Is the Pro Bowl worthy to watch?

2013 Pro Bowl Game-Peyton Manning representing the AFC, and Adrian Peterson representing the NFC.

As the Pro Bowl is near, the constant debate remains. Should the Pro Bowl exist or be completely cancelled?

Last year, Roger Goodell wanted to cancel the Pro Bowl due to fans extremely upset with the play of these "pro bowlers". The term "pro bowl" means that these selected individuals were selected by fans and his peers that he was the best at his position: however, it seems to be more a popularity contest than actual ability. For instance, the teams that seem to be more victorious tend to have more players, but does that mean those players are better than teams with subpar records? No. I know at least four teams that do not have one player on the roster nor as an alternative. Why? If this is suppose to be exciting, by not having at least one player from each team on the "Pro Bowl" squad than it already eliminates certain fans to watch the game. I am not saying that each team needs a player to keep it interesting, but that would reduce the low television ranks.

The big issue with the pro bowl is the money and the incentives these players receive. The players want a bonus. It's one thing just to receive a bonus, but winning the pro bowl game allows that team to recieve more money on top of a nice trip Honolulu. It's a dream come true. Each pro bowler receives money and a nice vacation. If you were a player enjoying a nice vacation and receiving more money besides your regularly high pay check what is the purpose to play? The past few years, the pro bowl is infamous for players not trying to tackle or play hard because they fear injuries so the scoring is ridiculously high making it seem more of a walk through practice than an actual game.

Too bad this game lacks cockiness and attitude to be deemed the best of the best, not just a pro bowler. Why is football such a great sport? Camaraderie and hard hits make football enjoyable to watch.

The injured players or those players going to the super bowl are still paid despite them missing the action to unpredicted circumstances.

If the players do not care, why should we the viewers care?

The pro bowl use to be after the super bowl and it was a nice way to end the season. Imagine winning the super bowl and then seeing all the other greats on the same field at the same time. The last game of the 2012 season. Although the money seems to have the most power, more fans watched the pro bowl after the super bowl than before the super bowl and there was no issue with any player missing the pro bowl except those injured players.

I know the MLB, NBA all have mid-year all-star games, which I think is ludicrous since some athletes emerge after the break where others dwindle. Does the "best" no longer have meaning? Or are all these games just to make more money.

If the latter, why do we watch them? What perks does it have on the viewers? In the Baseball All-star game, it determines home field advantage in the world series, which means that All Star game holds a purpose for the baseball season. Again, I think the team with the best record should have home field advantage since these players playing in the mid-season game won't necessarily remain consistent statistically.

If everything is based off of luck or mid-season form, what is the purpose of these all-star games? MONEY!

I think it is essential to recognize those athletes that had remarkable seasons and its great seeing them with those other greats as well, but is there something we can change in order for ball players to take the game seriously and us the viewers to actually enjoy the game?

I think the best solution is having all the all-star games at the end of the year where the winning team is the only team to receive a bonus. Let's face it, these athletes already receive incentives for winning MVP of the league, or best defender, and this way we are making them play to earn his bonus.

Even the olympians love being in the olympics, but it is never enough for them. To win a gold medal puts those athletes on elite status of the world and sets themselves apart from the rest of the olympians, so why not treat our athletes that same way. Give glory and praise to those athletes that not only proved it during the season, but the all star game as well and that way there is no doubt for that sports season that player or those players were the best.





Sources: http://www.nfl.com/probowl

Old News: Chip Kelly in Philadelphia...New News: Hybrid

Chip Kelly-A New Movement in Eagles Mentality

Chip Kelly the new Philadelphia Eagles Coach in action.

Now that all the dust has settled with Chip Kelly, it's time to assess his scheme and mentality he brings to the Philadelphia Eagles. 

It is known to every football phanatic that he has an uptempo offense and he is very charasmatic. 

Problem one: How is this going to work with the current Eagles roster?

Solution: Keep Foles, lose Vick and create a hybrid of the pocket passer with an electric uptempo offense. It sounds complex, but yet its simple. The Eagles can use the fourth round pick to help create that uptempo offense in the red-zone and use Foles for the pocket passing. Let's face it, Vick can be a threat to any defense; however, he is injury prone and losing his step. Just because an athlete loses his step does not mean rid him right away- for instance, the Eagles made a big mistake not keeping Brain Dawkins who was the heart and soul of the defense and team. Mike Vick, on the other hand, does not have that leadership nor the desire to be a leader and play as a team. Now that Vick is out, McCoy is a dynamic back that can be used in the slot or up the gut, which allows the Eagles to stretch out the defense in the red-zone. That's where Brent Celek would be perfect for overpowering the small defensive ends. Finally, use the number four pick to find a dynamic player that can throw and run to fill that hole in the uptempo offense in the red-zone. This is a perfect time to rebuild, reinvigorate and finally utilize the talent from each player on the team. 

Problem two: How can a college coach control these very out-spoken and cocky athletes? 

Solution: Chip Kelly is a college coach who loves to control his team. I think Chip will have to use that mentality to refocus the Eagles and make them act as a team and not as individuals. The only way he could succeed is using this hybrid technique because it utilizes the talent so the players will be actively used; ergo, they will not complain too much and he needs to be a tough coach that will not tolerate mediocre play or attitude.

I have no doubt that his coaching talent will be successful, but it does take a team and organization to succeed. It will take a long time, so the sooner the Eagles start, the better. That means, rid of Vick and reshuffle the deck. 

Let's Go Eagles! 

"Coaches who can outline plays on a black board are a dime a dozen. The ones who win get inside their player and motivate"-Vince Lombardi



Source: phillysportslive.com

Field of Dreams

Where does the Baseball Hall of Fame leave America's game in the future?

http://www.neontommy.com/sites/default/files/uploads/Shotgun%20P4%20Field%20of%20Dreams.jpg

Today in the Baseball world, many fans, players, and analysts are at odds. For the first time since 1996, no one was inducted into the Baseball Hall of Fame for 2013. This years class includes players like Craig Biggio, Barry Bonds, and Mike Piazza. 

Lets take a quick look at these candidates. 

Craig Biggio had the highest percentage of votes (68.2% of votes, needs 75%). One of few players on this list who was not linked to steroid use.

Barry Bonds on the other hand is linked to taking performance-enhancing drugs only received 36.2% of the votes. Despite that, Bonds is still considered one of the greatest hitters of baseball.

Lastly, Mike Piazza, considered one of the best hitter catchers of all time, I think faired well in this years class with 57.8% of the votes despite his uncertainty with taking performance-enhancing drugs.

Whether or not these athletes took steroids should not be in question. The real question should examine the purpose and meaning of being an inductee into the Baseball Hall of Fame. Ok, so lets take a look.

What is the Baseball Hall of Fame? According to sportingcharts.com, they define it to be "A building located in Cooperstown, New York that functions as both a baseball museum and a venue displaying the accomplishments of, and honoring the memory of baseball's greatest players. Also defined as the collection of players, managers, coaches, and other individuals associated with the history of baseball who have been honored as cherished and valuable contributors to the game."

Based on that definition, I am not surprised that fans, athletes, analysts, and voters are at odds when the game has become more complicated thanks to the usage of performance-enhancing drugs. How can those who have used substances receive such a prestigious award and forever be remembered? How can some of the best players of the game not be included? 

These questions have been debated time and time again. Looking back at the definition, the Hall of Fame "honors the memory of baseball's greatest players...individuals who have been honored as cherished and valuable contributors to the game" can everyone who values the HOF look at those players already in the Hall of Fame and players on the 2013 list and assess the talent. 

Is the significance of the Hall of Fame only to recognize talent or does it represent the man on and off the field who has the best talent? These questions reveal two different answers and viewpoints on the Baseball Hall of Fame. 

The Baseball Hall of Fame to kids is a dream that is untouchable. To be considered in the HOF with legends like Hank Aaron, Yogi Berra, and Babe Ruth is like living in a dream with faces that defined baseball.  These athletes played the game because it was a passion and just for a moment these players were raised to immortal status for a few hours during every game. 

Today, analysts and players talk about being inducted into the HOF like these players have already received his plaque. Here is an example: Derek Jeter is an outstanding shortstop for the Yankees organization and along the way he has been a great hitter, leader, and fielder. Each of those qualities put Jeter on a different level than most great athletes. Derek Jeter, although his career may be ending soon, has already been discussed a sure inductee when he is eligible. That is a tremendous honor and exciting for Jeter; however, during the past few seasons the focus has been on his achievements and not of the Yankees success. 

Why is it that analysts write the ending of each great player before the player has a say? Taking Jeter for instance, he probably will be inductee into the Hall of Fame as soon as his name is on the ballot, but some athletes will not have his path into the HOF. 

In a media driven society, is a player not defined by his actions off the field as much as on the field? The candidates for the 2013 HOF class is not just dealing with stereotype of the 'steroid era', but they are fighting with media and how they are portrayed. Athletes need to understand that in today's society, they have to be extra careful with his actions and how it can taint the future. Barry Bonds is considered by some to be one of the top 10 players in baseball history for his impeccable hitting qualities, but his actions to be linked to steroids have hindered his successes. Unlike Bonds, Mike Piazza was not found nor did he reveal if he used performance-enhancing drugs (although people have their speculation that he did), he is considered one of the best hitting catchers in baseball. The unique aspect about Piazza is his hitting statistics are considered HOF worthy, however, his defense, leadership, and running abilities were subpar. I know many may try to despite that, but throughout baseball its rare to find a catcher who hits for power, accuracy, great defender, great rapport with the pitchers, and a solid runner = ultimate catcher. I do not think statistically Piazza falls under that category, but as a hitter absolutely. With that being said, is Piazza's fame due to mediocre catchers during the 90's? What should be assessed for these HOF candidates is the team's overall success while they were playing. A man is never bigger than the game in this era especially in a sport like baseball when you can do everything by the book and fail and succeed by luck and that is why the 'steroid era' is in question. 

America's game... America's game anymore? 

Despite the controversy over this years ballot, there are a few players who may have lost the chance to be inducted into the HOF because of performance-enhancing drugs. Craig Biggio is not linked to drugs and his legacy is hitting 3,000 hits and being one of the top second basemen in baseball. His only downfall was ending his career subpar, which most analysts believe it is one of the reasons for Biggio to not get the nod in this years HOF. 

How do we fix this debacle? Simple: Re-define what it means to be in the Baseball Hall of Fame. This has to included characteristics off the field is just as important as on the field, drug usage  etc, or keep the old definition and let the voters have their say and the rest is up to the Baseball gods. 

The game is changing, but it doesn't mean we change our past, we just have to remind ourselves to look back to the roots of the game to  help pave the way for the future. 

"I always thought that record would stand until it was broken."-Yogi Berra

http://bestclipartblog.com/clipart-pics/-baseball-clipart-1.jpg

Sources: http://www.sportingcharts.com/dictionary/mlb/national-baseball-hall-of-fame.aspx

http://www.nndb.com/honors/351/000044219/

http://www.baseball-almanac.com/quotes/quoberra.shtml

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1477358-mlb-announces-2013-hall-of-fame-inductees