immediately accused the McCain campaign of "going negative" and the media (like Pavlov' s dogs) immediately followed with dozens of segments, columns, and articles about the adds and whether or not they were too negative. (In general it was clear the media felt it already knew the answer to the question and that the answer was clearly- yes.) The New York Times even went as far as to publish an editorial stating that one of the ads (the one featuring Paris Hilton) was "tinged with racism". Their evidence of this was that the add contains images of young white women (Paris and Britney) followed by images of Barack Obama. (Irony of the New York Times' editorial I'm sure was lost on the editors because it's hard to see irony way up high in your ivory tower. Nevertheless the racist and stereotypical perspective rests not within the McCain's ad but within the editors' column, because it is the New York Times editors that seem to think that the image of a black man and young white women cannot be shown together without inferring some sort of negative relationship.)

The problem with all of this, besides the fact that it's a huge waste of time, is that one man's "negative" ad is another man's legitimate critique. Is the McCain campaign wrong to suggest that Barack Obama might be more show than substance? Some would say, yes. Others would say, no. That is exactly the point. It's all subjective. More importantly it's part of American politics and has been since Thomas Jefferson had his surrogates print "negative" editorials and articles about his political rivals (Alexander Hamilton and John Adams) in papers that were friendly to him.

Would our politics be better off, if the candidates simply spent their time debating the issues? Possibly. I think I personally would prefer if John McCain simply stuck the major political issues and avoided any political ads that included Paris Hilton or Britney Spears. (In McCain's defense, he has offered multiple times to hold weekly town hall debates with Barack Obama until the week before the election and Barck Obama has rejected his offer every time.) On the other hand, tough campaigns prepare each candidate for the intense scrutiny that either one of them will have to deal with on a daily basis as President of the United States.

This country has done alright, choosing it's leaders over the last 200+ years, better than any other modern democratic country. In the end, the biggest flaw in our presidential politics may not be the "negative campaigns" but the silly idea that presidential campaigns are supposed to be completely "positive".