Chris Carter on Josh Gordon: Not everyone is in a position to be saved
June 3, 2014
Watch the lighthearted SportsCenter feature on 10-Cent beer night
June 3, 2014
Happy Tuesday folks! I had a weird thought this weekend as the calendar turned to June already. I realized that we are basically a month away from the 4th of July, which I always consider the halfway point of summer. Because after the 4th, it’s just a month until August, which means the start of training camps for football, both college and pros, which thus means the start of the NFL season and autumn is just around the corner.
So yeah, on the first day of June, I found myself reflecting on how summer is basically over already. Anyway, we are 22 days away from the NBA draft. We are less than 100 days (93, to be exact) from the start of the NFL season. It’s a bittersweet realization because while I’m more excited for this Browns season than I have been for any in a long time, it also will mark the end of summer. Life can be funny like that sometimes. But the beautiful thing about sports is that they always give us something to look forward to. The only downside is that it seems like they always make the seasons pass on by so much quicker, because we are always looking forward to the next big event.
*****
Hey does anyone remember Kaz Tadano?
For those who don’t, he was a Japanese pitcher who played a couple seasons for the Indians back in 2004-05. He was known for his ability to throw some of the craziest pitches you would ever see, until he became known for something different. It led to one of the more awkward and unfortunate press conferences you could ever see. It may have only been ten years ago, but society was a lot different just ten years ago, and nobody seemed to quite know how to handle the situation.
Anyway, this isn’t about that. Tadano has since moved on and is back pitching in Japan. And man can he still throw some of the most bizarre pitches imaginable:
I realize the ump is caught off guard by it, but how is that not a strike?
*****
What to make of Vinny Del Negro?
The Cleveland Cavaliers continue to interview candidates for the vacant coaching seat. Last week the Cavaliers interviewed Los Angeles Clippers assistant Tyronn Lue, and apparently it went well.
From every account, Clippers assistant Tyronn Lue's interview for Cleveland's head coaching job left a strong impression on team officials.
— Adrian Wojnarowski (@wojespn) May 31, 2014
The Cavaliers followed that up with a talk with Alvin Gentry. The also talked with Bulls assistant Adrian Griffin, and apparently that one went well too.
Hearing #Cavs very impressed by #Bulls assistant Adrian Griffin in interview for coaching vacancy. "Fantastic," was how talks described.
— Sam Amico (@AmicoHoops) May 29, 2014
This weekend the Cavaliers also interviewed Vinny Del Negro. I haven’t seen any tweets saying how that one went, but VDN is an interesting case study. He sometimes seems like one of the most star crossed coaches in the NBA. He began his career with the Chicago Bulls. In his first year the Bulls improved from 33 wins to 41 wins. It was Derrick Rose’s rookie season and in the playoffs, the Bulls came incredibly close to knocking off the juggernaut Celtics. They lost in a seven game series that featured four overtime games.
In his second season, even though the Bulls once again finished 41-41, Derrick Rose was blossoming into a superstar and the Bulls played LeBron James and the Cleveland Cavaliers in the first round of the playoffs. The Cavs won, but the Bulls gave the Cavaliers all they could handle, with LeBron having to work extremely hard to help the Cavs gut out the four wins needed to move on. But it wasn’t enough for Chicago, and VDN was fired.
He was quickly hired by the Clippers, who went 29-53 the year before his arrival. In VDN’s three seasons he the Clippers won 32, 40 (in the 66-game lockout shortened season), and 56 games. Despite the Clippers having the best record in their entire franchise history in his third season there, VDN wasn’t offered a new contract.
He would be an incredibly unpopular hire with the fans in Cleveland, but there’s no denying he’s had some regular season success. He has a 210-184 record in five seasons. But he’s also coached Derrick Rose, Blake Griffin, and Chris Paul. Despite having some success, he’s been widely criticized for his coaching wherever he’s been. There’s a perception that his teams win games in spite of him thanks to the star players his teams have had. He clashed with Chris Paul in LA and it’s hard to believe he wouldn’t also clash with Kyrie Irving in Cleveland.
VDN is one of those coaches that look good on paper. You can look at his successes and how tough his teams play, and you can convince yourself he’s the right guy to turn around the Cavaliers. But there’s a reason he has the reputation he has and why the thought of VDN coaching the team makes so many of us uneasy. Hopefully David Griffin can resist VDN’s siren song.
*****
Sometimes a silly segment can spark a serious thought
I’ve mentioned this before here, but I am a huge fan of HBO’s “Last Week Tonight with John Oliver”. The show is topical, witty, sharp, and downright hilarious. John Oliver is absolutely killing it in this new platform.
On this week’s episode he dedicated the meat of his show talking about Net Neutrality. As Oliver points out, we’ve all heard of Net Neutrality, but how many of us really know what it is and what the repercussions of it are? So in the way only he can, Oliver brings everyone up to speed with a brilliant 13 minute rant about the future of the internet.
**Please note, the video contains NSFW language**
Again, WFNY does not have a singular editorial voice, so I am only speaking for myself here, but as someone who co-owns a moderately successful website, the issue of Net Neutrality has long been important to me.
What if ISPs relegate WFNY to a slower speed unless we pay a premium to get access to the faster service? We certainly don’t have the revenue to pay for it. And while I know that small sites like this aren’t the target of this issue, I’m worried about someday becoming collateral damage.
But as users and consumers, I hope we all realize that while the likes of Comcast and Time Warner will insist to us that this isn’t about charging us more money, it’s about charging the likes of streaming services like Netflix more money, the reality is that Netflix’s increased costs will be passed on to us, the consumers. Once again, there are enormous companies in Washington spending millions of dollars to influence legislation that will eventually force the average American citizens to have to pay more money.
If you don’t care about this issue, or if you are against Net Neutrality, I’m not necessarily trying to change your mind. But if you support Net Neutrality and want to see the Open Internet protected going forward into the future, I would only ask that you consider filing a comment with the FCC in support of Neutrality and the Open Internet by going here: http://www.fcc.gov/comments and clicking on Proceeding 14-28.
*****
Finally, the new music releases of the week
After an off week, some really, really great music comes out today for fans of punk-influenced rock.
-
Bob Mould – Beauty & Ruin
-
Parquet Courts – Sunbathing Animal
-
The Orwells – Disgraceland
-
F*cked Up – Glass Boys
-
Soundgarden – Superunknown 20th Anniversary Edition
Have a great rest of the week everyone, see you next Tuesday!
26 Comments
John Oliver is the best. Should team up with Ben Tate.
“Good evening, monsters.”
I have no faith in our politicians to do what is best for the average American on Net Neutrality. I’ve filed a comment already, but how can those comments compete with millions and millions of dollars of lobbyist “wining and dining”?
That is one of the best videos I’ve ever seen.
Here’s the thing, I understand the TW/Comcast side of the argument a great deal. Youtube, Netflix, Amazon-Prime, etc. stream videos and hog bandwidth, which puts real bandwidth issues on the internet providers to deal with in networking stations. Those networking stations cost millions to build and maintain and the websites never pay a dime for them and the websites that are causing the most pain and making tons of $$$ off of it should have a price to pay (the consumers are paying regardless either through the internet provider or website).
However, I agree with Andrew, you, and the rest of the realistically cynical country in that once the door gets opened on charging for faster speeds being legal, then the door will keep opening and the inevitability of websites like ESPN, CNN, etc. paying to keep their websites on faster speeds (and thus their competitors on lower speeds).
I wish there was an easy compromise here and perhaps there is one. But, I am not sure what it would be.
The hope is that once AT&T, Google, and such lay their fiber-optic networks that it relieves the bandwidth issues (at least for the moment and on non-mobile devices). So, I agree the best solution presently is to fight against the legislation and hope the delay shows the point is moot.
Just say No to Vinny Del Negro!
No entry to Alvin Gentry!
Do we need to make buttons? T-Shirts?
And of course, good old government, when I tried to confirm my comment:
could not insert: [gov.fcc.ecfs.beans.Submission]; SQL [insert into SUBMISSION (city, intl_address, address_line_1, address_line_2, postal_code, id_state, zip_code, applicant_name, author_name, brief_comment_flag, bureau_id_num, confirmation_number, browser, path_info, remote_addr, remote_host, remote_ident, remote_user, server_name, contact_name, delagated_authority_number, date_accepted, date_comment_period, date_disseminated, date_filed, date_pn_ex_parte, date_rcpt, date_released, date_reply_comment, date_submission, date_transmission_completed, id_edocs, contact_email_id, exparte_late_filed, fcc_record, file_number, filed_from, lawfirm_name, date_modified, id_proceeding, reg_flex_analysis, report_number, small_business_impact, id_submission_status, total_page_count, id_submission_type, id_user, viewing_status) values (?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ?) select @@identity]; nested exception is org.hibernate.exception.LockAcquisitionException: could not insert: [gov.fcc.ecfs.beans.Submission]
Sigh.
don’t worry, your name has now been put on the list
anyway, I wonder why beans? an ode to Blazing Saddles?
gov.fcc.ecfs.beans.Submission
Sure, I understand that, and that is why the telecoms should charge by usage. If you’re watching a series on Netflix, expect to pay more for using more. It’s an efficient market: Most people will either pay the tab or stop watching. Either way, the telecom should be happy.
I still like Avery Johnson.
Yeah, that’s why I didn’t want to submit anything. I’m sure some FCC guy will “happen” to stop by sometime soon along with some IRS agents. As long as they don’t send me to the VA hospital though hopefully I’ll be OK.
I love some of the info they’re collecting: Lawfirm name. Small business impact. ID User.
Yes, that has been proposed, but it would likely destroy the streaming websites by lessening their demand and the telecoms have threatened to do it in the past (all it takes is 1 telecom to not do it and everyone would flock to them, which is why it doesn’t work out for them either).
I was trying to find a compromise to satisfy both sides (as charging per usage does not have the streaming websites pay into the system, they just lose consumers).
that’s not much of a slogan for the Little General
That’s what a free market is all about. Ultimately everyone would figure out the price they can afford to provide it at and we’d have efficient pricing and services.
Charge people by usage and everyone would figure out what balance they’re comfortable with.
And don’t forget that Netflix, Hulu, etc. are taking customers away from the cable companies who don’t want to pay for overpriced cable service anymore.
Yes, that is the other dirty part of the situation where the same companies that are being hurt by these streaming websites in 2 different areas (internet bandwidth and their cable empires) and we would have to trust them to not be vindictive if this legislation passed (and I don’t think many of us are that trusting).
And that is where the free market breaks down (love the free market, but it isn’t perfect by any means). You end up punishing consumers and streaming websites for something both want.
I want to figure out a way of charging websites for bandwidth rather than the consumer (yes, the consumer gets charged in the end, but it is more efficient for the money-making sites to be charged here). But, the way they are proposing with access speeds is too scary of a pandora’s box to do it and even the bandwidth idea could have scary implications.
That’s the wrong way of looking at it. If the price gets too high for the consumer, they won’t pay it; the provider will have to come up with a way of doing so more efficiently… and they will. That’s the beauty, really. And if another provider comes up with a way to do so, that’s great – but that’s the point, whoever can solve the problem will make money.
perhaps I’m being too cynical, but I see that as a way of TW/Comcast forcing Netflix/Hulu into a bad spot (as supply/demand results in them losing consumers as they don’t want to pay the costs and those sites cannot afford to decrease what they charge since the increased $$ is going to the internet providers).
and, do you know the likely end result in my cynical world-view? TW/Comcast goes and buys Netflix/Hulu as they can afford to shift the money from the charges of the internet bandwidth and do a package deal once everything is under the same roof.
It’s manipulation of the free market and I don’t like it.
Not at all. Someone will say “well if we get X customers we can afford to do it even if our margins are lower”, and they do it. And/or, some company will find a way to bypass the telecoms, whether Netflix/Hulu themselves or a third party supplier. That’s the beauty – the market isn’t limited to the current players. It’s anyone.
Of course we remember Kaz Tadano! Wait, he was a pitcher too?
Comment of the week right there.
Or was he a catcher?
I always wonder if at some point in time some company could make a private internet and have it be completely open and neutral. Would be a costly startup, obviously, to get the infrastructure in place, but I feel like a lot of people would pay for the private and open service vs the public and segregated service.
perhaps I misunderstand you, but that sounds like the corporate “intranet” that exist for most major companies today. it is self-contained though most have hooks into the worldwide internet for better access from remote locations. the issue would be that you only have access to those websites that are located within your servers.
You’re right, that was dumb. I was only looking at it from the end-user perspective, but obviously without websites being on the network, the whole thing is pointless. Haha, my bad, just ignore me! 🙂
Not dumb at all. It makes me wonder if this legislation doesn’t pass if some of these corporate mega-sites could go to a more exclusive pay-model. ESPN has “insiders” for content. Imagine if they offered “insiders plus” that not only had content, but bandwidth boosts on a private intranet (as noted, you can still hook to the normal internet as well though it would likely be noticeably slower compared to your Disney-intranet).
I noted ESPN because as part of the Disney umbrella, they could truly expand to a full array of enterntainment sites and content that you would have to pay the mouse in order to view all on quicker access than you get through the internet.
Sigh, now I realize that there are still infinite more ways that these mega-companies will still be able to control the content, bandwidth, and money-flow moving forward.