The Debate - NFL Concussion Lawsuit

Do the retired players in the concussion lawsuit against the NFL have a winning or losing case in court?

Kevin Rossi
As much as I want to say that the players will win this, I think that the NFL will win the case.  The players have all of the moral arguments in the world on their side, but unfortunately that isn’t all of it.  In my mind, the problem is the lack of knowledge.  I’m not talking about now; the research on concussions is growing every single day.  I’m talking about when the concussions were actually sustained by the players.  Back in the day when these retired players were playing, there was not all of this knowledge and research on the impacts of these concussions.  It may sound a bit grim, but you have to go by what they knew then.  However, the players may have a chance if they can prove that the NFL knew all of the ill effects.  The best comparison that I saw was to the tobacco industry.  When tobacco companies knew that there were many side effects to cigarettes, they still marketed cigarettes as cool.  Do I think that the NFL knew things and held the knowledge back?  Not really.  In all, I think that the NFL will win but not by any moral reasoning.  And I do suggest that every reads the Sports On Earth piece and Kevin Van Valkenburg’s piece on concussions from yesterday’s Quick Hits.

Seth Breeden
The retired players in the concussion lawsuit against the NFL have a losing case.

In one of my first pieces for I-95 SportsBiz (here), I discussed this very topic. The concussion lawsuit(s) should be a win for the NFL. Not a glorius win (because I certainly hate to see players suffer from injuries of their playing career...and I’m sure the league feels the same), but a win nonetheless. While the retired players may be correct in that the NFL may not have provided them the best information or medical treatment regarding concussions, the NFL did not do such intentionally. At the time, and presently, the NFL provides the best care for such injuries that they possibly can...but doing so is tricky. There are so many unknown factors in head injuries and the corresponding medical research that the best treatment today may not be the best treatment of tomorrow. To this day there is no sure fire, 100% correct method to handling such injuries. The research in ongoing and medical advances will decrease the unknowns of concussions in time. Furthermore, the league has a history of making rules changes and mandating players where certain equipment for the sake of improving player safety (and the players have a history of disliking and meeting such changes with disapproval). Combining the lack of knowledge regarding concussions at the time when said retired players where in the NFL, and the leagues continuing efforts to improve safety, I believe the NFL should be able to win any concussion related lawsuits.

Drew Rosen
Tough decision here. I think this is a true toss up. I tend to believe that retired players in the NFL do have a good case to make in court. My reasoning is simply based on timing. The NFL is just truly starting now to take care of players. New rules and a true understanding of the effects of injuries makes for a more aware NFL today. Players who are retired never had the opportunity to understand injuries like current players do. I believe retired NFL players have a case in court that they could win. Current NFL players would have a much harder time arguing that they were not aware of the risk that they are taking playing football. The NFL certainly has a good chance of winning their case, yet I believe retired players may have a better argument than most believe.

The Debate - Jacksonville Jaguars

Do you think it is a good or bad idea for the Jacksonville Jaguars to play multiple home games in London?

Kevin Rossi
I totally think it depends on a couple of factors for whether the Jaguars’ move to play some home games in London is a good one or not.  I promise this isn’t a cop-out.  It is a good idea if the team is planning on moving to play overseas full-time.  It is a bad idea if the team plans to remain in Jacksonville.  If the team made this move with the intention of staying in Jacksonville, they would essentially be fighting fire (low attendance figures) with fire (taking away games and essentially dangling the team in front of the fans in a last ditch effort to see if they care).  That would obviously be a terrible idea because that would alienate the few fans that are still left.  If the Jags do move, owner Khan would be going against his word when he said he wasn’t moving the team.  Clearly he meant to add “yet” to the end of that statement.  I do think it is very interesting that arguably the least popular team in the NFL is set to be the guinea pig in testing the long term European waters.  It is just going to be an uphill battle to gain popularity.  But then again, if there is a league that can do it, it is the NFL.  So for the question, I think we need to know more information.  We need to know the 5 year and 10 year plans for the Jaguars.  Maybe it will work.  Maybe it will blow up in their face.  Only time will tell.

Drew Rosen
I think it would be a great idea for the Jaguars to play in London. If they do agree to play games in London, it will most likely be one game a year. It is difficult for them to play more than that because of travel. Not only do they have to travel, but the opposing team will have travel as well. The positives for the Jaguars and the league include a broader market and guaranteed sell outs. NFL games have been very successful when playing overseas. If the Jaguars commit to a long term deal to play games in London, fans will surely root for them. Jaguars are at a point where they could use some fans, and fans from abroad could help them as an organization. Playing a game in London is also a guaranteed sell out. If football fans in London only get to see one live game a year, they will be sure to fill the stadium. The Jaguars would like to see what it feels like to sell out a home game.

Seth
For the Jacksonville Jaguars, I think it would be great for the team to play a couple games in London. They can’t sell out their games at their own venue or draw a consistent crowd. Extending their brand, exposing the Jaguars to more viewers/fans couldn’t hurt their organization...It doesn’t hurt that they won’t have any other American football games with which to compete for fans in London either. If Londoners want to attend an NFL game, well, they’re going to have to watch the Jags. Good for the Jags, not so good for Londoners, but it is what it is (sorry Londoners, wish you could watch a better American football team). I’m also not sure it’s a good move for the Jags to take home games away from the few loyal fans that they do have...then again, that might not be too many fans compared to the other teams around the league. All in all, the Jacksonville Jaguars are hurting for ticket sales and playing in London gives them a easy way to makes some sales...it’s a good deal for the team, just not so much the fanbase or Londoners.

The Debate - NFL Replacement Referees

Should the NFL give in to the demands of the referees to avoid needing to use replacement referees in the regular season?

Kevin Rossi
We saw in week one of the NFL preseason that this whole replacement referee deal cannot continue into the regular season.  It would just make a mockery of the NFL, and being that the NFL is quite sensitive to public perception, it will change.  A deal must be reached as soon as possible.  We all know that deadlines spur action, but in this case there is no time to wait until the deadline.  The longer the NFL waits to come to an agreement with their referees, the more leverage the referees gain.  That’s how bad these replacement referees are.  These guys out there on NFL fields on television and all right now are the next best thing to what the NFL has now, and that’s a scary thought.  The replacements are so bad that they are proving the worth of the real referees minute by minute, call by call.  A deal must be reached.  The NFL must protect the integrity of the game and the integrity of their business.

Seth Breeden
I’m not so sure to “give in” to the demands of the referees is the right thing to do. Yes, the replacements have proven to be awful. And yes, as Kevin opined, the replacements are so terrible that they are proving the worth of the full-time referees. The league should not be the only party to have a vested interest in protecting the integrity and quality of the game. The players and the referees should also have a desire to preserve, and improve, the game.

The impasse needs to end. For one side to completely give in, that would be the wrong solution. Each side needs to give in on some aspects, stay strong on others, and compromise on some. That’s the only way a new deal is going to be worth it. This way, each side can be mutually happy with the deal and we won’t be right back at this same point in a few seasons.

Personally, all the lockout stuff and now the referee replacements has all made the game a little annoying. I just want football. I don’t wait another season or offseason of following lockouts, impasses, and contract negotiations. The two sides need to come to a new deal quick and they both need to stop holding up the whole process. Let’s get back to football!

Drew Rosen
In most negotiation situations, I believe it is imperative for both sides to give in on some issues. Not in this negotiation though. The NFL is being completely unreasonable when it comes to the referee situation. I wrote two articles detailing what the referees are looking for, and in my opinion the request are reasonable. A few request were a slight increase in money, the ability to work another job while officiating, and for the NFL not to add three more officiating crews. The longer it takes to get a deal done, the worse news it is for the NFL. To be frank, the replacement officials have been terrible. A true disgrace to the game. If the NFL does not give in, they risk compromising the integrity of the sport.

The Debate - Olympic Athletes and Partying

In your opinion, is it alright for Olympic athletes to publicly party in London after they are done competing?


Seth Breeden
I’m cool with it...so long as they medaled in their event! You can’t be all partying it up in London if you didn’t win, right?

...Just kidding. I think it is one hundred and fifty percent acceptable for Olympians to publicly party in London after competing regardless of winning a medal or not. Representing your country and competing in the Olympics is a great honor and an unbelievable opportunity for athletes. Who are we (the general public) to scold them for partying and celebrating after their events?

To my knowledge, there hasn’t been any arrests of athletes in London for partying, drunkenness, drinking and driving, or anything of the sort. Sure, some Olympians might be partying their asses off and going a little crazy, but it’s not like they’re doing anything wrong. They approached the olympic games professionally, they put forth their best efforts in the games...they deserve to enjoy themselves and their accomplishments after putting in so many hours training, practicing, and competing. If there were a bunch of stories of Olympians being arrested and causing problems wherever they went to get their drink on, then I might have a different opinion. Until then, live it up Olympians! Go team USA!


Kevin Rossi
To be honest, I didn’t even think that this was a big issue until I read a few different stories (like this one from the Telegraph).  I think it is a bit egregious to attack Olympic athletes for blowing off some steam after they are done competing at the Games.  Let’s look at it this way... After a big project at work (which takes what, a week or three?) you go to the bar with a couple of buddies.  Now let’s take that one week and multiply it by 52 for the weeks in a year and then multiply that by 4-8 for the number of years of training.  Yea that number right there, that’s how much harder an Olympic athletes works compared to your project.  Give them a break.  They have been at the top of their game, the top of their sports’ world for 4-8 years and you are going to criticize them for going out on a quick (controlled) bender?  In the voice of Seth Meyers, “Really!?”  Let’s all just take one big giant leap back and stop taking life so damn seriously.  We would all work ourselves into the ground if we didn’t get a chance to blow off some steam every once in a while.  When you are an OIympic athlete that has the opportunity to win a medal that your entire country will recognize, then you can consider opening your mouth.  I’ve tried to look at this from every angle, not just automatically assuming the view of a college student.  I don’t see it.  The only thing I can see is that people find athletes to be automatic role models, but personally I find that to be complete bunk, and if you still believe that, then you probably still believe that Ryan Lochte is better than Michael Phelps, Mr. Bates killed his wife in Downton Abbey, and Bane was a better villain than the Joker.  Please let the athletes do their thing just as you would do yours.  They are human too ya know!


Drew Rosen
I have a hard time getting angry over Olympians partying in London after their events for one reason, the media. I understand that they may be “partying” in public, but we would not know about it if the media didn't follow them around. There is no doubt that the athletes are aware they are being watched. Does this mean they should pretend to not like partying? I do not think so. People like to have a good time and athletes are included. I could understand peoples viewpoint of the role model theory, except I believe Olympians do not fall in this category. Most Olympians are the best at what they do in a specific country. Yes they choose to compete and be put in the spotlight, but this does not mean they signed up for the world to watch them party. I see professional athletes in the United States differently, I believe they choose to have a job that puts them in the spotlight and are fair game to judge. In the Olympics, athletes are representing a country and should not be judged on what they choose to do after they compete. I would be annoyed seeing Olympic athletes partying before an event, but I do not care what they do after. They trained so hard for years to prepare for the Olympics, let them have a good time.

The Debate

Do you agree with NBC’s decision to tape delay events at the London 2012 Olympics in order to show them in primetime? (Current sidebar vote is all tied up!)


Kevin Rossi
This is probably the biggest debate that there has been in a while which makes sense since the Olympics are the biggest sporting event that we have had in a while.  Many disagree with NBC’s decision to run with tape delays for major events instead of showing them live.  To answer the question for The Debate this week, I think we all have to take our biases towards social media out of our minds for a second.  Most of us rely on social media for all of our news, but to the dismay of many of us, a lot of people do not.  They wait for the paper, they wait for their friends to email them, and yes, believe it or not they wait for the Olympics on tape delay (*gasp*).  A big point here is that it isn’t as if NBC is seeing terrible ratings for their primetime events.  NBC is seeing record ratings, consistently in the 20s, which is right around a solid NFL Playoff game.  They aren’t spinning into a black hole with their decision.  Even if people know the winners, I’m sure that a good amount still tune in (that would be interesting research to see).  Even if that number is 50/50, that is good for NBC.  I think that those of us who rely heavily on social media tend to grossly overestimate how much others rely on it.  With that said, there are still a lot of people going into the primetime showing with no knowledge of the winners (sure NBC has jeopardized that with their promos and they have issued statements saying that the issue will be addressed).  I know, it’s crazy.  

A big reason that NBC uses the tape delay is for the advertisers.  It is much less risky to show the events in primetime; think about it.  If NBC showed the big medal contests during the day when they are run, who knows how many people would turn away from their work to watch.  You could ask how many people would watch in primetime after they know the results, but we know that answer.  It’s tried and true.  NBC needs to be able to guarantee some kind of consistency for for their advertisers to spend the money (about $1 BILLION in total for the London 2012 Games).  With that kind of money being tossed around, NBC cannot play it risky.  They will take the PR hit in the short run while making their advertisers happy.  If you’re not happy about the commercialization of the Olympics, then you’ve been hanging out on some mystery island somewhere with Tupac Shakur (except you’ve been there since about 1984).

Seth Breeden
Yes, I disagree with NBC’s decision to tape delay events at the London 2012 Olympics in order to air them in primetime.

Personally, I find that I have very little interest in watching events of which I already know the outcome. I don’t find much joy or entertainment in doing so. I already know what’s going to happen, so why watch? I don’t watch the Olympics because I think swimming looks cool. I watch events because I have a desire to see who wins; to learn of the outcomes as soon as I possibly can. Watching an event after I already know the results is just a waste of my time. Instead, I can be doing what I enjoy doing most...following events and sporting news live.

For someone like myself (someone who avidly follows sports and is a heavy user of social media), it is nearly impossible to avoid learning of the event results before having a chance to watch it during primetime. Also, just because NBC wants to delay the general public from consuming the Olympics doesn’t mean that other media outlets, such as ESPN, are going to stop reporting live news (I mean, that’s kind of exactly what they do...why would they stop?).

So, thanks NBC, for nothing.

Drew Rosen
The NBC tape delays have come under much scrutiny during the 2012 London Olympics. With the world of social media, the world is connected like it has never been before. The negative with a world that allows information to be spread at incredible speeds, is sometimes (rarely) people do not want to know what happens. This is the case with the Olympics. It is often difficult for fans to sit down and watch an event that they already know the results. For this reason, I am undecided on the debate question.

Although I find it disturbing as a fan not to be able to watch some events live, I understand NBC’s reasoning. If NBC did not reek positive benefits from tape delaying the events, then I would have a problem with them doing it. This is not the case. NBC has received record TV ratings from the tape delays. If fans were so offended and cared so much about the tape delays, they wouldn't watch.

For me this is a debate of my fanhood versus my ability to recognize good sport business. This is terrible for fans but great for business. I would have to say that NBC’s decision to tape delay has been successful.

Bryan Fyalkowski
For once, it is not ESPN’s fault. For the first time in a long time, I have found myself defending the way ESPN covers sports. NBC has been delaying the Olympic events in the United States in order to show them in primetime. Therefore, the general public is frustrated because they find out the results hours before they are able to watch the events on television. After the initial frustration towards NBC, people have taken to blaming other sports outlets for ruining the news, even though they are just doing their job.

Outlets like ESPN, Yahoo! and even Twitter are going to report breaking news, whether it is broadcast on television or not. Times are different than they used to be; people cannot avoid delayed sporting events as they could in the past. You could record a game on VHS or DVR and avoid hearing the news until watching the evening news or reading the newspaper the next morning.

But now, with the emergence of the internet and widespread communication, people can get information almost immediately. In the case of the Olympics, I disagree with what NBC is doing, but I can understand why they are doing it. At the time of the actual events taking place in London, the United States would see the events in the afternoon, during the time of day where television ratings are the lowest in the country.

By showing the events in prime time, even though the majority of the fans know the outcome, NBC has been receiving great ratings. As a sports fan it is tough to face, but it is the correct business decision for the network. Unfortunately for the United States, the world actually does not revolve around our country. Sad but true. We cannot always have it our way and the Olympics has been one instance of that.

The Debate - Rising Player Arrests

Given the frequent arrests of high profile professional athletes, what rules/regulations would you put in place to slow the growing epidemic?

Kevin Rossi
Whenever I think about the answer to this question, I wonder if there really is any reasonable means to lower the frequency of athlete arrests.  This may sound odd, but when I think of this issue, I immediately think of Malcolm Gladwell’s 2005 novel Blink (sorry this may sound crazy).  In Blink, Gladwell talks about decisions that we make in the blink of an eye.  Basically it is about the things that we can do with our subconscious.  In the chapter titled The Locked Door, Gladwell discusses the ventromedial prefrontal cortex.  In this area, to sum it up for my point, we make quick decisions and process fear and consequences.  People that are lacking in terms of the ventromedial prefrontal cortex can have trouble linking their actions to the consequences.  They know that it’s wrong and they know the consequences, but their actions/words don’t match their conscious knowledge.  My point is, I wonder if there is any link between arrests and the sports that people play.  It seems that a lot of the arrested athletes are NFL players.  We know there are dangers to playing football but players ignore them anyway.  Could that be the same with their decision to get behind the wheel?  It would take a lot of further research but I think that would be an extremely interesting research study.  You’re welcome to whoever I just gave a thesis topic.  Anyhow, back to answering the question.  I’m really not sure about the reasonable needs to accomplish lowering arrest rates.  Anybody could go and say to make a one year ban for a guy that is arrested for DUI, but that isn’t reasonable.  Could there be suspensions on an ascending scale; each time a player is arrested the more games suspended?  I think that’s a bit more plausible.  Regardless, it is past the point of team executives sitting back and holding their breath over the offseason.  Teams must keep tabs on their players year round.  It could be expensive, but so could the team’s PR hit.  Clearly players do not respond to the fact that they are role models to kids.  The media tries to pull that one every single time a player is arrested, and players obviously do not take the hint.  It may really come down to how much teams are willing to spend to keep track of their players.  It also may come down to continuing to collectively hold our breath and pray for the best.  I know this would never happen, but wouldn’t it be awesome if team publicists made the arrested player speak for himself?  Nothing prepared, no team statement, no nothing.  Make every player go all Josh Hamilton on us but fail miserably.  Maybe public embarrassment can teach the lesson?  

Seth Breeden
Reading through the debate question this week, the first thought that comes to my mind isn’t about what rules or new policies that leagues should institute. Instead, my initial thought is befuddlement. I just can’t understand why so many athletes seem to have such a difficult time making the right decision (I addressed my thoughts on athletes drinking and driving in Real Talk a week or two ago).

Like my colleague Kevin (him, up there, in the paragraph before me), I too wonder if there is any reasonable means to lower the frequency of athlete arrests. In my opinion, I don’t believe that any rule, policy, or consequence from the given players league is going to make much of a difference. People will do as they please; and if they wish to drink and drive or get into a bar fight, or go all Dez Bryant and allegedly hit their mother in the face...well, unfortunately, I don’t think there is anything that a sports franchise or league could do that would infiltrate that given athlete's decision-making process in the heat of the moment and prevent him or her from committing that inappropriate action. It really all comes down to an individual holding themselves responsible for their own actions (riveting, I know...groundbreaking concept). However, with that being said, leagues still shouldn’t just sit back and wait for the arrests to slow down. Leagues should institute stiff penalties for such infractions, fines, and suspensions. And frankly, I don’t care much for the first-time-offender-doesn’t-get-punished business...first time or not, it sheds a terrible light on sports and damages the reputation of sports as a whole.

Drew Rosen
The frequent arrest of professional athletes is very disturbing. I am not someone who expects athletes to act differently than the rest of us, but I think it is reasonable to hold them to a higher standard. Whether they like it or not, they are role models to young kids. If they don’t want to be role models then they should look for a job out of the public spotlight. All that being said, I do not think any rules or regulations need to be put on the athletes. I would like to see athletes arrest go down but I do not think it will come from different rules. Players are humans and they understand the decisions they make. The recent Jason Kidd story just baffles me. This grown man has a wife and kid and all the money he needs. I do not understand how you get drunk and get behind the wheel to drive home. There is no rule or regulation that would deter this behavior by Kidd. The fact that he made a horrible decision is bothersome but unfortunately it is human nature and he was going to do it anyway. The leagues have done a great job offering resources for the players if they need help. I wish I could say imposing rules would help at all, but I just don’t see it. It is up to every individual athlete to make decisions that will reflect who they are.

Bryan Fyalkowski

Honestly, I do not see much else the commissioners of the various sports leagues could do to prevent things like this from happening. For the majority of professional teams, there are rookie seminars, late-night ride services that players can take to prevent DUIs, mentor programs and other things already in place. The main problem is that the players see themselves as above the rest of society and above the law; but can you blame them? The fans looks up to them like they are Gods, the franchises that they play for treat them like kings and the media are up in their grills 24/7 wondering what they will do next. It seems like professional athletes who get arrested just want the publicity and want to be news, good or bad. One solution that might work is to amend the repercussions already in place for players who are arrested for various reasons. As it stands now, teams and leagues do not come down harshly enough on players who are arrested. An arrest should equal immediate suspension AND a fine, hands down. After that, it is up to the judicial system to determine jail time, community service, additional fines, etc. Right now, players are not thinking in the moment because they are not afraid of the punishment, and that is a HUGE problem. These athletes will continue to feel “untouchable” and “invincible” until they get a reality check that they rightfully deserve. DUI is the worst. Not only are you putting your own life in danger, but also those around you on the road. Not that DUI is an acceptable thing to do for anybody to do, but for millionaire athletes to not shell out the money for a cab or limousine is mind-boggling. It is not embarrassing to get a ride home, although they think it is. The issue is that getting caught DUI as an athlete is not as embarrassing as it SHOULD be. These people are held to the highest standards on the field and it is just about time for them to be held to equitable standards as the rest of society while off of it.

The Debate - Ray Allen

Is Ray Allen “selling out” by signing with the Miami Heat instead of returning to the Boston Celtics?

Kevin Rossi - @kevin_rossi
I want to turn the question back on everyone else and ask when did every single free agent signing turn into selling out?  I seriously think that everyone let’s the media get into their heads in these situations.  Honestly, just look at the facts.  Ray Allen was not a life-long Celtic.  He wasn't engrained in the tradition of the Celtics. He didn't play his whole career on the ole parquet floor at the "Gahden". He was always the third player in the Celtics’ big 3, and when Rondo came on and made it the big 4, Allen was arguably demoted to the fourth spot.  His career is in decline.  He’s going to be 37 in less than a week.  Believe it or not, Ray Allen is not the first old vet to latch on with a team that has a legitimate shot at a title.  It happens all the time.  I mean come on.  The players that you should be attacking with your shots of morality are the players in their prime that jump ship.  These are guys that are ultimately admitting that they don’t have enough on their own to win titles and they need help.  That’s quite alright for a veteran player nearing the end of his career and much more arguable when you are talking about a player in his prime.  I can see why people would are that Ray Allen is selling out, but let’s be honest, he’s not the player that you should be attacking.  

Seth Breeden - @sethbreeden
I disagree with anyone calling Ray Allen a “sell out.” He went to a new team in free agency, for less money...at the end of his career...to chase another ring. He signed with Miami to finish out his career and give himself a great chance at winning another ring...who cares? He didn’t leave his former team behind try to reach the ultimate goal without his help...him and his teammates already won a ring in Boston. He wasn’t even the main guy in the Celtics “Big 4.” It’s not like he left the team with his whole career to play ahead of him. He put in his work, he played hard for the team, he gave everything he had...he didn’t just bail when they didn’t win one year (he isn’t even a Celtic first, he played elsewhere in his career...remember, he’s not a career Celtic). I consider Ray Allen a classy, well-seasoned veteran who felt like playing a little basketball in Miami with a fun, flourishing group of guys for the brief time remaining in his NBA career. Come on peeps, he handled his biz, he’s allowed to have some fun now. Leave that man alone! Do your thing RayRay!

Drew Rosen - @dmrosen7
While I do not agree with the term “sell out” when it comes to Ray Allen, I can question his competitive nature, and I will. I want to start off by stating my admiration for Ray Allen. Allen is someone who I always respected for the work he puts into his craft and his ability to show consistency throughout his career. Now that I am done being nice.... I HATE his decision to move to the Heat. If Ray Allen was an old veteran who was ringless I could better understand this decision, but that is not the case. Ray won his championship and I would like to think that he is at a point in his career that his competitive will would take over. Hitting a few wide open three point jumers every game and coasting on the backs of the big three is not what I was hoping for. The Celtics played a very competitive 7 game Eastern Conference Finals. Kevin Garnett decided to return and the Celtics are getting some young pieces back, I think this combination could put the Celtics in a similar position as last season. I would like to have seen Ray Allen stay with the Celtics and give the Heat a run next season.... doesn’t look like that will happen. So I have convinced myself that I was wrong.... Ray Allen is selling out by moving to “South Beach.”


Bryan Fyalkowski - @fyalkowski

It is not very often that I like a basketball player from the University of Connecticut. But for some reason, Ray Allen has always been one of my favorite NBA players. Maybe it was because of the flashy Seattle Supersonics uniforms, or maybe it was because he had a sweet jumper like I did as a fat eighth grader draining threes. Either way, over the years Allen has remained my favorite player and that has not changed, even with his recent move from the Boston Celtics to the Miami Heat. Allen is regarded as one of the most professional and respected players ever to play the game. With his age rising and talents deteriorating, he needed to find a niche for his current abilities. As a free agent this offseason, Allen saw an opportunity with the Heat where he could fill a specific role and help the best team in the NBA become even better. It clearly was not about the money because Boston offered him more to stay. Simply put, Allen thought that he had a better chance of winning a championship with the Heat.

As a fan of Ray Allen, with no emotional ties to any particular NBA team, I believe this move was the right one because he DOES have a greater chance of winning a championship with the Heat. Championships are hard to come by for any professional athlete. He already won one with the Celtics, which validates his career. Winning another would put him in a different class. As the NBA’s all-time three-point leader, a true professional and one of the most consistent scorers in NBA history, he has nothing left to prove. I am truly surprised that Boston fans are so sour towards a player who helped them revive their franchise. Be grateful for what he has done and let him chase his ring

Jack Eller - @theattack5
There has been a lot of talk in recent weeks about Ray Allen and his supposed “betrayal” of Boston by going to Miami and joining up with LeBron, Wade and Bosh in order to pursue a second championship ring.  To quote the great Jalen Rose: “An athlete is about two things – he’s about that bread, and he’s about a championship ring.” Allen is not some long tenured Celtic who is bathed in the tradition of the Garden and shamrocks. He was brought over in a trade in 2007 to be a part of this era’s original “Big Three.” He brought Boston a championship that season, then after an injury-plagued campaign this year he was relegated to the bench and was clearly not in the Celtics’ future, as they signed Jason Terry to three-year, $15 million contract.

Allen is a veteran who sees his time as a productive player waning and he wants to chase one more ring. I don’t see how you can fault him for that. Gary Payton and Karl Malone did it in Los Angeles in 2004 and now Steve Nash is doing the same. Fans like to complain about player “loyalty” and it is easy to do that while we sit on our couch and watch the games, but this is their life. Would you call a coworker disloyal if they left their job at your office for a new job that paid more or gave them a greater chance of advancement? Of course not.  Allen didn’t host a press conference where he ripped out his hometown’s heart. He didn’t get into a fight with a fan or have a disciplinary issue with the team. He is one of the consummate professionals in the NBA. Let him finish his career on a team where he can possibly get the one thing athletes covet more than anything – a championship.

Hayley Zedeck - @hzedeck

The era of the “Big Three” was all about winning. Three star NBA future Hall of Famers, came together in 2007 with one goal in mind: to win an NBA Championship. In their five years on the team, they all worked to leave strong legacies behind. Paul Pierce sustained himself as one of the all-time Celtics’ greats, Kevin Garnett inspired Boston fans of all ages and Ray Allen worked diligently to become to best three-point scorer in NBA history. All of that being considered, it was clear the era was coming to an end this season. I did not expect Ray Allen to continue playing in the NBA after he was reduced to a bench role due to young Avery Bradley’s potential.

His decision to not only leave the Celtics, but also choose an even more reduced role as a backup to Dwayne Wade on the Heat was shocking. It actually seems a bit embarrassing for him that he played a sub-par season, became a bench player, didn’t show up for the playoffs and then pulled a “Lebron James” by going to a powerhouse team. In reality, I feel bad for the guy. I think it was a horrible career move and he may regret it. All I can think about at this point is whose jersey he’ll wear at his Hall of Fame induction. He spent his first six seasons with the Milwaukee Bucks, but only earned as much as a loss in the Eastern Conference Finals. Then he moved on to the Seattle Supersonics, where he at one point had his best point per game average of his career. Then the Celtics, where he spent five seasons, had five playoff appearances and earned one glorified NBA Championship ring, but whom he betrayed to become a member of their rivals. Or maybe it will be with the Heat, where he’ll most likely retire. It’s your call, because I’m honestly not sure.

Porter Forker - @phillyforker91

Ray Allen leaving the Boston Celtics to go to the Miami Heat can be viewed as selfish or smart. My instant reaction when I saw Allen next to Eric Spoelstra and Pat Riley at the press conference was that he just made the Miami Heat a favorite for the NBA Championship for the next two years. I have no problem with trophy hunting and I have no problem with Ray Allen leaving the Boston Celtics to contend. However, I do have a problem with Ray Allen trying to be the “nice guy” and not burn any bridges. He talked about how much he enjoyed Boston and how close their team was to winning. He never stated the truth: which is Miami with Allen has a better chance to contend for a title than Boston. That’s what irked me the most out of the whole press conference. 

I have begun to realize that Ray Allen is no longer the player he once was. He isn’t as quick and isn’t able to create his own shot any more (hence the Jason Terry signing by the Celtics, which didn’t help the cause). Therefore, he needs some help to get going and to help create space for him; Allen went to the right team to make that possible. Chances are the Heat will win a ton games this upcoming season, and Allen, if healthy, will rack up a staggering amount of three. I love Allen and think he has the purest jumper there ever was, but I won’t be able to look past the fact that he has just become another name on Lebron James’ list of great role players who flocked to him to get a ring.

Who do you agree with? Let us know in the comments section below.

The Debate - Hall of Fame

The I-95 SportsBiz crew is at again. Always arguing about sports! Here’s the topic this week, and each of our takes. Join us in the comments 95ers, help us figure this one out!

Should professional sports Hall of Fame inductees be evaluated according to their on- AND off-field actions?

Kevin Rossi
This is a topic that I am constantly flip flopping on.  I can’t decide how I really feel about it.  What I have somewhat decided on is that I think it should be decided on a case-by-case basis.  I know that that isn’t the concrete answer that all of you readers out there are looking for, but it’s all I have.  It’s not a cop out, it’s just a confusing subject.  What it comes down to for me is what is the player’s brand, or in other words, what is the play known for.  If a player has hall of fame on-field credentials, and his off-field actions do not interfere with that, then he’s in.  If the player’s off-field actions do mar his reputation, then he probably shouldn’t get in.  It’s the difference between “he was a great player, but he had some off-field issues” and “he was a headcase off the field, but he was a great player”.  I know it seems small, but the player needs to be known for his playing career first.  This is the reason why T.O. is going to face a very interesting vote come time.  He has hall of fame statistics and was a dominant player in his prime.  But does T.O. feel like a player destined for Canton?  It’s tough.  It depends on your view on the matter and what you like to see in your hall of famers.  His clubhouse antics are why he was out of job when he was a reasonably productive player (or at least had the potential to be).  Jerry Rice didn’t have that problem.  Do you see what I’m saying here?  It’s more than just statistics that get a player into the hall of fame.  Off-field reputation has gotten some players into halls of fame with borderline statistics, so it’s only fair that it can keep them out too.

Drew Rosen
When evaluating this topic, the first name that I think of is Pete Rose. Gambling was a huge problem in baseball, and the sport needed to eliminate it to survive. When Rose was found to be gambling, baseball decided they had to take strict measures. These measures included keeping Pete Rose out of the Hall of Fame. I think Pete Rose NEEDS to be in the Hall of Fame. What he accomplished as a player on the field should be the ONLY consideration whether or not a player is in the Hall of Fame. As fans, it may be frustrating to see “bad guys” or players with “off-field issues” get into the Hall of Fame but it needs to happen. The Hall of Fame in all sports is not a place for “good guys” or players who “played the game right.” The Hall of Fame is for the most talented players in a given sport. The problem with choosing on a case by case basis is the politics involved. The easiest and correct way of choosing Hall of Fame caliber players is to only evaluate what players did ON the field.

Bryan Fyalkowski
The easy way to answer this would be to say that these types of dilemmas need to be handled on a case-to-case basis. Obviously a cop-out answer, but nevertheless the correct one. Because each player has a different on-field and off-field resume, each case for the Hall of Fame would be different. The originating debate on this topic was surely brought up by the case of Pete Rose, who is the all-time MLB hit leader with 4,256 but is not in the Hall of Fame because of his association with betting on baseball. Lawrence Taylor is a Hall of Fame linebacker but was charged with statutory rape of a 16-year old who he paid for sex in 2010. Terrell Owens is fourth all-time in touchdowns (156), sixth in receptions (1,078) and second in receiving yards (15,934) but has been a thorn in the side of every team he has been with in his entire career, regarded as a selfish person and bad teammate. Overall, I think play on the field should get a player into the Hall of Fame. Positive actions off the field should be able to help a borderline player get in, but negative actions should not hinder that opportunity in most cases. The Hall of Fame is not a judge of character, it is a judge of on the field performance.

The Debate: Hard Liquor and Sports

Today the I-95 SportsBiz team wanted to take the time to examine a controversial topic in the sports business world. While we think everything about sports are great, there are some issues out there both in the open and hidden. Here is one that we have been talking about here at I-95 and has been an age old debate. Please weigh in yourself in the comment section below.

Should professional sports leagues have liquor sponsors?

Kevin Rossi
This is such an interesting debate, but I think that it all seems a bit hypocritical. Beer sponsors are among the top spenders with any major North American sports franchise. As the fan experience becomes more and more relevant and teams start to care more, teams have added beverages other than beer to their repertoire. Hard liquor (and wine) are among those other adult beverages that have been added. I think it’s time for teams to stop beating around the bush and just acknowledge that they do have deals with these types of companies. Liquor companies have big bucks to spend, which will help increase team revenues through competition in higher sponsorship brackets and more visibility. There are plenty of crafty ways for liquor companies to market through sports teams (see beer companies and DD campaigns). I think it’s time to acknowledge liquors presence. This isn’t the Atlantic City boardwalk in Boardwalk Empire during prohibition. This is big time North American sports. They already sell and market beer. They sell hard liquor, so why not capitalize on liquor’s interest in sports? This is not a moral issue. Alcohol is acceptable in social environments in America. There is no reason to allow some alcohol and not other kinds. Let’s make this one right.

Drew Rosen
When fans tune into an NFL game, they expect beer advertising on TV. When fans go out to the ballpark to watch their favorite MLB team, they expect alcohol signage plastered on the outfield fence. This can be said for all of the major sports in our country. Is there something wrong with a culture of alcohol mixing with professional sport leagues? I don’t think so. The morality behind sport leagues being sponsored by liquor companies is an easy decision.... in my opinion. If teams and leagues are concerned about the message they are sending to the youth by advertising products containing alcohol, they should stop selling alcoholic beverages at the games. Teams and leagues generate significant revenue from the sale of alcohol at games and through advertising with alcohol companies. I see nothing wrong with selling alcohol at games nor do I see anything wrong with liquor companies sponsoring leagues and teams. I have heard debates that beer should be allowed but hard alcohol sponsorship should not be allowed. I really do not understand this argument. If leagues are showing that they condone the use of alcohol, then they should stick to their stance. American’s enjoy a drink at a game, leagues enjoy big sponsorship deals with liquor companies. Let them have what they want.

Seth Breeden
To be clear, yes, professional sports leagues should have liquor sponsors…big time liquor sponsors. As far as I’m concerned, “Official Liquor of…” is a very high-potential official sponsor category that has remained untapped for too long. The morality argument would make sense to me…if it wasn’t so hypocritical. If leagues didn’t have beer sponsors, and didn’t depend on alcohol sales as one of the highest revenue generating concessions, then I could understand why liquor would also be avoided. But that’s simply not the case. Beer sponsors are the largest spenders of sponsorship dollars in sports, and the most recognizable (if you didn’t see an ad for beer during a sporting event, that would be a miracle). So why is the idea of a liquor sponsor so taboo? There’s big money there, and alcohol is socially acceptable…I don’t think leagues would receive as much backlash as people might expect. If liquor sponsors indeed would be so detrimental to a brand, then highly marketable public figures wouldn’t get involved with such products either; celebrities try to protect their images just as much as sport franchises (i.e. Diddy and Ciroc Vodka or Sammy Hagar and Cabo Wabo Tequila or Dan Aykroyd and Crystal Head Vodka…they’re all heading straight to the bank with profits too). I think the leagues would be remissed if they didn’t jump on the liquor sponsor bandwagon. I don’t think they have any justifiable reason to avoid such corporate relationships. If they’re only reason is “morality”, they’re not fooling anyone...alcohol is already synonymous with sports.