USA Soccer in Confederation Cup 2009

Sometimes you would rather be lucky than good. USA Soccer was thoroughly displaced by two juggernauts of football this past week in their draw at the Confed Cup, by losing to Italy and Brazil. The only possible way for them to advance to the next round was to beat a poor Egyptian team by three goals, and hope that Brazil would beat Italy by three goals. Miraculously, beyond description and among the most odd and weird things, it happened exactly that way, with 3-0 games in each, and America advancing.

And earlier this week, I predicted Egypt would win, 2-1. Now that I've eaten my words (not really, it was a good bet that USA would lose), I have to post (and laugh at) this quote from an American player and veteran:

"All of the critics in America who said we were no good after losing to Italy and Brazil, let's see what they say now," Michael Bradley said.

Here's what I say: "you're no good."

Come on. It's great that you have a little spirit, but simply because you (#14) beat a bad Egyptian (#40) team, and Italy (#4) played a horrible game against Brazil (#5), you advanced in a tournament to play the #1 team in the world, Spain. Do you really think you deserve to advance instead of Italy to whom you lost? Doesn't make sense, but tie-breakers rarely do. But this is exactly why you are fighting to earn a spot in the next World Cup 2010. It's not a guarantee that you will qualify. Michael Bradley, there won't be a Brazil to help you make it to the next round. And like so many Cups past, we'll see that once again, USA is no good at football.

Tom runs on Dunkin Donuts

To conclude a rather all-around frustrating week, I decided to go for comfort food for breakfast, and grab Dunkin Donuts at the only DD in Kansas (or west of the Mississippi River I think). Now anyone who knows me, knows that my weakness is pastries, specifically a good donut. Being raised in Chicago, DD's was a staple of every day life, continuing on into High School, where we would sit before track practice and devour a dozen. So Tom really does run on Dunkin.

But this morning was the best thing I had seen in a while, and might have just made up for the crappy week I've had. Imagine this: a very attractive mid-to-late 20's woman, blonde curly hair... not gorgeous, but very attractive. I'll refrain from going into great detail. Anyway, she's walking through the parking lot, and I'm walking about 15 feet behind her. Oh yeah, the funny part: she's wearing a very nice black dress, sleeveless, tight, and short, with black heels. It looks like she had gone out to the bars last night, and I immediately thought, "Has to be the walk of shame." The nightclub outfit, she's attractive, going to DD's for a hearty breakfast after either a great night, or disappointing night. However when I catch up to her at the door, I notice that her hair is wet, like she just got out of the shower. Then I hear her order FOUR DOZEN DONUTS, a two coffees! And I'm thinking, "Wow, this isn't the walk of shame... she either really likes this guy, and going to return to him and shower him with donuts, or she had a really, REALLY bad night and was going home." Either way... she gets an A+ in my book.

Of course, I'm not that simple. She's probably going to work and picked up donuts for the office on the way in. You can't judge a book by its cover.But it was a good way to start the day.

The problem with sports and parity

I'll start by saying that there is nothing wrong with parity. Yes, I know what the title says. Here's the beef: Take any major sport in America that relies on parity (NBA, MLB, NFL), and at the end of the season when a small-market team makes the finals, the league complains that the TV ratings are down. The management of these leagues believe that the big are getting too big and winning all the time, so they'll (rightly) institute parity, however the drawback to this is low TV ratings.

What is parity? For those of you who do not follow the sports, parity is a way of leveling the playing field. In most sports it is a salary cap, which if effective, means that no team can spend more than the other. It means that every team will play the same number of prime-time, 'game of the week' games on national television. In essence, every team is equal, which allows all teams to have a fighting chance to win.

So what's the problem? Nothing if you are a true fan of the sport. For me, I'll watch a baseball game between the Seattle and Minnesota (two smaller market teams) because it is a chance to see a handful of really great players, and the game is full of fundamentals. And if Tampa Bay meets Colorado in the World Series, I would probably catch a game or two, though I don't have any vested interest in either team, but simply because it could be a good game.

But how many true baseball fans are out there? Aside from me, my friends Boone and Phil and Peter Gammons, there are few fans of the game. If the Red Sox do not make the Series, how many people from Boston do you think would catch even an inning of one game? Same goes for the other major sports.

Now here's the rub: the sporting commissioners fought long and hard to level the playing field, the players' unions fight long and hard to get every dollar out of the teams. Parity is in place to make every team competitive (if they chose to be), but the leagues complain when their ratings tank. All of this is due to sports fans being loyal to their teams. There are no 'sports fans' out there anymore. There are Raiders fans, Yankees fans, Astros fans, Chiefs fans, Spurs fans... if their team isn't in it, then they don't care, and they aren't going to watch. Parity has made the games more interesting, and the season is more interesting, but when it comes to the playoffs, ratings shouldn't matter. A solution would be to only show the playoff games in the local market, but offer the games online (for free)to a multi-national market. You want to grow your sports again? Offer something free, and watch the people flock. You'll make new fans around the world, which increases your marketability, and gives you more money in the long run.