NEWSFLASH: I Am Retiring

  Yes, I'm retiring.  And starting over.  All at once.  And it's all good.

  I'm officially announcing that I am retiring from being a 6 and 10pm TV Sports Anchor--a career that I have, for the most part, thoroughly enjoyed over the last 25-years.  It's all I had ever wanted to do since I was an 8-year old--since the days as an 2nd-grader of turning down the TV and doing my own play-by-play, and turning a pencil eraser-side up and pretending it was a microphone.  It was a career that allowed me to do what I enjoyed for a living. A career that enabled me to meet, interview, and even get to know as  human beings some of the greatest athletes of the modern era, and staff some of the greatest events of  the 1990s and early 2000s--events from the Dallas Cowboys 1993 Super Bowl season, three BCS title games (1996 Fiesta Bowl: Nebraska vs. Florida; 2001 Orange Bowl: OU vs. Florida St.; 2006 Rose Bowl: Texas vs. USC), a Final Four, College Baseball World Series, College Softball World Series, 2006 NBA Finals, a golf major, two Cotton Bowls, the 2003 Rose Bowl, a Holiday Bowl, Alamo Bowl, 1999 Independence Bowl--which was THE LAST major football game of the 1900s, and many, many more events on the pro, college and high school levels--all of which were special in their unique way.  It was a career that, early on, took up most of my time--which was all right because I was single with no attachments.  It's a career that had me working nights, many weekends, and about half of the major holidays.  It was a career that I willingly sacrificed time with family and friends to hone the craft of TV sportscasting.  It was also all about me, my wants, my needs, and nobody else--a sacrifice of thinking of others as myself. And, that's a sacrifice that I'm no longer willing to make.

  The seed of my decision to retire for family reasons was planted back in college.  My fraternity rushed a kid who's dad was a popular TV sportscaster in my hometown of Oklahoma City.  I recognized his last name, and told him I wanted to be a sportscaster like his dad.  I'll never forget his sheepish laugh, the downward head nod, and then his verbal response: "Well, I hope you get to know your kids."  He then shook hands and walked away.

  I never forgot that.  I made a point to never forget that.

  I want it to sink in a little bit more.

  "I HOPE YOU GET TO KNOW YOUR KIDS."



  That conversation was almost 30-years ago.  I know it resonated for a reason: people mean more than events.  People mean more than bragging points.  People mean more than big names to drop.  People mean more, period--even though I ignored the this truth at the time.  Fast forward to today: my family means more than telling stories about other people more famous and/or accomplished than me--at least to the point where I see more of those people and my fellow co-anchors more than I see my wife and two children.

  I walked away from my last Sports Director job here in the Rio Grande Valley on March 1 of this year, and since have had the opportunity to not only spend more time with my wife and kids--but have had the chance to take my kids to school, pick them up, play with them extended periods of time, read **whole books** to them, and then get them ready for bed each night.  It has taken a great deal of stress off of my wife, who more or less a single parent ever since we brought our kids home, and basically in exchange for my salary--again, a sacrifice neither my wife nor I am willing to make anymore.

  There's more.  More that's not comfortable to talk about, but must be.

  I can't speak for anybody else, but I have to admit, now publicly, that I hid behind my career--largely because of what I referred to in my most previous blog post "Depression Gets Personal":  I used it for significance--to quiet that voice of, "You're sorry, and not matter what you do, you'll always be sorry".  What better way to not be "sorry" than to be able to say "but at least I'm more famous than you", that is, until you ran into someone more famous--which is why hiding behind fame backfires.  I used what little notoriety I had to get introductions, and then put out the hand so that you wouldn't find out my self worth was largely wrapped up in being the sports guy, that you wouldn't find out I was bored of small talk beyond about 3-minutes, that you wouldn't find out while I could talk sports and understand sports I was largely not very good at most sports, that you likely had (and have) a lot more life experience than I did about most anything other than sports.  It was a large burden to bear.  And even though that burden has eased over the years as I got to know myself and have been in recovery from depression for 18-years, it's a burden I'm not willing to bear anymore.

  Truth be told, I'm also tired.  Tired of a lot of things.  Tired of hiding behind my career, of being exclusively "The Sports Guy", tired of hiding behind the veneer of being "The Sports Guy", and most of all tired of ignoring important friendships and relationships because of the time it takes to be "The Sports Guy"--at least in my mind.  I abhor the thought of using people and loving things, of being ruthless more than relentless.  I was not the type to go to places "to be seen", to go out and drink and/or party with "the right people" to get ahead.  Ergo, I'm tired of the energy it takes to balance networking (which I enjoy) and brown-nosing (which I healthily ***hate***) to achieve my professional goal(s).   I'm tired of not getting to experience a deer hunt in November because it's football season. I'm tired of the mental exhaustion that set in after football and basketball season professionally along with the guilt of knowing that my wife and kids hardly saw me all the while I was driving myself to exhaustion.  After age 35, exhaustion takes its toll, and now, at 50, that kind of exhaustion--with all of the aforementioned points factored in-- is a sacrifice I'm not willing to make anymore.

  Make no mistake--I still love the craft of TV sportscasting, the craft of the storytelling, the opportunity to learn from people who make the pursuit of excellence a daily practice.  But it's a younger person's game--and perhaps that's why you see your sportscasters--and really your news and weather people as well--getting younger and younger.  It's a business more and more for people who are mobile and can move **right now**, who can afford to **live to work**--much like I did early and mid-way through my career.  I'm just not there anymore, and in the five months since my last day on the air, I haven't missed anything but the craft of the storytelling.  And, I can tell stories in many other ways other than being your 6 and 10pm sports anchor.

  Which, leads to the **starting over** part:  what's next?   Answer: I don't know--at least as far as full time work goes.

  I will continue to pursue free lance reporting opportunities, free lance writing opportunities, and any full time media opportunities that don't involve working nights (at least not every night).  I'm also exploring communications jobs for school districts, and any other entity that would benefit from my talents and experiences.  As many of you know, I also earned a personal trainer's certification last year, and have been a working personal trainer for the last three months--where I have re-discovered my love of teaching.  You'll also see frequent posts to this blog--something that was greatly hindered as a 6 & 10pm sports anchor--and again, that kind of hindrance is a sacrifice I'm not willing to make anymore.

 Lastly, I'm also not willing to sacrifice my faith anymore.  I am a Christian to the bone.  What you take from that after my affirmation is up to you.  For me--and only me in this post--it means putting faith and family before anything else & letting that drive what's next and what kind of income it'll produce, and of being relentless instead of ruthless.  And, in the end, it's God who will be glorified.  It's a scary thing not having any kind of a *sure thing** right now, but isn't that what faith is about?? A pursuit of what's not seen?  Talking about it one thing, doing is a whole other.  And, like my continuing battle with depression, making appearances over being real is a sacrifice I'm not willing to make anymore.   And, my faith is real to me, and as a testimony to my faith, and the promises I made to my wife and kids to put them first, retirement from doing 6 and 10 is a sacrifice I'm more than willing to make.

The Practical Case Against Pay For Play

      I've waited awhile to write this one, mostly to let the raw emotion to die down, so that a practical view could not get practically blown off.  So here goes: paying collegiate athletes is a great way to turn Pandora's Box into the Death Star.

     Yes, that's pretty dramatic.  Too dramatic--but going over the top seems to be one of the only ways to get and keep people's attention.  Now, to state the case.

     First to review--there's a pending court case known as the "Ed O'Bannon Case", which is a class action lawsuit against that basically challenges the NCAA's limitation on what men's basketball and football players can receive for their services to the university as revenue producing athletes.  Second, there's the ruling earlier this year that Northwestern University football players can form a union, which if the players do, they'll be recognized as university employees.  Both cases could blow up the entire intercollegiate sports landscape.  Yes--***the entire*** landscape, and not for the better.

     Let's first address paying players more than their respective scholarships, room & board, books, and per diem.  Right now, the O'Bannon case deals only with football and men's basketball players.  This is impractical simply because **which ones** are you going to pay?  How much are you going to pay them? Are you going to pay just the stars--the guys who truly generate the revenue stream--or are you also going to pay the 3rd-string offensive lineman, et al?  This is where the attitude of "show me the money" rears its ugly personna, because everybody wants to get paid.  It doesn't stop there.  This is such a slippery slope that many other Pandora's Box questions must be answered on the way down that slippery slope into the Tar Pits.  Among them: what about athletes in non-revenue producing sports?  What about at universities where women's basketball is a revenue stream, or a a player/players are popular enough that they generate revenue for the university?  Shouldn't that be a "pay for play" scenario as well?  And, since you're talking about women's sports, you can bet the Title IX folks will chime in on the equal opportunity issue.  Those are just for starters.  All of these challenges must be met before "pay for play" can be practical.  Oh, and don't think the elite academic students--you know, the ones the universities recruit to come there to pad their academic and research prowess???!!!-- don't you think they're smart enough to get in on the cash capade?  What about the arts/performance stars who are recruited as well?  Shouldn't they get paid a portion for their contribution to the university's success/reputation?   Where does it end?  They're hard-but-fair questions.

    Second, a look-see at an even uglier scenario which is the Northwestern union thing.  The prima facie (at first look) questions cut this thing to pieces.  First, if these scholarship athletes become university employees, don't they become subject to the same rules and regulations of any university employed from the groundskeeper to the university president?  Do they fill out time cards?  Are they paid hourly or on a salary? Do they pay taxes on their scholarships?  Can they get fired for non-performance of duties--say, for example, being chronically late (for team meetings, study hall, the mess hall, etc... )?  Since they'll have to go through the National Labor Relations Board, won't they need to have a collective bargaining agreement?  Suppose there's an impasse between the players' union and the school--if they choose to strike, do they not get to go to class?  If they don't go to class, will they get flunked or incompleted?  Will they then lose their scholarship for non-compliance on the academic end?  If the university locks them out, same questions remain.  Those are just for starters.  All this will have to be legislated to make this practical.

     On the other side, it's become obvious the collegiate sports landscape needs serious reform.  It is practical to see that some athletes do generate not only some income, but some serious PR for their respective institutions, which added value on top of the revenue producing athlete/athletes.  I understand that.  I'm not one to offer challenges without at least a stab at a solution.  So here goes.

     For the revenue producing athlete, the university shall establish an escrow fund, where proceeds (let's just say 51% for the university, 49% for the athlete) from the athlete's likeness is deposited and kept, earning interest, for the entirety of the athlete's service to the university.   The athlete can then, after leaving the university, withdraw the proceeds under the following conditions:  1) To complete his/her degree, and upon completion of the degree the athlete can then withdraw what's left. Once he/she completes the degree, he/she can either withdraw the funds, or continue it earning interest to use for another degree for either him/her or a family member at a later date;  2) Withdraw the proceeds 5-years after his last day of service to the university to do with what he/she pleases.

     Regardless of which way one chooses to lean on this issue, there's no denying this is a slippery slope that very few know where it leads--largely because it's dark, murky, with a blindfold called money that obscures much rational thought on what "pay for play" means long term for not only the athletes and universities, but fans as well.

   

   

   
   
   


   

Why Soccer Is The World's Game & Not Ours

    No, it won't.

  Sorry, soccer enthusiasts, fans, and the like--your game will not become our game this year or anytime soon.  It's not because it's not a great game.  It's not because we're (the good ol' USA) behind the rest of the world, either.  It's certainly not some grand (or even minute) conspiracy.

  No, "fútbol" will do little better than grab our attention during the 2014 World Cup and then will quietly go back to its existence as the sport **just on the cusp** of breaking into the big four of American football, basketball, baseball and hockey.  It will stay the sport many will encourage our kids to play--and we'll cheer voraciously for our children as they play.  Some will take that enthusiasm into their kids' competitive soccer leagues into junior high and high school.  Some will even purchase tickets to some MLS games.  Most will not.

  So, what's the deal?  Where's the disconnect with soccer between World Cups?  Why does American football sack soccer from Uncle Sam's sea to shining sea?

  One theory has it being about our history versus the rest-of-the-world's history--particularly one important **revolution**.

  Michael Mandelbaum put it all in words in his book, "The Meaning Of Sports: Why Americans Watch Baseball, Football, And Basketball And What They See When They Do" (Public Affairs, New York ,2004).  The revolution?  The industrial revolution.  Put simply, football emerged from the mechanization of America, where measured time and synchronization of tasks catapulted the USA into the super power it still is today.  To quote Mandelbaum:

          "Football is the sport of the machine age because football teams are like machines,
          with specialized moving parts that must function simultaneously. Players are like
          workers in a factory. They must perform their tasks in a precise sequence, and the
          failure to so sow leads to the kind of disaster depicted in the film "Modern Times"
          in which Charlie Chaplin, working on an assembly line, gets tangled up in the
          machinery."

  Football was born of boon--and the great rivalries were born during that boon: Auburn-Alabama, Michigan-Ohio State, Oklahoma-Texas are classic examples on the college scene.  "The Black And Blue Division" of the NFL (Chicago Bears, Detroit Lions, Green Bay Packers, Minnesota Vikings) come to mind, as well as Rust Belt rivalries like the Steelers vs. Browns.  It's a game built upon the blue collar, hard labor, bare knuckles striving of the American Industrial Revolution.  We became truly great then, and perhaps football reminds of that greatness--at least subliminally.

  Mandelbaum also notes that American football is also video friendly, and I believe that's the principal reason football trumps futbol for the general masses between the Atlantic & Pacific (as well as Alaska & Hawaii).  You've heard it a kajillion times: soccer's boring.  I'll be more precise:  no, soccer is not boring at all, just like baseball's not boring--it's just not as exciting on TV.  I find soccer strategy fascinating, and the athletes playing the game to be on the same level as football athletes.  I, and millions of others, just don't like waiting so long for the **big** action to take place.

  Mandelbaum doesn't shy away from the violent aspect of American football.  He compares it to warfare--as in the drawing up the game plan (football) is to drawing up a battle offensive, where the head coach acts as the general, the players as soldiers, the support staff subordinate officers and medical staff.   Mandelbaum extends on his comparisons:

          "Because each (football and war) are dangerous, fighting a war and playing
           in a football game both require doing what comes unnaturally. Commanders
           and coaches must find ways to overcome the natural inhibitions to taking
           part in both.  Here again, the array of techniques they use, and the invent-
           ives they offer exhibit marked similarities."

  It's here I'll extend on Mandelbaum's point.  I believe football is a better diversion than soccer.  Sports, and all entertainment really, are really just diversions from real life that make real life more bearable, more lively, more hopeful.  Yes, football is a most violent game, where there are frequently serious injuries and infrequent deaths, but the violence is generally confined to the field and not the stands.  That it's also more fun to watch in person and on TV only makes it better.

  So, regardless of how successful the USMNT is in this or future World Cups, futbol will face an El Capitan-like climb to reach the popularity of football in the US of A, and really, even basketball and baseball.  I believe it can over-take hockey simply because more youth across all economic lines can play soccer than can play hockey--although watching hockey is a zillion times more exciting than watching soccer (popularity IS about the number of eyeballs).

  I fully expect some pushback from soccer fans and elitists. That's OK.  Those that know me know I welcome dissent--even if it's based more in emotion than in fact.  I fully expect some to counter that the world's game should be ours because most everything is global nowadays. I full expect others to use the well-worn counter that, something like this, "You'll never give soccer a chance because you just hate us and our game and you'll never understand it anyhow."  In my 25-plus years of sportscasting, I've heard variations of the above dozens of times in each market where I've worked.  There was even a lady in Oklahoma who refused to believe I had **ever** covered a single one of her son's high school games even after I gave her video proof of the nearly dozen games I'd covered in two years. My response to such nonsense is the same: your mind is already made up, so thank you for your opinion and you're free to go--there are some nice parting gifts waiting for you.

  Football certainly has its challenges, but popularity in the 50-states is not one of them.  Of all facts, this one is undeniable.  It's soccer's challenge to eclipse that popularity before the nation gets excited beyond World Cups.