On this Monday afternoon, there are just a few subjects that have been on my mind today. I don't profess to have all the answers but only want to put my two cents in.
The Major League Baseball All-Star Game:
Last week, I heard some radion commentary about the MLB All Star Game and what the significance of that game should be. Most of the opinions I heard expressed were against the All Star Game deciding home field advantage during the world series. There were several suggestions on what should be done with the All Star Game and what should be at stake. Changing the rule to where the winning league of the All Star Game may have been an over reaction to an All Star Game ending in extra innings in a tie but it has made the game unique among all star games. First, it is the only all star game that means anything at all. Whether or not, the stakes are too high for an exhibition game is debatable, but it does keep the game interesting. Other than the MLB All-Star game, I don't watch any of the others because they are no more meaningful than a pre-season game. Where is the excitement? Also, it is no worse than before, when the AL and NL would have homefield in the World Series in alternating years.
I think the best alternative, that I wish that I could claim would be to have the winning league of the All Star game have all interleague games played by that league's rules during the following season. That idea came from Mike Greenberg. However, I would make it like a coin flip in that the winning league would get to choose which rules would be used on a game by game basis. For example. If the American League wins this year's All Star Game and next year the Yankees and Mets start a 3 game series. During that series, the Yankees, as the AL team would get to elect AL or NL rules for each game they play. It would be just the opposite with the Mets choosing, if the NL wins the All Star game this year. Then, rather than haiving the All Star game determine home field advantage in the World Series, the team with the best record would hold home field advantage. Seems like a reasonable plan to me.
Brett Favre and the Continuing Saga:
In what is becoming an increasingly drawn out saga, we are still waiting on word as to whether or not Brett Favre will play for the Minnesota Vikings this year. I can certainly understand that people are getting sick of the saga, or just sick of the wait to find out whether or not he will play again this year. In truth, I would like for the decision to be made and announced just to end the story and any suspense that is left. The slow progression of news is getting tedious to say the least. A couple of weeks ago it is a story that Favre had had surgery and that if his arm healed properly, he would play for the Vikings this year. Not too much of a shock there. Then in the last couple of days, Dr. Anrdews comes out with a bombshell of his own, that Favre wants to play for the Vikings. Has there been any real news in this story recently. To tell the truth, I would like to not see another story on this subject until Favre has reached a final decision on the matter.
However, even though I am getting a little bit sick of the drawn out story, I do not blame favre at all for wanting to come back and play if he is still able. First, Favre feels like he was wronged by Green Bay prior to last season. I am not saying that he was indeed wronged or that green Bay did anything wrong. That is entirely too subjective and everybody will have their own opinion on that subject. However, if he does feel like he was betrayed, how can he be blamed for wanting to get a little bit of revenge? That is just human nature and he is entitled to have human emotions like the rest of us. If your company decided they didn;t weant you any more, and you wanted to continue working, would you just give up your career for company loyalty or go work elsewhere. If your company then tried to prevent you fromn working elsewhere, would you not want to get even? If that is how Favre sees things, I don't blame him for wanting a little revenge.
It also does not seem that a person who doesn't want to retire should be forced into retirement. If Minnesota wants Favre to be their quarterback and sign him, and Favre has the ability to play who am I, or anyone else, to say that he should just stay retired? I know that I would not want people telling me when I should retire and demanding that I do so. This is America, and as long as Favre wants to work and has someone who wishes to hire him, he has the absolute right to keep on working. Let's not forget, there have to be two sides to Favre continuing in the NFL, Favre and a willing team. When teams are no longer interested in having him play, he will have to retire. Until then, let him play, and I hope he succeeds. Fianlly, where are people getting that he has gone into and come out of retirement several times over the past several years. I thought that this was his second time, the first retirement coming last year. It just seems like the indecision is being exaggerated to a great degree.
Michael Vick and Other Convicted Felons:
Over the past several months I have heard a lot of debate that centers primarily around Michael Vick, but is just as applicable to several players in the NFL for the time being. These opinions I have heard range from Vick should never be allowed into the NFL again to he should be suspended another season or a portion of a season to he should be immediately re-instated. My question is simply, why should Vick, or any other player convicted of a felony get so much of a better shot than anyone else. If a person is in a position to ever play professional sports they have already been given an opportunity that most of the population will never have. Then it is their decision to take care of what they have earned or throw it away, just as the rest of us do. There are people who earn the right to pursue a living as a Doctor, Lawyer, Teacher, Nurse, Accountant, or other professions that have worked hard to get to where they are, and sacrificed. In these professions, there is a very high chance that a felony conviction will result in losing your license. That career path will be over because of your choices. These people would then have the right to make a living but almost certainly in a diffrent, and lower paid position.
Why should these spoiled, over paid athletes have it better than everyone else in the counry? Nobody has said that Vick can never earn a living again, but that he should have to do it in another job. He is working in a construction job now, and most people would feel lucky to be given any chance after having been convicted of a felony and serving time. Vick, and the other football felons, can still earn a living, but they should not be given so much more than any person in the country.
That is about all I have to say for today, thanks for taking time to read my thoughts.