Suggestions to improve the NBA

OK, I have two suggestions to improve the NBA- one to fix the strike issues, the other to make the game itself more interesting.

1)  Financial Solution:  HARD CAP + FRANCHISE PLAYER

Understand- I'm not in favor of the players or the owners.  I honestly don't care who 'wins' or 'loses' the strike.  But while I want pro basketball back, I don't want it at the expense of the small market teams.  I'm a Cleveland Cavaliers fan, and I want the hope that they have the same chance to put together a winning franchise as the Lakers, Celtics, Bulls or Heat.  If that doesn't happen- if basketball becomes like baseball, with haves and have-nots- then the league can just fold, for all I care.

So here's my solution- institute a hard cap (both overall and per player)... but also allow one "Franchise Player" per franchise.  The normal players can be signed for at most four years and at most $X dollars (where X is based on a 50/50 split). 

The franchise player can be signed for ANY amount of money, and that money does not apply to the cap.  So if the Lakers want to pay Kobe Bryant $75 million a year, they can. 

Why the owners go for it- they reign in the costs of the mid-sized players. 

Why the players go for it- The 50/50 sounds like a bad deal for them- until they realize that the top 30 salaries won't be part of that deal.  The owners would probably need to give up on other issues to make it more palatable, but the players lose in the long haul- and the agents of the best players would love this deal.

As a fan, I know the best players are going to the major markets.  But this means that the major markets can't monopolize the best players.  The Lakers might get Kobe, or Dwight Howard; but they can't get BOTH players.  Not unless one wants to take a major league cut.

2)  Quality of play improvement:  INDIVIDUAL COURTS

Every NBA court is the exact same dimension- same court size; same height of the basket, same three point line.

Why?

One of baseball's best charms is that each stadium is individual and unique, and clubs design their teams around various styles.  Baseball is best when different styles win- the speed of the 85 Cardinals, the power of the 86 Mets, the pitching of the early 90's Braves.

When one style dominates to the point that every team copies it, the game becomes boring.  Both in baseball and basketball.

Here's my solution- allow a range of dimensions for the court, the height of the basket, and the width of the three point line.  Better yet, allow teams to decide if they want a three point shot at all.  Say that you can only change in between seasons, and that you have to keep those dimensions for three years at a minimum.

When a team goes to a NBA court, they play by that team's rules. 

For example:  Indiana has a narrow court and no three point line, so they build around rebounders and slashers.  The Rockets have a wide court and a short three point line, so they build around fast gunners.  The game between the teams looks a lot different in Indiana than in Houston.

Here's the advantages:

1)  Increase the number of successful styles
2)  Makes home court advantage that much more important
3)  Greater use of the entire roster- even teams that don't have three point shooters need them for certain stadiums
4)  More strategies
5)  Makes the teams more unique

I think implementing both ideas would make the gamer much better.  And well... I'm right. 

My feline problem...

Permit me to vent here.  I'm getting near my wit's end, and not sure what the best solution is.

I've had a cat, Smokey, for almost a dozen years.  My brother and I got her from the Cleveland APL, and she's been a great pet.  Generally quiet, occasionally snippy, but always part of the house.

When I first met Katie, I warned her that Smokey was shy and generally hid from people.  An hour later, Smokey was purring on Katie's lap.  I took that as a good sign.

Smokey's getting up in years.  She doesn't run much and climbs the stairs slowly, but the vet confirms she's in good health.

The problem is Pippin.

A month ago, some friends of ours had a problem- they had two cats, but after moving and having a baby, one of the cats (Pippin) was reacting badly, spaying the house.  They needed to either find Pippin a new home or put him down.  And I volunteered to bring Pippin over and see if we could take him in, hoping that without a baby, Pippin would calm down.

To be honest, it's worked out better than I should have hoped.  Pippin is a huge adult cat, but extremely friendly.  Unlike Smokey, who likes to hide, Pippin is always walking around and rubbing against people.  He likes to be petted, and there has been no spaying problem with him at all.

But Smokey is absolutely terrified of him.

In retrospect, I should have realized it.  Both are adult cats, but Pippin is twice her size.  Both Pippin and Smokey are fixed and have their front paws declawed.  I was told that cats take a few weeks to get used to each other, but we're on three weeks now.  Smokey is always either hiding from Pippin or hissing and attempting to strike Pippin.  Twice we've heard a 'yelp' and seen Smokey run and hide under the bed, but weren't able to see what happened exactly.  And now I'm worried Pippin is starting to use Smokey's litter box instead of his own.

I'm at my wit's end here.  I'm open to suggestions here on getting the cats to get along.  We've already bought a diffuser to try and calm Smokey down (Pippin always seems calm), but every day it seems like a case of "one step forward, two steps back" with the cats reacting to each other.  For my own sanity's sake, I can't have the cats being this neurotic around each other.

I've talked to Scott, and taking Pippin to the APL is a possibility.  Since we know Pippin doesn't spay, he can be adopted.  But I really hate the idea of taking an adult cat to the APL- it's too easy for him not to be adopted at his age.

I'm asking my facebook friends if anyone would be interested in adopting Pippin.  He's a fantastic cat, and can make a wonderful pet.  I don't want to get rid of him, and if I do I want to make sure he's going to a good home. 

Volunteers and suggestions welcomed.

Profit from the NHL!

I'd like too announce my new income-generating plan.

It's well-known that I, Mike Sonby, am a walking sports curse. My resume:

* Longtime Chicago Cubs fan

* Current Cleveland Indians fan

* Current Cleveland Browns fan

* Current Cleveland Cavaliers fan

* University of Cincinnati Alumni

Last year, I followed NHL hockey, and picked the Colorado Avalanche to follow. Injuries quickly obliterated this team, and a promising contender didn't even make the playoffs. So my Sports Curse DOES carry over to the NHL.

Now- I'm open minded. I can root for ANY NHL team. Even yours.

　

I'll let that sink in for a bit before continuing...

...

...

...

...

HOWEVER, for a small fee, I can be convinced to follow a different team than the one you support. My 25+ years of bad luck can be channeled elsewhere, and now towards your team.

I think we can all agree that this money would be well spent. After all, you have a very nice NHL team. It'd be a shame if something bad happened to it...

The Health Care Bill and the 2012 Election

The Health Care Bill is going to the Supreme Court.

OK- putting on the political gamesmanship hat here...

It's August 2012.  The election is three months away.  And the Supreme Court makes a decision that finds the Health Care Bill Unconstitutional.

Doesn't that enrage the supporters of the bill?  And with the election so soon thereafter, wouldn't that emotion lead them to go to the voting booth to take out their anger?

It works the other way, too- if the Supreme Court found the Bill Constitutional, it's the opponents of the Bill who are willing to walk over broken glass to take out their anger at the voting booth.

So, by timing the Health Care Bill so that it's decided by the Supreme Court before the 2012 election, it's almost a version of a Hedge Bet- the side that loses the Health Care Issue will gain at the polls.

By appealing the Appellate decision when they did, the Administration wants the Health care Bill to be decided before the election.

So here's my question- do they want the Supreme Court to find the Bill Constitutional?  Or would they rather improve their chances for re-election if the Supreme Court finds it Unconstitutional?

Suggestions to improve Major League Baseball

Ideas to improve baseball:

* Salary Cap, Salary Floor, splitting money on TV deals

Somehow, I've become a sports socialist.  Strange for a confirmed capitalist like myself, but I'll explain.

If you own a Mom-and-Pop Diner, you're not trying to compete with McDonald's.  You're trying to make a profit.  If McDonald's sells a billion burgers, you don't care, as long as you're making money.  Even though you're in the same industry, you're not using the same scorecard.

Not so in sports.  For every team that wins, some other team MUST lose.  And when you have some teams spending 200 million while other teams are spending 30 million, it creates a disparity that is impossible to overcome.

I understand.  Right now, the system works for a lot of people.  It works for the Yankees- they spend money, win titles, make money.  It works for the small market teams like Pittsburgh- they don't spend money, but they make enough to earn a profit.  It works for the players- the teams with money spend a fortune to get their stars on their teams.  It works for everyone.

Unless you're a fan of a small market team.  Like me.  Then, the system doesn't work.  Oh sure.... if EVERYTHING breaks right and the Tribe gets 4-5 young players to develop, they have a 1-2 year window to win a title before the Yankees and Red Sox take their players.  Then it's time to rebuild when the window closes.  But teams like the Yankees and Red Sox never have a window of opportunity.  They just reload every year.

Really- unless you're a fan of a big-spending team, it's a really bad idea to root for a team in baseball.  And a few years ago, I stopped trying.

What would it take to fix this?  A salary cap.  It's one thing for the largest market to outspend the smallest by a 2 to 1 ratio.  But 6-1, 7-1 is impossible to overcome for 162 games.  A cap and a floor would get the ratio to a manageable level, and keep the players happy by forcing the smaller markets to spend money.

Now, the Yankees get a ton of money from their cable network- much more than the smaller market teams get.  And they end up with all of the proceeds from the cable deals.  With the tickets, they split the proceeds with the other team (and vice-versa).  Why can't this apply to the cable deals as well?  The Yankees might dismiss teams like the Royals, but how will they make their cable deals if the Royals just refuse to play?  

* Change the variables to allows more styles to win

OK- I love the book Moneyball.  I love the concept behind Moneyball- that by using statistical analysis, a smart team can find talent that is underappreciated and a bargain, and use those players to put together a team that is more successful than one that spends more money.

It worked- the Oakland A's could never reach the World Series, but could match any team's record, even though it was outspent by a fortune.

The problem was, Moneyball worked too well.  Smart teams figured out what the A's were doing and replicated the results.  And success is duplicated- which lead to several teams using the Moneyball formula.

And the Moneyball formula- get players with low batting averages and high on-base percentage with power, sacrificing defense for offense- is not an exciting form of baseball to watch.

My favorite period to watch baseball was in the 80's, and a large part of the reason was that there were several styles that succeeded in creating winning teams.  You had teams winning by pitching (1985 Kansas City Royals), by speed and defense (1985 and 1987 St. Louis Cardinals), by power (1988-89 Oakland Athletics).  When every team is a duplicate of each other, the game gets boring.

Right now, all of the outside factors favors teams that build around on-base percentage and power- "Three-run Homers".  As long as that is the most successful formula for baseball, every team will duplicate it.

How to fix it?  

- Widen the strike zone so that batters stop trying to draw walks

- Allow the pitcher to only throw a couple times to first base to encourage stolen bases

- Encourage new stadiums to be larger and favor pitchers over hitters

You don't want to go to the extreme of the 60's, when pitching dominated.  You want to strike a balance when any style can win.

* Revert back to two divisions per league.

Here two simple rules of thumb:
1)  The more playoff teams, the less important the regular season is
2)  The more teams and the fewer games, the more you need playoffs

So football- 32 teams, but only 16 games in a season- needs playoffs.  It's too easy for one team to play an easy schedule and end up with more wins than a better team that played a tougher schedule.  

But baseball has 162 games in a season.  Everyone plays everyone else 6-7 times, at a minimum.  There's no need for multiple rounds of playoffs- the regular season is enough to determine who the best teams are.

If you go back and recalculate the past few seasons with two divisions, you realize that we've missed out on some incredible September playoff hunts.  In fact, my friend dboy has done so here.

And don't tell me about the wild card- no one cares if the fourth or fifth best team makes the playoff.  We want epic pennant races, like the Braves and Giants in 1993.  Not coincidentally, that was the last year before the Wild Card was introduced.

Go back to two divisions in each league (I'd even support the pre-1969 rules and only have one division per league, but I think I'd be outvoted here) and the games in September mean a lot more.

* Hold Interleague games in one year every decade

Interleague play has ruined the All Star game.  Part of the magic of baseball was that the two leagues never interacted, so people in Seattle never saw National League players.  But Interleague play also is a moneymaker for several cities.  

OK- we can't get rid of it.  But by having it every year, it ruins the impact.  Change it so that it happens only once every ten years- it makes the interleague games more meaningful.

Becoming a two-cat family

We've had a cat since before we bought the house.  My brother suggested getting a cat for the half of the duplex when we lived together- two weeks later, he was on the fence about having a cat while I couldn't imagine not having one.  As for Katie, she's always claimed to have "Feline Affinity" as a gift- cats naturally like her.  Smokey certainly did.

A friend of ours has a cat that had to have a new home.  Pippin is a seven year old male (Smokey is about 12 years old and female), and came over today.  Currently he's in the basement in his 'kitten condo'- he seems to be adjusting to the new house fine.  Smokey- we're not so sure about.  She's hidden herself either under the couch or the bed for the entire day, even when Pippen was locked in his condo.  We're hoping she'll get used to Pippen over time- especially since his cage is near both her food and her litter box.

At this point, I can't imagine our house without a cat.  Odd for someone who grew up with a series of dogs and only one cat.  Now it feels like "A house just doesn't seem like a home without a pet".

Fantasy Draft- SNL

I'm a sucker for fantasy drafts.  I used to play in fantasy baseball and basketball leagues, and still have a couple of fantasy football leagues that I play in. 

Recently, some friends of mine and I did a "Saturday Night Live" fantasy draft.  The rules were simple:

- 10 cast members, minimum 2 females (could pick from anyone who was an official cast member)
- 1 host
- 1 musical guest
- pick a news anchor from your cast members

It was interesting to see who went where and what people valued.  For instance, my top choice would have been Dan Aykroyd- but apparently a lot of people felt so, as he went #1 overall.

Out of eight teams, I ended up with the #7 pick overall (Rule #12- in any draft, I end up with one of the last numbers).  Here's the cast that I drafted:

Host: Buck Henry
Music act: Aerosmith

Cast:
Gilda Radner
Mike Myers
Jane Curtain- News Anchor
Robert Downey, Jr.
Billy Crystal
Andy Samberg
Joan Cusack
Michael McKean
Harry Shearer
Gilbert Gottfried

Almost- ALMOST- had all three members of Spinal Tap, but Christopher Guest was taken two picks before my turn.

Not a bad cast- a lot of people who had better post-SNL careers than during SNL, but I like the promise.  Buck Henry was a fantastic host.  And on any show with "Wayne's World" and 2/3 of Spinal Tap, I need a Heavy Metal band to work with.