Bleacher Report - Articles by Jonathan Rudd

Senators, Steroids, and Spygate: One Man's Opinion

Jonathan Rudd — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 08:02:45 -0400

It seems these days that Congress is getting more and more involved in the realm of professional sports. Almost everywhere you turn, it's something else: first it was George Mitchell and the MLB steroids report, then the Congressional hearings of Mark McGwire, Palmeiro, etc., and, more recently, Arlen Specter and the NFL.

I've heard thousands of voices asking the same question: "Why the heck would Congress get involved in professional sports?"

And the answer, my good friends? It was done for you. And your money.

The NFL and MLB consist, in the minds of Congress, as the owners of the respective franchises. Let's lump them all together, the owners of the NFL and MLB. The 32 NFL franchises plus the 30 MLB franchises is 62 teams. That's a lot of teams, right? And a lot of teams translates into a lot of owners.

Let's talk a moment about these owners. Who are they? They are 62 wealthy individuals, worth millions of dollars. They did not amass this wealth through their ownership of their respective teams, either; all 62 were extremely wealthy long before they owned these franchises.

In my experience, the filthy rich people of the world did not get that way (and do not stay that way) by being foolish with their money. So why would a shrewd business-minded person gamble millions on a sports franchise?

Because it's not gambling at all. Even a lousy team can make money (see: Cincinnati Bengals). It is, in fact, easy money; you're usually guaranteed a TV contract, and you get a portion of the shared revenue from the league.

Fans, for the most part, are loyal, and, if you do achieve success within your league, you can count on a large number of bandwagon fans to boost your income. And should you overextend yourself, just sell or relocate your team. Not one owner has been sent to the poorhouse via football or baseball. Period.

Which brings us back to Congress. I understand that we were all taught in grade school that Congress enacts laws to help the good, decent, hardworking people of America, which may or may not be true. But I hope we can all agree that Congress also routinely passes laws to protect wealthy Americans' ability to make money via the preservation of the status quo—in other words, Congress doesn't rock the boat if the boat is full of rich people. (I guess that makes the boat a yacht.)

Which brings us back to the baseball hearings and steroid report. Congress investigated steroids because, just like our sports teams' owners, Congress is made up of extremely wealthy people who rely on contributions from other wealthy people to stay in office. It's a "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" relationship. And if I've scratched your back to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions, you're going to scratch mine whenever and wherever it itches.

So if we assume that MLB's handling of the steroids issue caused quite a few 'itchy backs' in the circle of MLB owners, we begin to see the picture. The thought amongst the owners seemed to be that MLB's front office, particularly Bud Selig, were handling the issue poorly.

Phone calls were made, reports were filed, and hearings were had on national television coast to coast...all to protect the image of the game. Had baseball been perceived as "soft" on steroids, or, even worse, discovered itself to be a bunch of juiced up 'roid heads mindlessly swinging for the fences while breaking legitimate record after legitimate record, the game would've been ruined in the minds of the fans.

And that's you.

And had you walked away from the game, you'd have taken your wallet with you.

And that would've been a sad day for MLB.

So they called in Congress, the governing body of the land, to slap a few wrists and ask some questions. Some folks may go to jail at some point, and some folks may not go to jail ever. But, today, all is well in baseball.

Arlen Specter and the NFL is a slightly different story with the same ending: Show me the money!

Specter used Spygate to try and ruffle feathers in the minds of league ownership by casting Roger Goodell as an incompetent stooge (which he may or may not be). Specter was calling for a full, formal investigation of the NFL, which, for no apparent reason at the time, he felt should include a re-working of the NFL's anti-trust exemption.

I thought this was a little odd at the time. The anti-trust exemption deals with the relocation of teams, right?

Yes, I found out. But among other things, it also covers broadcasting. That's when things added up. Comcast, the cable giant, is in a legal dispute with the NFL, claiming it's unfair for the NFL Network to put games solely on its own NFL Network, which is offered only on DirecTV. They also disagree with the NFL's decision to offer NFL Sunday ticket only on DitrecTV. They would like them moved to (surprise!) Comcast.

Google "Arlen Specter Comcast" and you'll find that Specter had taken $153,600 in campaign contributions from Comcast, or those affiliated with Comcast as employees, or through its PAC. The only firm that gave more money to Specter's campaign was the law firm of Blank Rome LLP, which represents Comcast and which has given Specter $358,453.

Hmmmmm...$512,053 is a lot of bread. It seems to me that Specter is just protecting his own money on this one. It turns out that this makes the fourth time since 2005 that Specter has tried to have the NFL investigated in some form or another regarding its antitrust laws.

What else happened in 2005? The NFL announced it would show certain NFL games exclusively on the NFL Network starting in '06. The latest allegations of impropriety regarding the Spygate tapes is simply another example of Specter yelling that the house is on fire so that he may loot it in the chaos.

So, there you have it. Sports need to have the appearance of being a level playing field to keep us watching, and we need to keep watching (and buying) to keep the owners in business.

And Congress? Congress is simply doing what Congress has been doing since it was founded: protecting the interests of the rich.

Cheers!

Joey Votto, Jay Bruce: The Future's So Bright, We Gotta Wear Shades

Jonathan Rudd — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 03:54:13 -0400

As a lifelong Reds' fan, I've noticed something very, very odd for June in Cincinnati: It's all smiles in the Queen City.

Jay Bruce has exploded into the Reds' lineup, hitting .423 with 12 runs, 3 home runs and 7 RBI in his inaugural 10 games.

Joey Votto has preformed beautifully in this same ten game stretch, hitting .324 with 4 RBI. The two have combined for 3 stolen bases, 14 walks, 9 strikeouts, and 27 hits in 71 combined at bats.

Fourth year pitcher Edmonson Volquez is carrying a sub 2.00 ERA with an 8-2 record. Prospects Johnny Cueto and Homer Bailey are showing flashes of greatness—both have had strong outings this year but have been troubled by consistency issues.

It's a much needed ray of hope for long suffering Cincinnati fans tired of clinging to the aging Griffey and Adam Dunn.

Good young ballplayers have revitalized the Reds' fan base and seem to be doing the same for the entire franchise.

Of course Rome wasn't re-built in a day—and no one understands that more than the Reds faithful. It's still a "Wait until next year" mentality.

But you can't help but feel like next year might just be worth waiting for.

Kimbo Slice, MMA and the WTA...WTF?

Jonathan Rudd — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 09:15:41 -0400

Q: Who is the number one women's tennis player in the world?

A: Who gives a damn, right? I thought this was a Kimbo article.

It is. I just wanted to establish something right away: Kimbo Slice is turning MMA into the WTA...the Women's Tennis Association.

I'm serious. Up until now, the WTA has been the only legitimate sport in which competitors have received recognition for something other than actually being proficient at their chosen arena of competition.

Baseball has A-Rod and, well... baseball has A-Rod. It's the same thing in the NFL with Manning and Brady, and in the NBA with Kobe and Lebron: basically, a handful of players are, via their top notch talent and work ethic, accepting the torch passed down to them by former legends of their respective leagues, earning them lucrative contracts and endorsement deals, as well as the popularity to be known as "the face of their league".

Which brings me to the WTA, and, ultimately, Kimbo. You see, for some time now, the face of the WTA has NOT been, surprisingly enough, a dominating athlete in the field, i.e. the Williams sisters.

WTA has instead chosen to rally behind a series of sexy blondes with names like Sharapova and Kournikova; women known not primarily for their prowess on the court, but for their good looks. Fans of the WTA have been complaining for a while now that it's very frustrating to see the best athletes overlooked in favor of the most marketable...personality.

And now it seems the same thing is happening to MMA, with Kimbo getting prime time billing and large paydays over fighters who have paid their dues for years in the MMA circuits; fighters who would likely dismantle Kimbo in a matter of seconds in the octagon. And as MMA trots out the same tired argument the WTA has used—that attracting fans to the sport is good for everyone—the fact remains that this argument does not hold water.

Just as women's tennis isn't about oogling a good looking woman in a tennis skirt, MMA isn't about backyard brawling and five second knockouts. Like the WTA, MMA is an athletic competition of endurance, skill, and technical ability.

The only fans attracted to the sport by Kimbo are exactly the kind of fans MMA doesn't need - people who will roundly boo anything other than a toe to toe slugfest; people who will overlook all the technical aspects of grappling; people who just want to see a barfight in an octagon.

And nothing about that is pretty. Even if you dress it up in a tennis skirt.