Packing Pee-Wee Heat

Not sure if you've heard yet about the Philadelphia, Penn. parent who was arrested for pulling a gun on his son's football coach. If not, you can find the story here.

To summarize, 40-year-old Wayne Derkotch was arguing with the coach of his son's 6- and 7-year-old football team. No shots were fired, but what pray tell would possess a man to draw a weapon on the coach of his son's Pee Wee football team?

Playing time. Apparently, the boy wasn't getting enough of it.

Derkotch was arrested, as was a referee accused of throwing a punch at a man. It's unknown if these two incidents are related, but I just have to wonder...

Just what in the hell has gotten into people these days?

We've all heard horror stories of "little league parents," people who insist on living vicariously through their children on the field. Maybe daddy's dream of being a big-league pitcher fell through, so he's pushing Junior as hard as he can in hopes that someday, his son will be the explosive ball player he never was.

A couple months ago, we saw a parent storm onto the football field and level a 12-year-old for a late hit on his son.

And now this.

I used to scoff at the notion of banning parents from their children's games, thinking that, if I were a child, I'd want my parents in the stands cheering me on as I learn the sport of my choosing. But after this insane, baffling incident, I think it's time to revisit that notion.

Pulling a gun on a coach because your 6- or 7-year-old isn't getting enough playing time? What, are you trying to groom the next Terrell Owens?

When did a win-at-all-costs attitude permeate the little league sports landscape? When did behavior once reserved for big-time college and professional athletics become commonplace for the pre-teen crowd? I always thought little league sports were about learning the game, teaching life lessons through the all-encompassing canvas of sports. Everyone involved is looking to learn and have fun, not win it all, no matter what the cost.

Apparently, that's no longer the case.

When did it come to this? Is it because every summer, ESPN goes all happy-batty over the Little League World Series, shoving prepubescent baseball down our throats? Does it have anything to do with the individualization rampant in sports today?

Get the SportsCenter highlight, upgrade your draft status, hire a flamboyant agent, ask for the biggest contract you can, and don't forget that all-important shoe contract.

Or does it go back to my earlier point of parents wanting to live through their children? Professional athletics is such an exclusive, cut-throat club, thousands with aspirations never even sniff the opportunity to play.

In middle school, I had aspirations of being a Major League pitcher. I was gonna light up the high school ranks with my fastball, baffle college hitters with my changeup, and develop a couple breaking balls to take the majors by storm.

Maybe even start Game 1 of the World Series my rookie year.

Only it never happened. I got to tryouts in high school and quickly realized how little athletic talent I had. But does that make me want to do half the things I hear Little League parents doing?

No...instead, I decided to become a sports writer and a sportscaster in college. That way, sports is still an integral part of my life. I used to joke that God didn't give me athletic talent, just a microphone.

I hope Derkotch gets what's coming to him, because we need to change the current landscape of little league sports. I'm tired of hearing about parents fighting each other, berating officials and threatening coaches. At this level, a game is just that: a game. Things aren't cut-throat until you get to college, maybe high school.

That's how it should be, anyway.

The Big Sports Media Secret

It seems to me the sports media has taken a lot of heat recently, what with its perceived over-coverage of Terrell Owens' apparent prescription drug overdose and a myriad of other issues ranging from a love affair with anything involving the New York Yankees and/or Boston Red Sox to pundits asking what's wrong with an NFL team after they have the gaul to lose a division game on the road.

Don't mistake what I'm about to say, though; this is not a piece in which I defend the profession I am in the process of making my name in. I'm not here to praise ESPN and the countless other sports media outlets, saying they can do no wrong and if it weren't for today's sports media, we wouldn't be a fan base so connected and knowledgeable we can discuss issues important to us and come to sites like ArmchairGM one to write opinions and debate.

Okay, so the last part's true...my argument of not defending the media still stands.

No, I merely seek to explain how the media (in fact, all mainstream media, not just sports) works. Having spent my undergraduate years studying the mass media and the last five years teetering between sports writing and sportscasting, my eyes have been opened to the reality of news.

And that reality, as it so often is in life, is money. The almighty dollar.

Media outlets today are usually a part of a larger entity, some massive corporation which, by and large, has no interest in the media (or, for the purposes of this piece, sports). CNN is merely a cog in the wheel that is Time-Warner, ESPN is but a limb of the mighty Disney Corp.

Sports Illustrated? Again, see Time-Warner.

These corporations obtain these entities and companies not out of some deeper purpose, some societal need to inform the general populous of the issues pertinent to them. No, they do it to add to the bottom line, fill their bellies with the bastion of American capitalism every way they can.

And if owning a media outlet means higher profits, well...sign Big Business up.

Because of this, the media outlet's content (again, we'll use ESPN as an example, since this is a sports blog) is directly related to sponsorship and, by extension, revenue. Advertisers love large audiences, so the bigger the audience ESPN can offer, the more advertising dollars pour into the Worldwide Leader.

How does ESPN guarantee the audience? By covering what it perceives to be the things we, the audience, want. If that involves as much T.O. news as possible, so be it. If that means all the Yanks-Sox we can stand, then bet your trusty foam finger that's what you'll get.

How do they know whether we want something? We watch it, they look at the ratings. We read the magazine, they look at subscription numbers. We visit the web site, they track the hits. If they see high ratings when covering T.O., they're gonna keep milking the egomaniacal wide receiver until we show them we want no more.

By turning the TV away from ESPN.

In this the age of the 24-hour news channel (and ESPN seems to have become that, even with the advent of ESPNews) and the development of the Internet (thus leading to more up-to-the-minute reporting and blogging), the bottom line has become even more important.

This leads to content that is very similar from one outlet to another. A homogonization of content, I believe one of my journalism professors called it. Corporate media means we're gonna get a lot of the same thing, and we're going to get it over and over again.

Because that's what makes money.

Not only does content correlate with money, so too do personnel decisions. Most newspapers, when consolidating into a corporate entity, lose staff in the interest of the bottom line. We've seen this most recently in the acquisition by the Tribune Company of the Los Angeles Times. Shortly after the acquisition, a number of jobs at the Times were cut.

Not because the people in question couldn't do their jobs; I'm sure they were quite capable. But they weren't cost-effective. It's a sad reality in the mass media, but a reality it is.

(As an aside, the newspaper I currently write for as a high school football correspondent, the Daily Press, is owned by the Tribune Company.)

I've already written about the personnel at ESPN--see "Changes at ESPN?" below. The bottom line dictates not only what ESPN reports or what kind of shows it airs, but who does the reporting and the analyzing. If the network really is looking to get away from the Stuart Scott-"Booya!" style, it's likely because someone in charge of the company's finances has seen...wait a minute, that's not making money anymore.

People are starting to turn off, and they're taking advertising dollars with them.

I wish I had better news; I wish I could report that media outlets are getting away from the 24-hour cycle mentality of reporting first, no matter what. I wish I could say these companies are no longer so concerned with the bottom line and are again starting to concentrate on good, focused reporting--giving us the information we want and need without constantly forcing it down our throats.

I won't be able to say that until it no longer becomes profitable for those companies.

But there is something we can do. For those of us who are either in the sports media business or are looking to break in, try focusing on reporting differently than your colleagues. If that means a different writing or reporting style, then so be it. If that means looking at a story from an angle nobody else thought of or cared to consider, that's great, too.

Blogs are great for this sort of thing, and the Internet has truly been a blessing to the media in this regard.

But for the general audience, I offer this advice: if you don't like something the media's doing, don't pay attention to it. You want less T.O.? Stop watching the stories and press conferences about him. Leave the columns and blogs about him on ESPN.com alone. Don't patronize with sponsors affiliated with anything related to him (that means put down the Dr. Pepper, Redskins fan; Dr. Pepper sponsors the Cowboys).

Once the media starts losing money doing things the way they do them, their tactics--and the things they cover--will change.

Because it all comes back to the almighty dollar.

A-Rod Deserves Criticism

Imagine my pleasure yesterday as I watched Detroit Tigers stud and Old Dominion alum Justin Verlander break Alex Rodriguez's knees with an 85-mph curve ball, resulting in the first of A-Rod's three strikeouts in a 4-3 loss in Game 2 of the American League Division Series.

It got better later in the game when I saw him whiff helplessly at a 103-mph heater from Joel Zamaya.

But the best part of all? The boos cascading from Yankee Stadium.
This isn't merely because I was raised to abhor everything that is the New York Yankees, and how I feel compelled to not feel sorry for a guy pulling in more money in six months than I'll ever hope to make it my entire life. No, this is because I feel A-Rod deserves all the scrutiny.

Every last bit of it.

I understand all the analysts and current players when they stare into the ESPN camera and tell everyone to lay off the guy, let him play the game that at times seems to come so naturally to him. I understand it, and if it were any other player, or any other team, I would agree.

But this is a guy some call the best ever, on a team that is all too quick to point out its 26 World Series titles...and even quicker to gripe about not winning one in the past five years.

Memo to Yankee fan: go through nine straight losing seasons, then come bitch at me.

A-Rod deserves every boo, every scathing New York headline he gets, and the reasoning is simple: he's playing on the highest-profile team in the majors, and he's making more money than anyone else who's ever picked up a bat or put on a glove.

Do you really think George Steinbrenner is paying A-Rod $25 million a year for sub-.200 postseason batting averages? Is he forking over the big bucks to see the player slap a grounder out of a fielder's hand?

I think not.

A-Rod's talent is unquestioned; he hits over .300 consistently, and he puts up at least 30 and 110 a year. But when it matters, when the calendar turns to October, A-Rod seemingly ships back to Seattle, because he's nowhere to be found. That might slide in a place like Oakland or San Diego, but an October slump is like sin in Yankee Nation.
He's the highest-paid player on a team where anything short of a World Series trophy is a disappointment. He deserves the scrutiny, he deserves the boos and the jeers and the constant hounding by the New York media. Sure, he'll hit a clutch 3-run bomb to take a regular-season win against the Cleveland Indians, but ask him for the big hit against the Red Sox with a trip to the World Series on the line?

Hope you like strikeouts with runners at the corners and two out.

In Yankee Nation, one's legacy is cemented in the playoffs. Just ask Derek Jeter or Reggie Jackson. A-Rod could break the single-season home run record, lead the AL with a .410 batting average and take home a Triple Crown and a Gold Glove...but if he gags it up in the playoffs, none of that is going to matter.

I've heard lately the question, 'Why doesn't Jeter face the same scrutiny?" Well, first of all, he doesn't make nearly as much as his pal over at third base. Jeter makes a ton of money, don't get me wrong, but it's not the biggest contract in the history of professional sports.

Secondly, Jeter has, historically, performed in the playoffs. He's come through in the clutch, even as recently as Game 1, when he had five hits. Sure, he stmubled in Game 2, but Yankee fan can forgive that, because he's a perpetual clutch guy. He's come through before, and they know he'll come through again.

But I think it boils down to this key difference: Jeter was bred a Yankee, came up through the New York farm system. A-Rod, meanwhile, is one of many free agents to come in from elsewhere. But unlike the other free agents the Yankees have signed in recent years, A-Rod was touted as one of the best ever, and the Yankees managed to steal him away from the Red Sox.

That's built-in pressure.

Jeter's the hometown favorite; he's been a Yankee from day one. A-Rod's an outsider, one who came in with a lot of buzz. And in his three years in pinstripes, that buzz has remained just that: buzz.

To be fair, though, I do remember Yankee fan booing Jeter last year. I thought it was asanine, pointless to boo a guy who time and time again came through for your team. It made about as much sense as Oriole fan booing Cal Ripken.

But booing A-Rod? Makes perfect sense, go right ahead.

All because of his $252 million contract. You make the cash, you step into the spotlight, you've gotta perform. And A-Rod doesn't...not when it counts most.

So Yankee fan, boo away...I'm right there with you.

Team-wide or game-wide?

In looking over the Los Angeles Times report which revealed the six names Jason Grimsley dropped to federal investigators back in June in a performance-enhancing drugs scoop, I noticed a disturbing trend:

Four of the six names were Baltimore Orioles.

Sure, there were the biggies--Roger Clemens and Andy Pettite--but the ones that stuck out to me were Miguel Tejada, Brian Roberts, Jay Gibbons and David Segui. Tejada is a former American League MVP (in 2002 with the Oakland A's), while Roberts started in the 2005 All-Star Game. Gibbons, when healthy, is a solid right fielder who gives the Orioles lineup a reliable left-handed bat, and I remember Segui being one of the mainstays of a team fluctuating between success and mediocrity.

This now makes five, possibly six, Orioles allegedly connected to performance-enhancing drugs. For a refresher's course, examine:

August 2005: Rafeal Palmeiro, having recently become just the fourth player ever to hit 500 home runs and collect 3,000 hits in his career, was the highest-profile player to test positive under the league's testing policy. He served his 10 games, and struggled the remainder of the year before disappearing from the game.

His Hall of Fame candidacy all but erased, Palmeiro spent the rest of the '05 season claming he never knowingly took anything (the same defense Barry Bonds used in grand jury testimony). He even threw Tejada under the bus, saying a vitamin B shot he supplied to Palmeiro led to the positive test.

2005: Sammy Sosa was a member of the team. While most of the allegations surround his days as a Chicago Cub, his very presence left an unpleasant taint in the clubhouse. You know, that whole "guilt by association" thing.

June 2006: David Segui, having retired from baseball, admits he's one of the names in Grimsley's affidavit. He says he took human growth hormone on the recommendation of his doctor. While I admire him coming clean and admitting he used, I'm not sure I buy the doctor's note.
This week: We learn Tejada, Roberts and Gibbons were also named in the affidavit (if the report is accurate; some sources close to the investigation have questioned the validity of the Times' report).

So I can't help but wonder...if the allegations are indeed true, is this more an indication of the Baltimore Orioles baseball franchise, or of Major League Baseball as a whole? Were the O's just a perpetual steroid offender, or did every team in the league have multiple juicers?

Self-serving as my feeling might be, I think it was the latter. I happen to think every team, at one point or another, had several players using performance enhancers, be they steroids, HGH, or amphetamines. And, considering the current policy doesn't test for HGH, it's possible several guys on each team are still juicing to this day.

I'm not going to sit here and acquit the Orioles players being accused of juicing, but I'm not going to judge them, either. The fact is, without hard evidence, we don't know for 100 percent, absolute certainty who was or wasn't a user. The best we do is guess, question and speculate.

Maybe Tejada, Roberts and Gibbons used, maybe they didn't. Then again, we can say that about almost everyone in the majors. Some have questioned Albert Pujols this season, I've heard whispers about Ryan Howard of the Phillies. I myself have had my questions about Jason Giambi the past two seasons, since it was leaked that he admitted to juicing in a grand jury hearing.

The only people in baseball I don't question when it comes to steroids are Cal Ripken and Ken Griffey, Jr. Everyone else, as far as I'm concerned, is under suspicion.

No one is guilty, no one is innocent.

Everyone is under suspicion.

And it's a shame that it's come to that. As a baseball fan, I can no longer witness an outstanding feat on the diamond without wondering if the player in question is juicing.

A guy hits 50 or 60 homers in a season? Maybe he used steroids.

Some hotshot hurler just out of AAA hits 100 on the radar gun and baffles the best hitters in the world with a biting curve? Gotta be on HGH.

I hate it. But I also don't see it changing anytime soon, especially if Bud Selig and the MLBPA can't get together and once and for all ratify a policy that really forces juicers to come clean--so to speak.

I don't look at this report as an indictment on the Baltimore Orioles so much as one on baseball as a whole. Sure, the Orioles might've had several players on the juice, but if that's the case, then I guarantee you every other team had the same situation.

This is what our national pastime has become. Sad, isn't it?