2014 Little League Championship Vacated - Where's the Racism?

The Jackie Robinson West of Chicago Little League team was stripped of the 2014 Little League World Championship because they used ineligible players.

The team was all-black, and it's the first time an all-black team won the Little League world series.

First off..what's the big deal? (In the sense of a history-making achievement proving that one race is just as good as any other race - obviously any team winning a Little League championship is a big deal.)

No one - racist or non-racist - disputes black's athletic abilities (whether they are African-American, African-English, African-Scottish, African-Canadian, African-African, whatever).

It's hard to find a white player on an NBA or WNBA roster (where's the push to get more white athletes involved in those two sports, I wonder?). NFL teams are mostly African American. There's plenty of black players in the MLB (ah, but there's the rub...they're not African-American. Why? Is it because of some racism - or is it because black kids don't want to spend years and years in college on a baseball scholarship when they can spend a year in college on a basketball or football scholarship and then make it to the pros?)

The point is, some of the parents of these Little League kids (and, of course, Jesse Jackson) are saying that the title was vacated because of racism. Because the entire team was black. Really? In the year 2014 with black athletes dominating the NBA and the NFL (and viewership at all time highs) you are going to claim because a Little League team was all black that "whitey" set out to get their win vacated for no other reason than that they were black?

An all black team winning a sporting event is not a big deal.

Call me when an all-black team wins a Geography Bowl, a Spelling Bee, or a Math Bowl, and then is accused of cheating for no other reason then that they are black- that would be racism.

Diana Taurasi will not play in the WNBA this season

http://www.cbssports.com/general/eye-on-sports/25029464/diana-taurasi-to-be-paid-not-to-play-in-wnba-this-season

Her team in Russia, UMMC Ekaterinburg, is paying her a million dollars not to play in the WNBA, to keep her fresh for their season.

A million dollars!

A million dollars!

That's how much an NBA rookie makes, I think.

The comments on the article are rather hateful, I think. "Who wants to watch women play basketball.:" (Well, obviously a lot of folks in Russia...) "She should get a nose job with that money.:"

Of course those are just teenage boys thinking they're being clever.

But the point is the WNBA is losing money every year, in part I think because girls and women do not watch. Pace the troglodytes on the message board, lots of men do watch the WNBA, precisely because they do want to watch women running around - I'm talking about the sexual aspect. Whereas women will watch college women's basketball because of their favorite college team in their town, that interest doesn't hold over, for many, once their favorite players leave for the WNBA.

I remember many years ago being excited when the first issue of Sports Illustrated for Women magazine came out. At first it was just like Sports Illustrated, only covering women's sports. Pretty soon it devolved into articles on how women athletes did their makeup and lost weight. Presumably the editors/publisher did this in an attempt to get a female audience that wasn't interested in straight sports reporting. (I've always wondered if that was the case - did the one cause the other? I mean - was it failing so they switched the emphasis to make up and weight loss, or was it successful until they made that switch?)

In any event, the magazine stopped publication after four issues, if it even had that many ...so you can't blame SI for not publishing something for the female audience, you've got to blame the female audience for not caring about women's sports...

What's Up With Golf Now's Psychotic Leprechaun?

I've got the Golf Channel on, watching the Pure Silk Bahamas LPGA Classic, and I've got the sound off because I'm working.

Every hour or so, yesterday and today, they've shown a commercial for GolfNow/FreeGolf for life.

A tubby guy is walking along an office corridor with another guy, and they stop at a desk where a guy dressed as a leprechaun is sitting.

I only had the sound up once, yesterday. The tubby guy addresses the leprechaun cheerfully - "You look like a golfer," or something like that.

And the leprechaun, or at least a full-sized man dressed in a green shirt and hat, is looking like he'd like to whip out a meat cleaver and start hacking off body parts, and he says something between gritted teeth, like, "What's up, Chuck."

And I'm thinking...what in the world are they trying to accomplish with this commercial? That leprechaun dude is scary, not an inviting character at all, and if I saw him on a golf course I'd run for my life.

If this commercial was for anything else than winning free golf for life, I'd never use the goods or services that was being advertised - that leprechaun is that much of a turn-off.

Who'd have thought it'd be raining in the Bahamas?

I was reading up on the Bahamas LPGA Classic today, from this article:

http://www.cbssports.com/golf/story/25055141/pancake-takes-lead-in-first-round-at-bahamas-lpga-classic

According to the Golf Channel (I've got the sound turned down on The Morning Drive but they've got text bugs crawling across the bottom of the screen) it's the Pure Silk Bahamas LPGA Classic.

Anyway, a friend of mine is, even as I type, in the Bahamas playing in a bridge tournament. She's in the second week of a two week tournament.

There are 3 sessions each day in a bridge tournament, apparently, each session lasting 3-4 hours and people can play in as many sessions as they want.

My friend figured she'd play in all the sessons, each day. Apparently they play not for money - which would at least make sense - but for "Gold" points or "silver" points.

I thought to myself... you're going to the Bahamas to play bridge?

I didn't realize that the Bahamas actually gets a lot of rainfall...and even flooding. (Last year's LPGA tournament ended early because of flooding.)

So I guess it's okay for her to spend all her time indoors...playing bridge...

(By the way, bridge is not specifically a women's game. I'd bet cash money that at least half of the players in this bridge tourney are men, and that they're spending all day in doors, as well.)

NBA Referee Lauren Holtkamp

Lauren Holtkamp is in her first year as an NBA Referee.

Yesterday, she teed-up Chris Paul of the Los Angeles Clippers. (Teed-up means give a technical foul to.)

Players get upset at referees all the time.

Did Chris Paul, in his press interview afterwards, say, "That was a crap call and that ref should have known better."

No, he said, "The tech I got was ridiculous," Paul said. "That's terrible. There's no way that can be a technical. We try to get the ball out fast every time down the court. When we did that, she said, 'Uh-uh.' I said, 'Why uh-uh?' and she gave me a technical. That's ridiculous. If that's the case, this might not be for her."

What is the "This" that he is talking about?

Being a referee in the NBA "might not be for her"?

That's not a basketball player complaining about a referee being an idiot. That's a basketball player with a little extra disrespect for a female referee. Would he have made the same statement, "This might not be for him," if it had been a rookie male referee?

http://m.apnews.com/ap/db_268750/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=83d6e0UJ

I hope Holtkamp can tough it out. As the saying goes, to be a woman referee, she's going to have to be twice as good as a male ref, to be thought of as half as good.

Let's settle the Pete Carroll issue once and for all

Yesterday, it was Bill Bellichick coming to the defense of Pete Carroll, today it's basketball's Mavericks' owner Mark Cuban.

So - all the fans are ripping Carroll for calling a pass play when the ball was on the half-yard line, they've got 3 downs to get it into the end-zone and they've got Marshawn Lynch.

Coaches are defending Carroll, pointing out that 40% of plays called on the goal line are pass plays. And, let's face it, if Wilson had thrown the ball just a second quicker, his receiver would have been able to catch it without interference.

But, he didn't. He threw the ball a second late, the receiver ran into Patriot Malcolm Butler and was knocked flat, and Butler made the interception.

So...first off...why are 40% of plays called on the goal line, pass plays?

Look at the teams that call them. They are teams that don't have a dominating running back, like Marshawn Lynch. They are teams like the Broncos, with a pass-happy Peyton Manning.

When you've got Marshawn Lynch in the backfield, and you need a half a yard, and you've got three downs on which to do it.... you give the ball to Marshawn Lynch.

Or if you do pass it, you pass it to a corner where there will hopefully be a receiver all alone or at least one not with five players from the opposing team surrounding him, ready to pick off an interception.

Sure, its possible Lynch could have fumbled in the scrum, which would be the equivalent of Wilson throwing an interception - but Lynch doesn't fumble.

Carroll should have given the ball to Lynch three times, if necessary. It's as simple as that.

Can Cameras GIve Athletes a Little Privacy, Please?

I can't remember the football game where this occurred - sometime last year - some player injured himself and walked the long walk down the tunnel into the locker room. It was obviously a high-profile player, perhaps even a quarterback. The point is that someone with a camera followed the guy - from the back - all the way down the long hallway to the locker room.

Why? There's a game going on...why are you wasting five minutes filming a guy from the back walking down a tunnel to a locker room?

Today, it was Tiger Woods, at the Farmers Insurance Open in Torrey Pines, California. There was a fog delay, and apparently between the time Tiger had practiced to the time he was able to play, his glutes had "deactivated" and he couldn't reactivate them, and they went up into his lower back. (Whatever the heck that means.)

Anyway, after 11 holes (he'd started on the back nine) Tiger withdrew.

A camera showed him shaking hands with his two other partners that day - Rickie Fowler and Billy Horschel - and then getting on a cart - in the front seat - and being driven away.

A cameraman followed after the cart for five minutes, filming the cart - because we certainly couldn't see Tiger. Why? Why? Did the cameraman hope Tiger would suddenly jump out of the front seat and come running back, ready to golf again?

Then he stood around for a few minutes talking to reporters.

Then he got in his car and waited.

Did the camera cut away and go back to showing us some golf action?

Why no, he didn't. He continued to film the car in which Tiger was sitting, while his caddy put all the gear away. It was like 10 minutes of filming of absolutely nothing to see.

Absolutely ridiculous.

Meanwhile, as I type, Phil Mickelson is about to tee off on the 10th hole of the South Course - having had bogeys on 3, 4 and 6, and birdies on 8 and 9, so he's one over on the day.

Not sure how many more holes he'll be able to play today, because of the fog delay.

And meantime...

Nicholas Thompson playing the North Course is leading at -7 through 15. But Jhonattan Vega, playing the much harder (at least according to the commentators) South Course, is in second at -5.