User Blog - Spotlight Series

For this latest entry in the BallHype Spotlight Series, we tapped two fantastic writers: TheStarterWife of Black and Gold Tchotchkes and Signal to Noise of, um, Signal to Noise. Both have been involved in the excellent Deadspin Book Club. Here, they'll debate the notion of whether Olympians should feel compelled to speak out on China's human rights record and Darfur while competing in Beijing. Enjoy.

Signal to Noise: I suspect we agree with the concept of athletes being politically active, aware, and making statements regarding the Olympics. I suppose any particular difference would be on whether or not they actually should. There are a bunch of qualifiers regarding this particular Olympiad and the conditions on the ground in China that make this a really tough thing to say "yes, those competing ought to say something about China's abominable human rights record" without hemming and hawing.

Obviously, China's human rights record, past and present is hideous. It has an economic hand in Darfur, there is the little matter of Tibet, government by one-party rule (I hesitate to call it completely Communist because it has mutated the biggest elements of capitalism into it; going beyond what we traditionally think of as Soviet-style Communism), its record with Falun Gong and other religious protesters, and I can still remember watching TV coverage of Tianemen Square in 1989.

But should athletes be compelled to actually speak out on these things?

TheStarterWife: Yes.  These three sections from the "Fundamental Principals of Olympism" in the Olympic Charter state -

2.  The goal of Olympism is to place sport at the service of the harmonious development of man, with a view to promoting a peaceful society concerned with the preservation of the human dignity.
 
Human dignity. Peaceful society.

When the IOC decided to award the 2008 Summer Olympics to China, they looked past the basic tenets of their own mission, and it is up to the athletes speak their conscience and reclaim the spirit of the Games.

5.  Any form of discrimination with regard to a country or a person on grounds of race, religion, politics, gender or otherwise is incompatible with belonging to the Olympic Movement.

When the host country not abide by this declaration, it is up those who will be center stage - the athletes - to speak up for all of the citizens who have been silenced.

S2N: The IOC looked past the basic tenets of its own mission decades ago with the bribery scandals of the 2002 Winter Olympics. This is a body more concerned with its own contracts and monetary intake than abiding by its own rules. But I don't believe it becomes the obligation of the athlete to speak in the absence of the IOC's morality.

I go back to the this basic idea: how knowledgeable is the average athlete of geo-politics? If it's akin to the average American, it may not be a heck of a lot -- and is uninformed political protest really that much better than saying nothing at all?  In no way am I opposed to athletes speaking out on China's faults, if they feel the need to, but the charter also brings this up as Rule 51:

"No kind of demonstration or political, religious or racial propaganda is permitted in any Olympic sites, venues or other areas."

The athletes will be able to say what they please to the press, though. The Olympics has transformed over the years from an appeal to the best of international sport into a cash grab, an amoral enterprise concerned with money, but it's on the participating nations rather than the athletes making up individual federations to object.  The USOC has pulled out of Olympiads it has objected to (1980 in Moscow due to Communism; the Soviets responded in kind in 1984), those responses have a larger influence.

TSW: You should check out this reverse pyramid on the IOC's site.

Don't you think that Olympic athletes have an obligation as citizens, when they are representing the whole U.S. of A., to at least educate themselves on basic world events and controversies?

I don't believe that an Olympic athlete has to speak up if they do not feel comfortable doing so.  It skirts too close to being tools for propaganda for my liking.  But at the same time, any athlete who takes the podium draped in the American flag, who talks about what an honor it is to represent this country, should use the freedom of speech our country guarantees to speak their conscience.

If the though behind holding the Games in China was that it would help open up that country to democratic ideas, what is the point if we are never going to see those freedoms in action?

S2N: The pyramid tells you a lot about the IOC's priorities, only confirming what we all suspect these days.

As for athletes having the obligation to educate themselves on basic world events and controversies: no, I don't believe they have that obligation. I'd like it if every one of them felt they did and followed through on it, and I'd love it if they were secure enough and comfortable enough to speak their conscience while representing the U.S abroad.

The argument behind opening up China to democratic ideas with an Olympic Games hews less towards the outward protest model and more towards the idea of having outside media scrutiny. China is placing restrictions, obviously, on where the media can go while the Olympics are on-going, and you can argue that the scrutiny has only resulted in further crackdowns on press freedoms. But that pyramid tells you so much: broadcasters are higher up on the totem pole to the IOC than the participating athletes or ordinary people.

But the thought was never really about opening up China to democratic ideals: it was about placating a burgeoning superpower with a massive population and making money hand over fist by entering that superpower's media markets and profile.

No athlete is going to risk his or her participation for a medal they've dreamed of all of his or her life to make a political statement. The athlete that does is courageous, but so many of them are focused from a young age on their sport and achievement in it. I remember listening to this particular spot on NPR a couple months back -- this generation's athlete is different.

If they are politically active, they see it as separate from their lives as athletes; there is a fundamental disconnect between their lives inside and outside the stadia/arenas. You and I don't see it this way at all; we'd like to believe those things are inseparable for everyone. There is enough pressure to be an Olympic athlete, expected to win gold, without feeling like you have to speak for those who cannot in the wake of injustice.

I suspect a lot of the desire for athletes to be socially aware and speak out on important issues is borne out of a bit of nostalgia as well. Many of the examples given by columnists revolve around Muhammad Ali's refusal to be drafted into the Vietnam War (which had nothing to do with the Olympics) and John Carlos' and Tommie Smith's black-gloved fists in the air on the medal podium in Mexico City in 1968. We forget that at the time, those three were pilloried for their political statements.

There is too much risk for the modern athlete -- sponsorships, negative coverage, IOC sanctions -- for me to say that Olympic athletes must be compelled to speak out on China's atrocities.

TSW: I've been struggling with a reasonable counterpoint to your statement, "There is too much risk for the modern athlete -- sponsorships, negative coverage, IOC sanctions -- for me to say that Olympic athletes must be compelled to speak out on China's atrocities" for more than a week.

The truth is, I really do not have an argument. An individual athlete does not have to make a stand and risk losing what they have worked towards their whole life.

But in my heart, I feel like protest at the 2008 Summer Olympics - in any form - is the right thing to do.

S2N: We don't disagree on that; we both believe speaking out on these issues would be the right thing to do. Problem is, not everyone is Ira Newble, who went to Darfur and wrote up a petition protesting China's involvement in funding the genocide.

I wish today's athlete would say more, but we're both realistic enough to know what will happen to them if they speak out.  There is also something about holding others to higher standards than you hold yourself, and I cannot imagine doing anything other than trying to be completely myopic and focus on winning in competition, rather than the world of turmoil swirling outside, were I an Olympic-level athlete.

[By Tom Ziller] 

Inspired by Vanity Fair's recent Blogopticon and my long romance with maps, we decide to stick some of the most well-known sports blogs into a graphical graph graphic.

I present: THE BLOGDOME ATLAS. (Click to enlarge.) 

(As I said, click to enlarge. The large version is prettier. And clickable.)

Some preliminary notes.

- I didn't include your blog because it is too awesome for categorization. Don't get mad.

- This is based on science, not opinion. I would post the formulas for 'sexiness' and 'opinionatedness,' but upon seeing them your heart would explode into song, and you'd probably bleed out. I'm only protecting you by keeping the formulas secret.

Some liminary notes.

- Surprised Deadspin rates as not very sexy? Me too. But science is never wrong. So I tested my personal biases and checked. And hey! Will Leitch's Midwestern sensibilities have made Deadspin fairly staid over the past few years. A.J. Daulerio's big-city bawdry could send this thing to the left fast.

- As it were, 'sexiness' has little to do with the bloggers themselves or their hot CSS and JavaScript skills (with two exceptions). Mostly, it's based on the content. Like, The Big Lead posts a lot of bikini/red-carpet photos, so TBL rates as sexy even though I wouldn't date TBL personally. FanHouse, on the other hand, posts fewer sexy photos or Penthouse Forum letters. As such, it rates as 'not so sexy,' despite the presence of numerous sexy writers.

- The formulas laughed when I fed Curt Schilling's 38 Pitches into the database, and spit out a response which said, "You can't figure this one out yourself, you f---ing lazy moron?" The formulas can be cruel.

Finally, some postliminary notes.

- On the exceptions mentioned in Bullet #2 of the liminary notes: Ladies... and Babes Love Baseball were awarded special considerations by the formulas, which allowed writer sexiness to be included in the calculations. This is good, because the formulas aren't into Joe Mauer.

- In no way is 'sexy' better than 'staid' nor 'informative' better than 'opinionated.' It's all good. I just like stereotyping blogs, that's all. Of course, if Joe Posnanski thinks he's getting slighted and wants to start posting FHM scans in order to be legitimized as more sexy than Dan Steinberg, more power to him. Consider the Bald Blogger Sexy Arms Race on. (Neil Best need not apply.)

- We hope to bring more atlases atlii to you, to complete our full documentation of the state of the blogdome. Got an idea? Thrust it in the comments or email it to me (tom AT ballhype DOT com).

Welcome to the BallHype Spotlight Series, Volume 3: Fightin' Words, a series of debates on sporting subjects vital and trivial. In this edition, Patrick Smith and David Chalk of the fantastic baseball blog Bugs & Cranks provide a counterpoint on whether ESPN's obsession with the New York Yankees and Boston Red Sox is good for baseball fans. We begin with Mr. Chalk. Enjoy.


*****

Smitty's view:

I have a friend who believes that, unless you were born and/or live in Manhattan, the Bronx or Westchester County, N.Y., rooting for the Yankees is a character flaw. He believes that, given a choice of teams to root for, people who choose to root for the Yankees are morally deficient.

Hey, I didn't say it. He did.

I don't cast moral judgment on Yankee fans who aren't born into pinstripes. But my friend's point makes sense. What's more, in 2008, that point extends to the Red Sox; if you're not from Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire or Maine (OK, and maybe a little piece of Connecticut), you have no business rooting for the Boston Red Sox.

But anyone who spends 10 minutes a week watching ESPN is bombarded with "news" of those two teams. They're the Duke and Carolina of baseball. Wanna know how Clemson or NC State or Virginia did? Tough rocks, bud. The Worldwide Leader can't get enough of Coach K and Roy Williams. Thus, neither can you.

By its obsessive coverage of the Yankees and the Red Sox, ESPN tells fans in Cleveland and Kansas City and Philadelphia and Houston to fuck off and enjoy this week's theatrical saga of whether Hank is mad at Joe. Or whether Theo wore the gorilla suit again. Like foie gras geese, we've been force-fed the Green Monster and Monument Park for so long that we're too fat and full of toxins to be entertained by the Texas Rangers or the San Diego Padres.

Manny. A-Rod. Youk. Moose. Tek. Joba. Big Papi. Melky. Dice-K. We don't even have to use these guys' proper names anymore; ESPN has made them even more familiar than the players on the teams we actually root for. I'll prove it: you have two seconds to tell me who plays first base for the LA Angels of Anaheim. One thousand one. One thousand two. Could you do it? You probably know it's Casey Kotchman, but it took you longer than two seconds to name him, even though he's hitting over .300 for a first-place team. But Jason Giambi and Kevin Youkilis come to your head in an instant. Why? Because they never left.

There's so much I know that I shouldn't know. And I know it because of ESPN. I like sports. I watch ESPN. Thus, I'm bludgeoned with Yankees and Red Sox non-news, day after day throughout the season. I shouldn't know that the Yankees pass around a pair of thong underwear, sharing it to break out of hitting slumps. And I shouldn't know that Daisuke Matsuzaka auctioned himself to fans for a night of sushi. Both those things are fine. But, as a fan of neither Boston or New York, I shouldn't know them. But thanks to ESPN, I do. Whether I want to or not.


*****

Chalk's reply:

When I hear people say they don't care who wins when the Red Sox play the Yankees, I'm reminded of people who won't vote because they think the Democrats are just as bad as Republicans. Certainly, the Sox aren't perfect, but they're nothing if not an acceptable alternative to fascism.

One of the stupidest things I have ever read was a comment left on Bugs & Cranks last October:

"When Boston won [the ALCS over the Yankees] in 2004, it was a big deal to Boston fans… It was not a big sports story for anyone else it was turned into one by ESPN."



My response went something like this:

The curse was not a national story? Babe Ruth, Ted Williams, Bucky Dent, Carlton Fisk, freakin’ Aaron Boone, Bill Buckner — persons of regional interest? No one would’ve thought twice if not for the evil NY/MA/CT media hype machine? Come on. One of the two or three most epically, historically cursed franchises in sports history wins the World Series after coming back from 3-0 down against the evil empire — that's not interesting to anyone outside New England?

It should be interesting to everyone, because everyone should hate the Yankees because everyone should hate evil. (Unlike Smitty's friend, I'm not giving any passes even if you live in or are from the Bronx, Manhattan or Westchester.)

People try to say the Red Sox are now just as bad as the Yankees. Poppycock. If they’re weren’t any Yankees we could hate on the Red Sox, but there are Yankees, so thank god the Sox are doing what they’re doing. You gotta fight fire with fire, absurd payroll with absurd payroll. But the Sox are also doing it with soul — Manny’s hair, Papelbon’s dancing, those things wouldn’t be tolerated in the Bronx. Most of all, the Red Sox don’t pay grown men millions of dollars and then tell them when and how they need to groom themselves. And because of the rivalry, when the Red Sox win titles, it’s like the Yankees lose three times. And that's awesome.

Media coverage of sports is never merely reporting scores, it's recording the drama behind the scores. Drama thrives on "the clash of mighty opposites." (I think that's from Hamlet -- or a TNT commercial.)

The Yankees and Red Sox are the mightiest of opposites. ESPN isn't powerful enough to make them as interesting as they are. But at least in this case, ESPN and the rest are smart enough to focus on something dramatic and interesting.


*****
So who's right? Speak up, Royals fans.


Keep track of the Spotlight Series at the BallHype hub or via the RSS feed. To get involved in future Spotlight Series, contact Tom Ziller.

As a part of BallHype's ongoing Spotlight Series, we asked several bloggers to participate in a roundtable on the issue of "humanizing athletes." Do drunk athlete photos bring fans closer to the players? Or has the blog age pushed them even further away?

Tom Ziller moderated the panel, which included:

• Nik Richie, TheDirty.com
• Will Leitch, Deadspin
• Brooks Melchior, Sports By Brooks
• Michael David Smith, FanHouse and elsewhere
• Miss Gossip, a FanHouse producer/blogger
• Dan Steinberg, the Washington Post's D.C. Sports Bog

BallHype:

Steinberg: Both, I guess. If I had to pick one, I'd say "make the relationship worse." Will argues that photos of Ben R. with booze and hot girls won't make fans like him less, which is true, but it has to make him like the world less. None of us would want our worst (or most private, anyhow) moments on the Internet, and even if it doesn't happen to all athletes, there have to be a bunch who trust the world less. But this is less about "blogs" than it is about the Internet, cell phone cameras, YouTube, etc. I know before I die, something highly embarrassing to me will show up on the Internet, and I won't be happy.

(Ed note: No sense in keeping you looking over your shoulder your whole life, Dan.)


Keep track of the Spotlight Series at the BallHype hub or via the RSS feed. To get involved in future Spotlight Series, contact Tom Ziller.

Welcome to the BallHype Spotlight Series, Volume 3: Fightin' Words, a series of debates on sporting subjects vital and trivial. In this edition, Clevelander Scott Sargent (profile) of Waiting For Next Year and Philadelphian Matt P (profile) of The 700 Level argue over which of their cities is the most cursed sports town in America. Enjoy.

Matt P: In answering the question of which city gets to hoist the "Most Cursed" banner to its rafters, I'd like to first say I'm not at all proud of what I get to defend here. Although I can't argue that Cleveland has gone more recent years without a championship, I do think that going through the painful futility four times a year is a whole lot worse than only doing it three times (or twice, during those seasons when your football team abandoned you). Millions more fans supporting four teams in a major US market, four teams that consistently lose ... every year... while neighboring metropolises hold parades every so often, and cute warm-weather-winter teams in new-age colors celebrate while our guys golf.

Sargent: I'd argue that Cleveland is tortured to the point where a hockey franchise cannot even survive, but the NHL could disappear in to thin air and it wouldn't phase me.  Not at all. 

The first pitch has to be 'number of years.'  Makes sense, I think.  And in that aspect, we have 1983 versus 1948?  We can give you the benefit of the doubt and say 1964 with the Browns - even though that was pre-Super Bowl.  Even then...that's still a little bit of a gap when compared to the Sixers in 1983.  Curse of Billy Penn and all.

Matt P: ESPN's Page 2 once named Cleveland America's Most Tortured Sports City, but that's different than being cursed. To be brutally honest, I think it's only a curse if your team is supposed to win, but never does. When does anyone actually, truly expect a championship in Cleveland? The Red Sox had a curse. The Cubbies have one too. And so does every team in the the Cradle of Liberty. Cleveland may hope for a parade, but expect it... God knows why, but we do. 

There's a difference between being cursed and just plain sucking. Although to be honest, some years it's been easy to forget which category the Phillies and Sixers fall into.

(There. I successfully made it through a point without referencing Bone Thugs N Harmony, which is the only element of cultural significance that I associate with Cleeev-laaaan, other than Major League and the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame.) 

Sargent: Cursed versus tortured is undoubtedly a case of straw-grabbing.  Simply because we don't have a mythical ghost of some sort to blame our losses on does not make them any easier to endure.  These so-distant curses that plague the East Coast make for great marketing and between-inning montages for Fox Sports, but they're really nothing more than that.  A losing drought is a losing drought, no matter which way it is sliced.

The Sports Gods are already on Philly's side. The City of Brotherly Love has benefited from the NFC, the NL and the Eastern Conference for years - so I can see why you "expect" to win.  Let's face it: competition hasn't exactly been the best these days.  The shocking part is, Cleveland expects to win as well; much of which is substantiated by coming so, so close over so many years.  Red Right 88, The Drive, The Fumble ... all occurred during winning/playoff seasons.  Just in the most inopportune times within said years.  Unfortunately, for the Cavs of the late 80s, there was that guy named Jordan.  And regarding Indians-Marlins, not only did we expect to win -- we were pretty heavy favorites. Apparently, Jose Mesa had his money on the underdog. 

(And while I would take The Roots over Bone Thugs N Harmony any day of the week, their Grammy is unfortunately the only hardware we've seen in these parts in quite some time.  The sad, sad truth of Crossroads being more effective than crossing routes...)

Matt P: To your point on the sports gods being on our side: that actually supports our "cursedness." Even in weaker conferences, we still haven't seen a parade. I will argue that the NFC East is the toughest division in football though. The bitch is that the other teams in the division keep finding a way to win Super Bowls, which results in the absolute worst part of this curse: hearing it from our rivals. Every year there's more ammo for them, and less for us. We can't even talk trash on Eli Manning anymore. 

That really highlights another edge Philly has in the curse department: there's no way you hear about it like we do. Part of it is our fault, because we talk so much ourselves, but part of it is the big market thing. People just love to hate on Philly. With Cleveland, you'd have to explain why they're "cursed" to most casual fans to properly frame this debate.

And the Marlins thing? We lost on that one too, and we weren't even involved. A recent expansion team from our division has won the World Series more than the Phillies have in more than 100 years of existence. Don't get us started on Joe Table either. He was a Phillie last year. Again. Mitch Williams is also still in town, on our airwaves and berating youth basketball refs. We are constantly haunted by failures of the past, while enduring those of the present. 

(We'll gladly take pride in the Roots, although their 1999 Grammy is Philly's last piece of hardware too. Christ, we both have to reach, huh?)

Sargent: I admit that the NFC East has vastly improved -- but it still doesn't help when teams with worse records in the conference can go further in the season than teams in the AFC with better records. 

Being in a larger market, at least players want to be in that city. Half of Cleveland's hope belongs in players that grew up in the area and actually want to be here.  We're cursed to the point where the Jim Thomes/Curt Schillings of the world feel they have a better chance at winning in Philly so they skip town.  So what's that saying?  Granted, you'll come back with "we had those guys and still lost," but at least you had a chance.

And I'm pretty sure that any fan of any sport is well aware of how bad things have been in Cleveland.  Anyone who watched the MLB or NBA playoffs last season got to see a barrage of "My, look how bad Cleveland is!" montages courtesy of Fox and ABC.  But this goes back to my past vs. present argument -- yes, anyone who's younger than the age of 20 really has no recollection of just how close we were to winning championships in all three sports.  I think we had to make up the whole "stop sign" thing just to give Gen Y something to complain about for the next few years.  I mean, Clay Matthews now sells used cars for a living.  Talk about a twist of fate. 

Matt P: That's precisely the worst part of the curse here in Philly though. We're so often on the cusp, with victory within reach, only to fail dramatically. It puts more venom in the words of our rivals, and more vitriol in our responses.

Curt Schilling? He's badmouthed the Phillies since the day he left (well before that even), wasting no time in doing so yet again after the Red Sox won last year's World Series. He came to the Phillies when he was a nothing, became a decent pitcher, then left and had success and won championships with two different franchises. Thome was just a rental to help us open the new park, and he was injured for a long period of his stay. All he really did when he was healthy was keep Ryan Howard in the minors. 

As far as the NBA, you're lucky to have LeBron. The Sixers can't even seem to succeed at getting a high draft pick, so we remain mired in stagnancy. And sure the Cavs came up short last season, but no one was expecting them to win anything last year. The worst is yet to come for the Cavs, and you may deserve the mantle of "Most Cursed" when LeBron makes his very public exit, then wins a championship elsewhere.

Sargent: So, if I understand this right, being most cursed should be defined by who has had the bigger names yet hasn't won?  Philly's more cursed because they've had bigger free agents yet hasn't came out on top -- in any sport -- since '83.  Yet, Cleveland will be more cursed "when" LeBron leaves? 

Nothing I've heard has dated back beyond the Clinton administration in terms of support.  I still reiterate the fact that Cleveland hasn't seen the word "Championship" on a t-shirt unless it's preceded by the word "State" - typically involving St. Edward's wrestling or Cincinnati football.  This town has seen an inordinate amount of soul-crushing losses, all to good teams, over an entirely too large of time period.  Yes, a team in Philly's division won the Super Bowl.  Yes, the Sixers have been destroyed by the Billy King era.  And yes, the Phillies just can't seem to get a leg up on the rest of the NL East.  None of these issues will ever surpass the last 50-plus years of trophyless drought that this town has endured.  Ever.

Matt P: And no drought will surpass the fact that most sports fans have barely noticed Cleveland's "curse," deserving of derision as it may be. Your primary point is the duration of your loserdom, and I can't argue with time. But we have to hear it so much more, every year, in four sports, from the New Yorkers, the Washingtonians, and the smattering of morons who live in the Philly area but for some reason are Dallas Cowboys fans. 

This may sound pompous, but to the rest of the country, "Cleveland sports" brings to mind only two things: Lebron James and Major League. Not wins, not losses, just "Meh." Conversely, people everywhere love to hate on Philly, and because of the curse, we have no banner to point at and say "STFU."

So I'll see you at the curse crossroads, Bizzy Bone. When all is said and done, I've never once been envious of a Cleveland fan's lot in life. 

Sargent: If market size and geographical location have anything to do with how 'cursed' a team is, we wouldn't be doing this little exercise.

I will agree that present day Cleveland Sports bring to mind LeBron James, but again, we didn't just start this streak of "loserdom."  And neither did Philly.  If a casual  fan can't recall "The Drive/Fumble/Mesa Meltdown," Jordan over Ehlo or "Red Right 88," they may want to hit ESPN Classic a few times in the near future.  Any Nationally televised Cleveland game is bound to remind all of those watching just how bad things are.  To say that this town isn't cursed simply because we're not a bridges trip away from New York City is just silly. 

And your final line about wraps it up.  Why would you be envious of a Cleveland fan?  It's that much worse on this side of the border.

Keep track of the Spotlight Series at the BallHype hub or via the RSS feed. To get involved in future Spotlight Series, contact Tom Ziller.

Welcome to the BallHype Spotlight Series, Volume 3: Fightin' Words, a series of debates on sporting subjects vital and trivial. In this edition, Dan Shanoff of DanShanoff.com and The Sporting Blog argues that the NBA is becoming a niche sport. His opponent: Tom Ziller of NBA FanHouse and Sactown Royalty. Enjoy.

Shanoff: The once-hallowed "Big Four" (NFL, MLB, NBA, NHL) is now a "Big Three" (NFL, College Football, MLB) with the NHL, at most, a very popular niche sport -- and the NBA quickly joining them. 

The only reason people think that the NBA is still one of the "Big" sports is because it USED to be a "Big" sport and thus all of the media coverage -- mainstream and blog -- is filled with people who care, even if most of America doesn't anymore. Just because Bill Simmons and Michael Wilbon care about the NBA more than any other sport doesn't mean that most sports fans do, too.

The NBA is closer to NASCAR than it is to the NFL, with a very dedicated (but very finite) audience. 

Ziller: Saying the NBA is closer to NASCAR than the NFL is disingenuous, because MLB and NCAA Football are both closer to NASCAR than the NFL, too. The NFL is a megalith, and no sport in the United States approaches it in terms of the market, potential and actual.

Not to pull the race card, but doesn't the NBA have the advantage to cross demographic lines where the NHL is rather limited? We know the NBA had a ton of white fans at one point; those would seem to be the ones who went away. The league has not shut those fans off completely, as I think we're seeing with the increased ratings as the epic playoff race heats up. A compelling product will get these fans to come back, while the core demographic (blacks, younger whites) will always be there.

Is the NHL ever expanding outside the white male demo? I'm not thinking so. 

While the NBA might be two tiers below the NFL and MLB in popularity (I'm not conceding position to NCAA Football at this point -- there are vast swaths of this country that are oblivious to the sport), it has the opportunity to once again rise. I think this spring will prove that.

Shanoff: Please consider that the most recent NBA Finals featured the best (and most marketable) individual player in the league (forget the fact that it also featured a multiple-time champion that "purists" seem to think play the game the "right way"), and it managed to be the least-watched NBA Finals ever. I wouldn't confuse the very loud echo chamber of the devoted (the Simmons/Wilbon Effect) to nationwide interest. 

Ziller: No matter what way is the right way, there's an easy answer to this: The Spurs and Cavaliers both play the slow way. They also both play the defense-based way. As soon as the Conference Finals finished, everyone knew this'd be a bad Finals for the viewing audience. LeBron, the Spurs... who cares? It was two of the slowest-paced, defensively-skewed teams in the league. Maybe the presence of such teams (Portland looks to be the next generation) is an inherent flaw of the game, but it can hardly discount the fabulous postseason the NBA experienced on the whole.

Shanoff: Here's the thing: There is one -- ONE -- NBA Finals match up that has a prayer of national interest: Lakers-Celtics. Anything else will rate roughly what last year's Finals did, even if one of the participants is either the Lakers or Celtics. And even if it IS Lakers-Celtics, if it doesn't show substantial improvement over ratings this decade, that would confirm that the NBA is sliding into niche-dom. 

The NFL and college football are the only sports that maintain week-in-week-out national attention -- sustained national attention. Even baseball seems to peak in April, with a lull until September/October. It's apples and oranges: If the NBA had one game a week (on the same day) for 16 weeks, you bet ratings would go up. Football's system is set up for national attention sustained over 4 months. NASCAR's weekly
set-up helps drive is success.

Every other sport is fighting for relevance, ranging from 3 weeks (NCAA Hoops) to 4 weekends per year (golf/tennis) to a single day (Arena Football, let's say). 

The NBA has become a 3-moment-a-year sport: NBA Draft Night, NBA All-Star Weekend and the good fortune of a compelling Game 7 during
the playoffs.

Ziller: I heartily disagree the league's become a three-moment enterprise. Golden State-Dallas? Golden State-Utah? Phoenix-San Antonio? Even Phoenix-Lakers was an event! Detroit-Cleveland? The postseason is a two-month long series of huge moments. Everyone -- NBA fanatic or not -- talked about Game 5 of Cleveland-Detroit. Everyone -- NBA fanatic or not -- talked about GSW-Dallas.
 
If the NBA has slipped into nichedom in the past year, that is a mighty big niche. 

Shanoff: GSW-DAL was a one-time thing: A novelty. And CLE-DET was, again, one moment, as good as it was.  That brings you to 5 moments in a calendar year for the NBA, with 2 being spontaneous and unrepeatable. The NBA playoffs are a grind, and are only talked about by existing NBA fans, with the rare exceptional moment -- please keep in mind ESPN's role (and vested interest) in pushing/creating/manufacturing those moments. That's just the reality of sports, but it doesn't create a larger pie.

Ziller: If those huge NBA moments -- which had everyone in the world talking -- are novelties, why do they keep happening? This NBA stretch run and postseason... is this going to be a product of a series of well-timed flukes, or is it the product of an amazing (and growing) talent base, a stunning visual product on many nights, and smart league marketing via rule changes?

Shanoff: Here's the question: Economics aside, would the NBA be better off with their current "tentpole" strategy (5-6 individual nights of the year as "events" with lots of space in between them) or, like college basketball, a situation where they simply owned 3 straights weeks of the year, with very little national, non-avid fan attention paid beyond that. Again, economics muddles the argument. 

Ziller: Let's not overblow the NCAAs. How many casual fans check out after two weeks, when their bracket's in the toilet? Yes, it completely owns two weeks in March (beginning on Selection Sunday). But the Final Four loses steam among the casual fan (with Nielsen ratings comparable to the worst NBA finals of all-time); if you don't have a rooting interest or there isn't the rare compelling storyline (Carmelo Anthony, for example), the Final Four isn't going to capture you like the championships for most other sports. So basically, if this theory's right, the entire basis of college basketball's popularity is based completely on the novelty of a bracket.

Regarding your question, here's the thing: The NBA went through a bad spell, with few compelling stories beyond the Lakers, the Kings, and Vince Carter. It is clearly on the rise, and has been since last season. The beauty of the so-called "tentpole" strategy: You never know which night these big moments will happen. Kobe can drop 81 on League Pass. Denver could score 168 on some random Sunday. The Rockets -- a 10th place team -- can run off 22 wins in a row. At some point, the fan base created on the backs of these moments will get hooked into watching more often; the compelling product will keep folks watching when little is at stake because, hey!, you never know when something fun will happen. This is why ratings are improving this year for the NBA: The product is getting better, and it's the strategy which has allowed this.

Is the NBA becoming a niche sport? Is it the clear #3 sport now and in the future? Should Shanoff be disbarred? Should Ziller be disrobed? Discuss below, or where ever. It's your life.

Keep track of the Spotlight Series at the BallHype hub or via the RSS feed. To get involved in future Spotlight Series, contact Tom Ziller.

Welcome to the BallHype Spotlight Series, Volume 2: Bibilotech, a series of essays about books. In this edition, M. Haubs of The Painted Area discusses five sports books he's excited to see this year... and five he wishes were written. Enjoy. 

Last summer, we noted in our regular moonlighting space that the past few years seemed to be something of a golden age for basketball books, with intriguing reads about topics from the pros down to the high-school ranks.

In fact, it seems like it's been a pretty rich period for books across American sports.  Football's had pretty much a full century covered, from Sally Jenkins' Real All-Americans to Michael McCambridge's sweeping history of the rise of pro football, America's Game, to Michael Lewis' thoroughly modern look at the left tackle, The Blind Side, among many, many others.

As usual, there has been a motherlode of new baseball volumes spanning the scope of the sport's history, everything from Cait Murphy on the crazy 1908 season to Jonathan Eig on Jackie Robinson's first days as a Dodger to Joshua Prager on the Shot Heard Round The World and the great Joe Posnanski traveling the country with Buck O'Neill.

Meanwhile, it's not a stretch to say that contemporary takes such as Moneyball, Game of Shadows and the immortal Juiced! have affected the course of baseball history.

Even though we could continue naming dozens of intriguing sports books from recent years, there are still plenty of topics out there to be covered.  Here are five '08 releases we're looking forward to... followed by five more sports books we'd like to see:

FIVE FOR '08

The Greatest Game: The Yankees, the Red Sox and the Playoff of '78 by Richard Bradley
(Scheduled release: March 18)

Bradley, who wrote American Son: A Portrait of John F. Kennedy, Jr., takes a highly detailed look at the Yankees-Red Sox one-game playoff while also stepping back to examine the epic 1978 pennant race as a whole.

The topic has been covered from a pinstripe perspective in Roger Kahn's October Men and  famously in Sparky Lyle's The Bronx Zoo, the first sports book we ever read.

Sure, Lyle's juvenile humor and casual curse words were a forbidden delight to our prepubescent selves, and - let's face it - nothing can top Sparky's lesson on how to properly leave an ass imprint on a birthday cake.  Still, it seems like it's well overdue to have a balanced, thorough examination of this classic pennant race.

Maybe it's nostalgia, but in our minds, you can't beat a good old-fashioned pennant race as a dramatic tale. Of course, it has to be "old-fashioned" because a sad aspect of the wild-card era in baseball is that true pennant races are no more.

Contemporary races simply can't compare to races like '78, when the Yanks stormed back from 14 games down in July to edge the Sox in a do-or-die one-game playoff, thanks, of course, to Bucky Fuckin' Dent.

A Few Seconds of Panic: A 5-Foot-8, 170-Pound, 43-Year-Old Sportswriter Plays in the NFL by Stefan Fatsis
(Scheduled release: July 3)

Considering its dominance on the American sports landscape, the NFL is the most under-represented sports entity on bookshelves. Well, we've got three '08 releases for your consideration.  

First up is Fatsis, a Wall Street Journal reporter and NPR commentator known for his acclaimed book Word Freak, about the peculiar, obsessive world of competitive Scrabble players.  In A Few Seconds of Panic, Fatsis gets his George Plimpton on, as he suits up and participates as a placekicker in Denver Broncos training camp - an update of Plimpton's 1963 classic, Paper Lion, when the author played quarterback for the Lions in training camp.

We think it would be unbelievably awesome if the Fatsis book was sold as a package on Amazon, and basically everywhere, with fellow Bronco kicker Jason Elam's thriller, Monday Night Jihad.

Boys Will Be Boys: The Glory Days and Party Nights of the Dallas Cowboys Dynasty by Jeff Pearlman
(Scheduled release: September 16)

Pearlman wrote perhaps the most thankless sports book in a generation, the thoroughly researched, exceptionally reviewed Love Me, Hate Me, which proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that Barry Bonds is the biggest asshole in modern sports.  It's the definitive biography of a guy no one wants to read about.

Now Pearlman's getting back to something more like the fun-loving renegades in his chronicle of the '86 Mets, The Bad Guys Won!, as he delves into the '90s Cowboys in Boys Will Be Boys.  Can I get a White House?!

With characters like Jerry, Jimmy, Barry, Emmitt, Big Nate, The Playmaker and more, this is tailor-made for Pearlman.

The Best Game Ever: Giants vs. Colts, 1958, and the Birth of the Modern NFL by Mark Bowden
(Scheduled release: June 1)

The 1958 NFL Championship, universally credited with launching the popularity of the modern NFL, is apparently a popular subject.  In addition to this book, Frank Gifford, along with GQ's Peter Richmond, has a book on the topic coming out in the fall, and the legendary David Halberstam was working on this subject at the time of his tragic death last year.

That said, Bowden is thoroughly bankable, as his resume includes highly acclaimed books such as Black Hawk Down, Killing Pablo (about the hunt for druglord Pablo Escobar), and Guests of the Ayatollah (about the Iranian hostage crisis).  Bowden also has a well-regarded sports book, Bringing the Heat, to his name; the book followed the 1992 season of the Philadelphia Eagles, who Bowden covered for the Philadelphia Inquirer.

Rome 1960: The Olympics That Changed the World by David Maraniss
(Scheduled release: July 1)

Now, I know that events at the Olympics in 1936 and 1968 and 1972 shook the world a little bit. However, I have no real idea how the 1960 Rome Olympics changed the world, and I don't care.

Maraniss gets the full benefit of the doubt for being the master biographer of Bill Clinton (First In His Class), Vince Lombardi (When Pride Still Mattered), and Roberto Clemente (Clemente).  If he writes it, we wanna read it.

FIVE MORE WE'D LIKE TO SEE

Dave Maraniss on Jim Brown
Since we're talking Maraniss.... While we've been happy to see sweeping, well-regarded bios of Johnny Unitas, Vince Lombardi and Joe Namath released in recent years, the greatest football player who has ever lived, Jim Brown, still needs a treatment worthy of his complex, uncompromising life.

Yes, I know this might be an odd pick given that Mike Freeman's Jim Brown: The Fierce Life of an Anti-Hero just came out in 2006.  But Freeman's work was rather dry.  We'd love to see Maraniss take a stab at providing a fuller, richer portrait of Brown.

1984 Summer Olympics
And speaking of Olympics which changed the world, don't sleep on Los Angeles '84.

On the one hand, the whole thing in L.A. was so goofily American, what with the Hollywood excesses of the opening ceremonies and the self-congratulatory cheerleading by us Yanks, quite amusing given that half the competition wasn't, you know, there. There's a little bit of nostalgia at work, in remembering the Cold-War, pre-Ben-Johnson, three-network era when the Olympic Games were a truly larger-than-life event. Throw in the entertainment provided by mismatched pairs like Decker and Budd, and Retton and Karolyi, and, in the right hands, there's simply a pretty fun read here.

That said, the L.A. Games were also a pivotal moment in American sports history, the turning point when sports truly became big business.  The era of modern sports marketing was really ushered in by the CEO of the L.A. organizing committee, Peter Ueberroth, who turned a massive profit on the '84 games with his systematic approach to corporate sponsorship.  And of course, there was also this guy who led the U.S. men's basketball team to gold who was on the cusp of playing his part in the sports marketing revolution, as well....

Game of the Century: UCLA-USC '67
Someday, the time will be right for a sweeping biography of O.J. Simpson, which will depict how the Juice was one of the truly most fascinating athletes of the 20th century.  Seems like it's still too soon, though, and you'd probably have Fred Goldman on your ass, garnishing your wages one way or another, anyway.

What I'm thinking for now is something like New Yorker editor David Remnick's beautiful book, King of the World: Muhammad Ali and the Rise of an American Hero, which focused on the time when The Greatest loudly came onto the scene in the early 60s, highlighted by Ali's triumphant, shocking championship fights against Sonny Liston in 1964 and 1965.

I'd love to see Remnick look at Simpson through the prism of his USC years - when he rose from his troubled youth in San Francisco to become a polished media sensation in Hollywood - highlighted by the No. 1 vs. No. 2 matchup between UCLA and USC in November, 1967, which none other than Keith Jackson has called the greatest college football game he's ever seen.

Random aside: I hadn't realized until just this minute that UCLA's basketball Game of the Century, vs. Houston at the Astrodome, occurred just two months later, in January, 1968. Two Games of the Century in two sports in two months ain't bad.

Malcolm Gladwell's Sports Book
While we're dishing out the love to our favorite New Yorker writers, let's bring Malcolm Gladwell, celebrated author of The Tipping Point and Blink, into the fray.

We haven't quite forgiven Gladwell for pimping The Wages of Wins wildly in the pages of his magazine, while ignoring that other groundbreaking basketball rational analysts, like Dean Oliver and John Hollinger, exist.  But we'll settle up if Sideshow Mal - who is a sports fan, as illustrated thoroughly by these interviews on ESPN's Page 2 - makes his next hit a sports book.

We're thinking that something NFL-oriented might be up his alley - maybe a thorough look at  theories on how a team or an organization should be built, how game plans are constructed and executed, or how draft prospects are thoroughly scouted, vetted and ultimately selected.  I dunno, he's the crazy Canadian brother with the angles, I'm just the dear reader.

Larry, Magic and David
There aren't really any definitive biographies of Larry Bird or Magic Johnson out there.  Of course, the two are inextricably entwined, so why not combine them into one, and throw in a profile of David Stern to boot, and make it a full-scale look at the NBA's rise from the ashes, focused on the time period between the players' storybook 1979 college seasons and the ultimate triumph for all parties at the 1992 Olympics in Barcelona.  A no-brainer.

(Also be sure to check out The Painted Area's companion piece, on 10 basketball books they'd like to see.)

Keep track of the Spotlight Series at the BallHype hub or via the RSS feed. To get involved in future Spotlight Series, contact Tom Ziller.

Welcome to the BallHype Spotlight Series, Volume 2: Bibilotech, a series of essays about books. In this edition, Geoff Young of Ducksnorts tells you how to quit your job and write a book (or two). Enjoy. 

In August 2006, I got the bright idea of writing a book based on my Padres blog, Ducksnorts. I'd published a couple "Best Of" eBooks in the past that relied almost exclusively on existing material. The next logical step was to create an original work that expanded on ideas considered at the blog.

How did I do this? Glad you asked.

• Given the late start date, I knew I wouldn't have enough time to work with a traditional publisher. I investigated other options and settled on Lulu.
• I put my project management background to use and developed a statement of work with estimated hours, deliverable dates, and other Really Exciting Stuff. Then in November, after I'd completed a couple chapters, I came to the horrifying realization that the book wouldn't get finished unless I made a significant lifestyle adjustment.
• I quit my job.
• After drafting an initial outline and running it past several of my readers (who I can't thank enough), I started researching. I culled much of the information from existing blog posts, which I rearranged by topic, so that, say, everything I'd written about Adrian Gonzalez was in the same place. Then I looked for patterns -- things that had interested me during the season and which I thought might be worth investigating further. From there it was pretty much a matter of fleshing out the outline to create a first draft.
• Once I'd finished a draft, I sent each chapter to two different reviewers and asked them to be brutally honest.
• Next I made revisions based on reviewer recommendations and re-checked my facts. Then my wife and I edited the entire manuscript. We both have backgrounds in copy editing, but I think next time I'll let someone else handle those duties. It's impossible to view one's own work objectively after being so close to it for so long. I physically got tired of looking at my own words. As they say, I've suffered for my art -- now it's your turn.
• All throughout the process, I played with layouts and typesetting. I also got started on cover art earlier this time. For the Ducksnorts 2007 Baseball Annual, I basically did a photo shoot the day before I sent everything off to the printer. I don't recommend that. For the Ducksnorts 2008 Baseball Annual, I developed a concept well in advance and made minor tweaks as I went along.
• Somewhere in there, I approached Padres TV broadcaster Matt Vasgersian about contributing the foreword, and he graciously agreed. I'd been fortunate enough to have Padres CEO Sandy Alderson write the foreword to the 2007 Annual, and his participation in the project encouraged me to continue aiming as high as possible -- the worst anyone could say was "no." I'd already quit a really good job to write these things, so how bad could a two-letter word be? Basically there was no downside, and plenty of upside. And I'm beyond flattered that both gentlemen have been a part of the experience.

Lessons Learned

The big lesson is to start sooner. You really can't get started on a project like this soon enough. Have a plan. Be flexible within that plan, but have a plan. Talk to people about the project. I'm not the most outgoing person, so this is a struggle for me, but getting the word out is huge. Contact your fellow bloggers, contact the local media, tell people you meet on the street. Well, not just anyone -- but if they start talking about baseball, I try to sneak in a quick mention.

The flip side is listening. One of the great things about blogging is that I have a built-in community of folks who share my obsession and who are happy to give me feedback. For instance, several people mentioned that they would have loved a glossary and index in the 2007 Annual. Well, I couldn't do anything about that, but I certainly could include them in the 2008 Annual. So I did, and I like to think that the book is that much stronger for it.

In conclusion, don't quit your day job to write a book unless you can afford to d