Slashdot Mirror


Pitcher-Turned-Law Student On Cheating In Baseball

An anonymous reader writes "As a 27-year old minor league pitcher who had never made it to "The Show" (ballplayers' slang for the big leagues), Garrett Broshius was advised by a coach to develop an 'out pitch' by cheating (doctoring or scuffing the baseball while standing on the mound). It was an ethical crossroads faced by many players past and present, and Broshius ultimately decided to give up the game. While a student at the St. Louis University School of Law, he wrote a paper that attempted to apply the tenets of legal theorists to the rampant cheating in baseball and other sports (click the 'download' button, no registration required). While Broshius' paper isn't brilliant or novel, it tours the techniques and issues surrounding cheating in baseball better than most. Broshius concludes with recommendations for how baseball should handle two classes of cheating: 'traditional' cheating of the type he was advised to do by the coach, which has achieved acceptance in some quarters as part of the game; and 'new era' cheating involving performance-enhancing drugs such as steroids, which has become prominent in the last 25 years. Oh, and Brosius remarks that in almost every baseball game he watches these days, he notices something suspicious — usually from the pitcher."

276 comments

  1. Money by stoolpigeon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I don't care what sport it is - when contracts worth millions of dollars are on the line, there will always be talented people willing to do whatever they have to in order to stay competitive and even excel.

    --
    It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
    1. Re:Money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Like international finance. My favourite sport.

    2. Re:Money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Well, they are taking a risk. If they are caught cheating they might end up with nothing.
      It is referees and the tournament organizations job to make sure that the risk of getting caught and the punishment for it outweighs the benefit of cheating.

    3. Re:Money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only if there are opportunities to cheat. Opportunities can be reduced or eliminated, in theory.

      Being a top level chess grandmaster is a lucrative lifestyle. Do you see much cheating in top level international chess competition?

    4. Re:Money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      As a former professional cyclist, I can attest to that as a certain fact.

    5. Re:Money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It has been only recently that cheating via computer would have helped, and even now the computing power necessary to gain an edge at that level isn't something available to many people.

      Probably if you subjected chess players to the same level of testing as pro cyclists many of them would be found in violation of caffiene, at a minimum.

    6. Re:Money by HornWumpus · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The Russians were known to bring a dozen backup grandmasters to sit in a backroom and examine unlikely move combinations in depth. Kind of like a Beowulf cluster of grandmasters.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    7. Re:Money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And I really don't care if they cheat or not. What I care about is not being forced to support them, cheating or no cheating. Many cities use tax dollars to prop up these franchises when (obviously) voluntary support isn't enough. The obvious conclusion -- when voluntary support isn't enough -- is that not enough people actually want the product or service in question. If those people don't value the product or service, then why are they forced to support it?

    8. Re:Money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm a volunteer judge at competitive gang bangs. There aren't too many rules but some people are still try to break them.

    9. Re:Money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps so, but it removes a bit of the gloss when you find that out, and that leads to reduced enthusiasm and what-not for the average Joe. What may be good for the player, may not be good for the sport.

    10. Re:Money by Minwee · · Score: 1

      If they're using Excel to play baseball, then they're doing something wrong.

      Then again, I wouldn't be surprised to see someone abusing Access in that way.

    11. Re:Money by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      You're right. There is tons of cheating in many other professions. It's just that in most other professions, they don't have "rule books" so it's a lot less obvious when someone is breaking the rules. Also, because the "game" is played behind closed doors, without a ton of spectators, it's must less likely that they will get caught.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    12. Re:Money by dsvick · · Score: 1

      ... there will always be talented people willing to do whatever they have to in order to stay competitive and even excel.

      If they have to go to those lengths, they're not that talented

    13. Re:Money by krept · · Score: 1

      Simple. Hire corporate umpires!

      --
      None of us know everything. Therefore we're all naïve.
    14. Re:Money by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      Hell, bring it to a more normal every day level.

      Most people will do what it takes to get what they want in life...period.

      Lying to women to get laid...check

      Speeding to get a delivery made quicker and have low turnaround time....check

      Checking your answer on a test with your neighbors'....check

      When competition is up for ANYTHING....people that are really driven to succeed, will often do what it takes to win. Sure, I'd say most people prefer to do everything honest and aboveboard (I'm an optimist), but I also think most people that are consistently successful and manage to stay on top of their game in any en devour, have gone outside the 'rules' in order to win (I'm realistic).

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    15. Re:Money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't care what sport it is - when contracts worth millions of dollars are on the line, there will always be talented people willing to do whatever they have to in order to stay competitive and even excel.

      Then I don't care who you are involved in that. Greed will always be the true winner, and sickens fans even more thinking that people are being paid millions of dollars to cheat.

      But that is only half of it. When they are caught and not fired (I didn't say punished, I said FIRED), it just goes to show you just how deep that corruption goes (to include writing obscene contracts that refuse to write cheating clauses within).

      Few other professions in this world reward with such riches, and yet we continue to award them, all for entertainment. Perhaps we should call it what it is, because it's hardly sportsmanlike.

    16. Re:Money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forgot to sign in with your Lance novelty account there buddy.

    17. Re:Money by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

      there will always be talented people willing to do whatever they have to in order to stay competitive and even excel.

      Cheating isn't competition or excellence.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    18. Re:Money by justthinkit · · Score: 1

      Maybe you were going for funny, but Excel was exactly what the Oakland Athletics, and later the Boston Red Sox used to succeed...as depicted in Moneyball.

      --
      I come here for the love
    19. Re:Money by Zordak · · Score: 1

      The problem is that you will have several highly-talented people competing for the top spots. Lance Armstrong is a perfect example. The problem is not that he was lacking in talent. Even with performance-enhancing drugs, Joe Average will never be as fast on a bicycle as Lance is without performance-enhancing drugs. The problem is that there were other people who were also extremely talented, and he wanted to be faster than those guys. The "right" way is to work harder, train longer, push yourself further. But sometimes, even that won't be enough. So Lance gave himself a guaranteed edge.

      --

      Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
    20. Re:Money by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      In the pros, cheaters get to sit a few games. That's not much punishment when they can still be making $10M+ a year.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    21. Re:Money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You'd like to live in a town full of ignorant morons?

      Move to a deserted island.

    22. Re:Money by Minwee · · Score: 1

      I haven't seen that movie, but I'm pretty sure that the majority of American baseball is played by humans. Maybe one or two players are actually relentless cybernetic assassins from the future, but I don't think that any of them use a spreadsheet to run, swing the bat or throw the ball.

    23. Re:Money by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      Maybe not, but it will get you an extra $1M on your next contract if you're a baseball player.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    24. Re:Money by Comrade+Ogilvy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Baseball is a negligible burden on the taxpayers. Modern baseball stadiums come quite close to breaking even to the city -- some profit slightly, some at a modest loss. A baseball stadium is used 80something times per year, so financial solvency is not so difficult.

      The real villains are the football stadiums. Professional football teams used their stadium all of ~9-10 times per year. The stadiums are much bigger and more expensive. They are less comfortable and practical for any use other than football. A football team is a loss to the city/county to the tune of a few hundred million dollars, and the football team will come back for another handout every 20 or so years, whenever they decide their stadium is shabby.

      As baseball teams transition to attractive baseball-only stadiums -- a delight to both fans (and perhaps taxpayers), the absolute absurdity of "welfare queen" football teams is more and more obvious.

    25. Re:Money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      may be his ancestors did then, then the puritians showed up on the Mayflower.

    26. Re:Money by Comrade+Ogilvy · · Score: 2

      It's called "civilization". Strategies for pooling resources allowed mankind to rise to the bronze age, and then beyond. People who are ideologically allergic to some rational strategies should be content to work without the benefits of even metal tools.

    27. Re:Money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Lying to women to get laid...check

      No, I don't still live in my parent's basement. But my apartment is kind of messy right now, can we go to your place instead?

    28. Re:Money by RabidReindeer · · Score: 1

      Only if there are opportunities to cheat. Opportunities can be reduced or eliminated, in theory.

      Ummm. Yeah. And we can create the ultimate malware-proof system. And unbreakable DRM.

    29. Re:Money by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Most people will do what it takes to get what they want in life...period.[...]Sure, I'd say most people prefer to do everything honest and aboveboard (I'm an optimist),

      So... which one is it?

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    30. Re:Money by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 2

      I don't care what sport it is - when contracts worth millions of dollars are on the line, there will always be talented people willing to do whatever they have to in order to stay competitive and even excel.

      Stay competitive, maybe, but if one is cheating then technically, they aren't excelling, they are, well, cheating.

    31. Re:Money by St.Creed · · Score: 2

      Well, it's true he wanted to be faster. However, if he hadn't done it, he would not just have been "as fast", he would have been laughed out of cycling as a loser. It happened to a lot of Dutch cyclists in the 80s, when they consistently got run off the road by the Italians and Spanish cyclists who, until then, had been good but not *all* of them *that* good. In the press the non-using cyclists caught flak for years for being "soft" and "lazy". Well, after 10 years or so that changed and the press turned around as well. Everybody proud and happy.

      As it turned out, they just discovered doping a bit late. With, they were back on the same level as before. Without, they weren't even invited to the races anymore.

      --
      Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
    32. Re: Money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's the case already. Not the poster, but I don't want to pay for ineffectual services, either.

    33. Re:Money by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 1

      Hell, bring it to a more normal every day level.

      Most people will do what it takes to get what they want in life...period.

      Lying to women to get laid...check

      Speeding to get a delivery made quicker and have low turnaround time....check

      Checking your answer on a test with your neighbors'....check

      When competition is up for ANYTHING....people that are really driven to succeed, will often do what it takes to win. Sure, I'd say most people prefer to do everything honest and aboveboard (I'm an optimist), but I also think most people that are consistently successful and manage to stay on top of their game in any en devour, have gone outside the 'rules' in order to win (I'm realistic).

      Maybe if we changed the system so that we didn't reward the win at all cost mentality, then people wouldn't try to win at all cost. Take just baseball - if a player is caught cheating, the player is suspended for x amount of games, fined x amount, the team forfeits any games the player played in that season and the team is fined x amount. If the owners are hurt financially when cheating occurs, then they will create an environment the discourages cheating. Take business, if an employee violates a law in the service of the company, the employee is fined/jailed and the company who benefited from the infraction is fined, too (and not some measly fine). The higher up the organization or the more gregarious the violation, the bigger the corporate penalty. Oh, yeah, and the penalties are not deductible from taxes. If the shareholders and board of directors get fed up with losing dividends, then they will insist on management that will see that these violations do not occur.

      Right now, there is such a disconnect between what the employee/player is encouraged to do and what the consequences are for those who encourage, that all the risk is absorbed by the employee/player. Change that dynamic and you will begin to clean up the system.

    34. Re:Money by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 2

      Well, they are taking a risk. If they are caught cheating they might end up with nothing.
      It is referees and the tournament organizations job to make sure that the risk of getting caught and the punishment for it outweighs the benefit of cheating.

      False, it is coaches and owners job to make sure that getting caught and the punishment for cheating outweighs the benefit. The referees and tournament organization sets and enforces the rules, but it is the coaches and owners that set the culture that tolerates cheating or not.

    35. Re:Money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's ridiculous. If you have two identical cities but one has a fun, happening football team playing in the middle of it and the other has none, I promise you more money comes in to the city with a football team.

      We remain NOT robots. We need entertainment. I would certainly work less if it weren't for sports, music and other entertainment factors.

    36. Re:Money by Zordak · · Score: 2

      Agreed. There's a sort of prisoner's dilemma with sports doping. Since you can safely assume that everybody else is doping, you have to dope to just compete on the same level. But since everybody's doping, the advantages of doping are somewhat canceled out. I don't know if Armstrong's victories were bestowed on his next-closest competitors, but if they were, then they probably went from a guy who doped and got caught to a guy who doped and didn't get caught.

      --

      Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
    37. Re:Money by PlusFiveTroll · · Score: 1

      >Maybe if we changed the system so that we didn't reward the win at all cost mentality,

      Nature is a system that favors the win at all costs.The winners (in wars) are the ones that write the history books. The winners in games are the ones the viewers. The winners in finance are the ones that make the most money. You are going to have a hard time changing the system because being the winner is what most people want.

    38. Re:Money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And you would probably be correct in a vast majority of cases.

    39. Re:Money by PlusFiveTroll · · Score: 1

      >the advantages of doping are somewhat canceled out.

      Not exactly. Players are also competing with the records of all the people that came before them, if they are doping they have a higher chance of beating the old records.

    40. Re:Money by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      Actually, quite a few of his titles would have gone to the guy who placed 5th or lower in the actual race, because spots 2, 3, and 4 (& 5, & 6 for some) were all disqualified already. And of the people who would then be the winner, they all had doping issues themselves, but nothing proven. One of them was cleared, the rest were just not pursued any longer.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    41. Re:Money by CyprusBlue113 · · Score: 1

      This kind of "logic" that completely ignores any outside effects other than the object itself breaking even in funding is a lot of why our infrastructure is so fundamentally broken today in so many ways.

      Public transport, utilities, mass transit, schools, etc etc etc

      --
      a handful of selfish greedy people are no match for millions of selfish, greedy people -u4ya
    42. Re:Money by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 3, Informative

      >Maybe if we changed the system so that we didn't reward the win at all cost mentality,

      Nature is a system that favors the win at all costs.The winners (in wars) are the ones that write the history books. The winners in games are the ones the viewers. The winners in finance are the ones that make the most money. You are going to have a hard time changing the system because being the winner is what most people want.

      Nature does not favor winning at all cost and usually is just the opposite. It is the cooperative or symbiotic relationship that prospers.

      The writers of history have nothing to do with nature. Nor do the winners in games or finance. As for that being what people want, well what happened to Enron? What happened to Lance Armstrong? What happened to the Romans? All those embraced winning at all cost and all were toppled.

      Society tolerates winning at all cost only to a point, then like bullying, they rise up against it. That is where anti-trust laws came from in business and anti-doping laws in sports and even the Geneva convention in war. Eventually, civilized people settle on rules of fair play.

      So does nature. The giant redwood does take all of the nutrients in the forest, just those it needs. Same for the fox or a bear. In our own bodies, we call cells that take too much cancer and cut them out. Why? because even those those cells are the fittest, they destroy the body. In nature, if the animal at the top of the food chain eats all the food, the animal dies, too. So, in nature, a proper balance is maintained (unless man does something to upset it, like introduce a non native species or change the habitat or environment).

      Not even Darwin believed in survival of the fittest. He used that expression only twice in the entire On the Origen of the Species. He actually proposed cooperation as the better model using human beings as the example since we were not the fastest or strongest nor did we posses the sharpest claws or teeth. Instead in cooperating we were successful in dominating the planet.

      So, even in nature, the win at all cost model does not win.

    43. Re:Money by ATMAvatar · · Score: 1

      They're completing at how much cheating they can do without getting caught. The ones who are at the top of their game are excelling at cheating.

      --
      "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
    44. Re:Money by davester666 · · Score: 2

      Um, the "rule book" is something along the lines of the laws and regulations of where they do business.

      Course, the basic rule is to hide whatever you can from the refs, no matter what the "sport"...

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    45. Re:Money by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      That's ridiculous. If you have two identical cities but one has a fun, happening football team playing in the middle of it and the other has none, I promise you more money comes in to the city with a football team.

      Some gas money, a little food money, a horrible transportation SNAFU that keeps residents at home not spending money, because they can't drive anywhere. Ten nights a year? Fail, fail.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    46. Re:Money by rocket+rancher · · Score: 2

      >Maybe if we changed the system so that we didn't reward the win at all cost mentality,

      Nature is a system that favors the win at all costs.The winners (in wars) are the ones that write the history books. The winners in games are the ones the viewers. The winners in finance are the ones that make the most money. You are going to have a hard time changing the system because being the winner is what most people want.

      Nature does not favor winning at all cost and usually is just the opposite. It is the cooperative or symbiotic relationship that prospers.

      The writers of history have nothing to do with nature. Nor do the winners in games or finance. As for that being what people want, well what happened to Enron? What happened to Lance Armstrong? What happened to the Romans? All those embraced winning at all cost and all were toppled.

      Society tolerates winning at all cost only to a point, then like bullying, they rise up against it. That is where anti-trust laws came from in business and anti-doping laws in sports and even the Geneva convention in war. Eventually, civilized people settle on rules of fair play.

      So does nature. The giant redwood does take all of the nutrients in the forest, just those it needs. Same for the fox or a bear. In our own bodies, we call cells that take too much cancer and cut them out. Why? because even those those cells are the fittest, they destroy the body. In nature, if the animal at the top of the food chain eats all the food, the animal dies, too. So, in nature, a proper balance is maintained (unless man does something to upset it, like introduce a non native species or change the habitat or environment).

      Not even Darwin believed in survival of the fittest. He used that expression only twice in the entire On the Origen of the Species. He actually proposed cooperation as the better model using human beings as the example since we were not the fastest or strongest nor did we posses the sharpest claws or teeth. Instead in cooperating we were successful in dominating the planet.

      So, even in nature, the win at all cost model does not win.

      Almost, but not quite. Nature is not about competing organisms or communities of organisms. It is about competing strategies. Nature indeed rewards winning strategies and punishes losing strategies, but the organism or community of organisms that employ them are just along for the ride. But nature is mutable; it is just the current context in which a given strategy or strategies are evaluated. If the context is allowed to change, then there is a new set of criteria against which strategies are evaluated, and if the strategy doesn't change, the organism or community of organisms employing that strategy might not make it into the next generation, which is the only criteria against which any strategy can be judged. In that sense, nature is indeed winner-take-all, and neatly explains what happened to Enron and the Roman civilization.. Thus, I would posit that preventing the context change becomes a viable strategy. The rise of human civilization is all about controlling nature, controlling the context in a way that preserves whatever strategy that is currently being used. The Romans failed to prevent a context change forced on them by the Visigoths, and so did Enron, a context change forced on them by having to live by the rules that they were discovered violating. What happened to Lance Armstrong can be read the same way: Armstrong's strategy of performance enhancing drugs was successful until other riders forced a context change on him, forcing him to compete on their terms, not on his terms. In finance, large corporations saw what happened to Enron, and are working very hard to make sure that the context change that killed Enron won't be allowed to happen to them. They are doing this by making sure they have control over the mechanism that controls the context in which they operate. In the US, that means successfully influencing lawmakers th

    47. Re:Money by rocket+rancher · · Score: 1

      Um, the "rule book" is something along the lines of the laws and regulations of where they do business.

      Course, the basic rule is to hide whatever you can from the refs, no matter what the "sport"...

      Indeed. But you can also work the refs. This is a viable strategy, as well, especially if used in tandem with your basic rule of deception. A ref that is willing to look the other way is just as valuable as one that has been deceived. Changing the rules is also another viable strategy, one that seems to be favored by large corporatioins, if the amount of money they spend to influence lawmakers is any indication.

    48. Re:Money by dmonney · · Score: 1

      I love the example of the romans, they did win at all cost. For about 1000 years!, just because they did not last forever does not mean they were not sucessful.

      --
      --Accept it, I'm a programmer and don't use spellcheck. As long as I spell things wrong consistently my programs work fi
    49. Re:Money by Comrade+Ogilvy · · Score: 1

      "Outside effects" is an argument that cuts both ways. It does not mean anything until you dig down into a bit more details. In fact, superficial "outside effects" arguments are always used to rationalize flushing money down into a football stadium.

      By its nature, a city must make investments and provide services that usually do not come close to "break even" by the normal rules of accounting. Building a stadium, hospital, subway line, freeway, bridge, high school, museum, park -- these are all exercises in balancing outside effects. In every case, with the notable exception of the baseball-only stadium, these investments "lose" money hand over fist. Singling out the one non-loser for special scrutiny does not make much sense.

    50. Re:Money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They do have "rule books" ... in this "game" they are called "laws", and in this game EVERYONE is a spectator, whether they want to be or not!

  2. baseball needs more replay by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 2

    baseball needs more replay

    1. Re:baseball needs more replay by bobthesungeek76036 · · Score: 3

      Amen. And electronic scoring of pitches!

      --
      Karma: Bad
    2. Re:baseball needs more replay by intermodal · · Score: 1, Troll

      Yes, because baseball could totally use things to make the games longer and slower. Think of the extra advertising revenues and concessions sales!

      --
      In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
    3. Re:baseball needs more replay by korgitser · · Score: 4, Funny

      baseball needs more cowbell

      FTFY

      --
      FCKGW 09F9 42
    4. Re:baseball needs more replay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      baseball needs more cowbell

      FTFY

      Best reply EVER!

  3. But thats OK! by jellomizer · · Score: 2

    Just as long it is about sports, we don't care about right and wrong or morals. But if a Scholastic student who wasn't good at sports did it. They will be locked up in jail for the rest of their life.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    1. Re:But thats OK! by Black+Parrot · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Just as long it is about sports, we don't care about right and wrong or morals.

      IMO our society has a ridiculous fixation on sports.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    2. Re:But thats OK! by Laxori666 · · Score: 1

      What? Nooo..

    3. Re:But thats OK! by HaZardman27 · · Score: 2

      Another somewhat relevant SMBC comic.

      --
      Apparently wizard is not a legitimate career path, so I chose programmer instead.
    4. Re:But thats OK! by Black+Parrot · · Score: 2

      LoL. More than somewhat relevant!

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    5. Re:But thats OK! by internerdj · · Score: 3, Informative

      A baseball scholarship put my wife's oldest brother through an engineering degree. It is also putting my wife's youngest brother through school although he doesn't really know what he wants to do other than baseball. My kids are playing but I'm not sure I want them to be successful with it beyond college. Too much pressure to do amoral or destructive things to get an edge, but I guess that is the case with most high profile success areas.

    6. Re:But thats OK! by Beardo+the+Bearded · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If you're not interested in stuff other than engineering, you're going to be a terrible, terrible, terrible engineer.

      What you call "distraction from your studies" is what makes you good at your job.

      --

      ---
      ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
    7. Re:But thats OK! by Penguinisto · · Score: 1, Insightful

      IMO our society has a ridiculous fixation on sports.

      The good news is, once you figure out that sports == crap, and ignore it? It frees up a metric ton of time and money for the stuff that's actually fun to do.

      OTOH, I think it's not the fact that we have made-up conflicts as entertainment, but the fact that the conflicts themselves *are* the entertainment. Dress it up all you like, but people love to see conflict (and more importantly, love to see the realization of victory from that conflict, even if by proxy). That's what drives movies, books, TV shows (not just the "reality" flavor, either), and, well, you-name-it.

      Gotta give props to the Romans, though... even though their ideas of public entertainment were bloody and brutal (and often deadly), they didn't try and dress it up much.

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    8. Re:But thats OK! by VirginMary · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Also, why do sports and higher education have anything to do with each other?

      They don't, at least not in my country. I got my Master's and Ph.D. in the US and was and still am baffled by this. What really bugged me though is that I had to support people's sports hobby with a financial contribution. I thought it would have been better for other students to pay for my scifi-book-reading hobby instead. The bogus argument was that the sports teams were making my university money. If that would have actually been true, why did I have to financially support it then? Also, I never attended a single game in my 5 years at my university. I would have preferred watching paint dry. My degrees are in physics, btw. and I am from Germany. I also think it is disgusting that people get scholarships based on their athletic abilities. Are we still ape men?

      --
      When 1person suffers from a delusion,it is called insanity.When many people suffer from a delusion,it is called religion
    9. Re:But thats OK! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's some insightful stuff right there.

      I, on the other hand, have a ridiculous fixation on boobs.

    10. Re:But thats OK! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Military charities like Toys for Tots, for example?

    11. Re:But thats OK! by NoImNotNineVolt · · Score: 1

      We're all entitled to our own opinions, but I have yet to see any actual evidence of this claim.
      Were Einstein, Feynman, or Hawking in college on athletic scholarships?

      --
      Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
    12. Re:But thats OK! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just as long it is about sports, we don't care about right and wrong or morals.

      IMO our society has a ridiculous fixation on sports.

      ...which is overshadowed by a ridiculous fixation on paying people to cheat in those sports, and refusing to punish them when they are caught.

      And no, fines that equal the amount the player has in their wallet or purse does not constitute punishment. That's called a "joke".

    13. Re:But thats OK! by niado · · Score: 1

      Short answer to all of these questions -

      People like sports...

    14. Re:But thats OK! by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      My wife would probably argue I have a ridiculous fixation with tinkering with my phone. Usually I end up temporarily breaking it due to flashing the latest version of cyanogenmod.

      Many people have hobbies, be they sports, software, computers, or other electronics. Our hobbies just tend to be a little rarer than sports fans.

    15. Re:But thats OK! by orthancstone · · Score: 1

      Meanwhile, a kid with a genuine passion for engineering, who wouldn't have been distracted from his studies by throwing, catching, and hitting a small ball, was denied a spot. I hope your wife's oldest brother is okay with that.

      How do you conclude that? The baseball player may have denied some guy who wanted to get a degree in underwater basket-weaving instead.

    16. Re:But thats OK! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That's ok, I'm native to the US and I was baffled by this as I was going through engineering at a Big 10 university as well.

      It's interesting to note that the University of Chicago is an excellent counterexample. IIRC around 100 years ago the dean of U-Chicago banned NCAA (AAU) sports from campus, and despite having no marketing or sports that I can discern, still has a rich history of scholarship and research. (See also: Manhattan Project.)

    17. Re:But thats OK! by NoImNotNineVolt · · Score: 1

      Baskets woven underwater are more useful to me than balls hit with sticks.

      --
      Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
    18. Re:But thats OK! by jfengel · · Score: 1

      If you ask them, they'll tell you that the sports programs pay for themselves by attracting donations from alumni with fond memories of school spirit at games.

      Studies do not actually back that up, and in fact contradict it. However, if you try to abolish the sports programs, you will hear it from enraged alumni.

    19. Re:But thats OK! by sed+quid+in+infernos · · Score: 1

      And you know this how, exactly? There are lots of college athletes who have a genuine passion for their academic studies and who excel in those studies despite the "distraction" of participating in a sport.

    20. Re:But thats OK! by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      The point isn't as much that these people like sports, but the Double Standard that applies to People who are in sports and not.

      A teen is caught smoking pot. If they are an A student, the school will have them expelled from school, this person is obviously a bad influence.
      A teen is caught smoking pot. If they are a Sports star (even if they signed some stay clean pledge), public outcry, you need to keep this kid in school, he has a gift, and expelling him is so horrible, he is a good kid... On and on.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    21. Re:But thats OK! by NoImNotNineVolt · · Score: 0

      You're right, all the greatest contributions to science and engineering were made by college athletes. Einstein was a line backer. Feynman was a point guard. Hawking, um, played baseball with Lou Gehrig. Too soon?

      --
      Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
    22. Re:But thats OK! by Dahamma · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Einstein loved sailing and music (was a great violinist), both of which he was avidly involved with in college and said helped him take a break, relax, and focus later on his studies.

      Feynman... well, here's one of his most famous quotes: "Fall in love with some activity, and do it! Nobody ever figures out what life is all about, and it doesn't matter. Explore the world. Nearly everything is really interesting if you go into it deeply enough. Work as hard and as much as you want to on the things you like to do the best. Don't think about what you want to be, but what you want to do. Keep up some kind of a minimum with other things so that society doesn't stop you from doing anything at all.”

      And Hawking was a coxswain at Oxford. In fact, he has admitted he was somewhat of an academic slacker there, but his extracurricular activities helped him socialize and avoid boredom/depression given he was younger (and smarter) than most of his peers.

      I'm pretty sure for almost every brilliant person you could find multiple examples of them having strong interests outside of their academic field. What you call "distractions" most others consider essential to the creative process.

      I have a lot of friends who were involved in collegiate athletics - some on scholarship, some not, some actually played professionally later, but most went on to become doctors, lawyers, engineers, bankers, even a couple of PhDs. I know my experience probably wasn't typical these days, but it is still common at many highly selective successful private universities. Athletics, music, and other non-academic activities have been a integral part of advanced education from ancient Greece and Rome through the Renaissance in Europe and the Enlightenment extending to America. This isn't some recent modern development.

    23. Re:But thats OK! by LateArthurDent · · Score: 1

      If you're not interested in stuff other than engineering, you're going to be a terrible, terrible, terrible engineer.

      What you call "distraction from your studies" is what makes you good at your job.

      We're all entitled to our own opinions, but I have yet to see any actual evidence of this claim.

      Were Einstein, Feynman, or Hawking in college on athletic scholarships?

      Feynman had so many interests outside of physics that I'm surprised you know of him without also knowing that fact. One of the things he liked to do was play the bongos. The person you're responding to didn't say it had to be athletic.

      I'm not an athletic guy at all, I'm an engineer, and I have no problem at all with someone going through engineering school on an athletic scholarship. I had a football player in my graduating class, and had a few classes with him. He had to do all the same work I did, and had less time to do it, because he needed to practice so damn much. He graduated with a 4.0 or close to it, I don't remember. Either way, it takes a great deal of work ethic to pull it off, which is why most jocks will go for an easy major, something I'm also ok with. If they don't make it to the pros, college won't have as much value to them with regards to helping their career, but that's their choice.

      They're also not "taking the spot" of somebody who could get an academic scholarship. They're not funded from the same source. If the athletic scholarship exist, that money wouldn't be available to be given to another student.

    24. Re:But thats OK! by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      NERDS!

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    25. Re:But thats OK! by NoImNotNineVolt · · Score: 1

      So neither Einstein, Feynman, nor Hawking were involved in collegiate athletics, unless you consider the guy that steers a boat to be an athlete. Thank you.

      Also, that a healthy lifestyle is generally beneficial to the mental well-being of an individual doesn't exactly lead us to the conclusion that academic institutions of higher learning ought to reward athletic prowess. It's commonplace to see students with scholarships based on athletic ability, but really, any other pastime could be just as beneficial. Feynman didn't single out sports as the sole group of activities worth pursuing, and yet universities do just that. For every kid on a chess scholarship there's dozens of kids on basketball scholarships. Why is that? Why is it in society's best interest to reward people for playing basketball but not for playing chess?

      More importantly, if these "distractions" are essential to mental well-being, then why do we need to reward people for engaging in them? If only athletes can make great students, as you seem to be suggesting, then why don't we just reward great students? After all, they'd have to be athletes to be great, no? But instead, we reward great athletes, regardless of their academic talent, with admission to schools and waiving of tuition. Your response does little to explain why this is desirable, while shedding plenty of light on why society finds it acceptable.

      --
      Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
    26. Re:But thats OK! by NatasRevol · · Score: 1
      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    27. Re:But thats OK! by nbauman · · Score: 1

      Go to the Nobel Prize web site and read the autobiographies.

    28. Re:But thats OK! by NoImNotNineVolt · · Score: 1

      The person you're responding to didn't say it had to be athletic. And the person that person was responding to (me) was talking specifically about the merits of rewarding athletes with seats at an academic university.

      I understand it takes a lot of work. I understand everything you're saying.

      I don't understand why it is in society's best interest to do it this way.

      Specifically, why is it better for society to continue this status quo than to eliminate collegiate sports entirely?

      --
      Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
    29. Re:But thats OK! by internerdj · · Score: 1

      So, he has to be a liberal arts or physical education major because he enjoys playing baseball? If his spot wasn't deserved then he wouldn't have graduated with such a high GPA and/or would not still be employeed as an engineer.

    30. Re:But thats OK! by LateArthurDent · · Score: 1

      Specifically, why is it better for society to continue this status quo than to eliminate collegiate sports entirely?

      Well, I personally believe that sports, arts, and several other pursuits are valuable. I'm not particularly good at either, but many others are extremely talented, and I'd like to encourage them to reach their full potential.

      I suppose I'm feeling the same way you are, equally confused, but on the other side. Specifically, what is there to be gained by eliminating collegiate sports?

    31. Re: But thats OK! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, but not to the extent you'll pay for those boobs to get through college, unless you can get some.

    32. Re:But thats OK! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a counter example, may I present you with a majority of division 1A college football(1) players. Student-athletes majoring in Communications, Sports Management, and other euphemisms for 'maintaining eligibility'. Perhaps we should give scholarships based upon need/grades/test scores and move the folks that are only in school to play sports into some minor leagues that are funded by the major sports leagues instead of by tax payers.

      (1) For those not from North America this is American football, not what the rest of the world calls football.

    33. Re:But thats OK! by NoImNotNineVolt · · Score: 1

      What?

      Are you suggesting that one ought to be a film student if one enjoys watching movies? Or a music student if one enjoys listening to music? Or a culinary arts student if one enjoys eating?

      No, that's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that higher education is one thing, and hobbies are another thing. If we're subsidizing peoples' engineering education because they're like to play baseball, why aren't we subsidizing peoples' engineering education because they like to go to the beach? Or, more specifically, for what reason has society decided that it is beneficial to subsidize an engineering education for people who are good at sports?

      --
      Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
    34. Re:But thats OK! by RabidReindeer · · Score: 1

      The person you're responding to didn't say it had to be athletic.
      And the person that person was responding to (me) was talking specifically about the merits of rewarding athletes with seats at an academic university.

      I understand it takes a lot of work. I understand everything you're saying.

      I don't understand why it is in society's best interest to do it this way.

      Specifically, why is it better for society to continue this status quo than to eliminate collegiate sports entirely?

      Because - and here's the irony - the alumni with the fat pocketbooks are more likely to contribute to their alma mater's having superior athletic programs than to superiority in more academic areas.

      Personally, instead of the joke that modern college athletics are, I wish they'd just employ professional teams, give the players academic benefits if they want them, and stop pretending that "student athletes" are real students.

    35. Re:But thats OK! by NoImNotNineVolt · · Score: 1

      What is there to be gained?

      Focus. Focus on higher education. I mean, universities could be one-stop-shops for everything. They can teach people engineering, they can have them play baseball, they can sell them big-screen TVs, they can book them vacations aboard cruise ships. The idea of a university, though, is that it would be a place focused on higher education. On the liberal arts.

      Wouldn't it be nice if there was a place for intellectuals to get together and study things amongst each other without having to deal with the proles and their brutish pursuits? Wasn't that the whole raison d'etre of the university?

      --
      Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
    36. Re:But thats OK! by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 1

      If you ask them, they'll tell you that the sports programs pay for themselves by attracting donations from alumni with fond memories of school spirit at games.

      Studies do not actually back that up, and in fact contradict it. However, if you try to abolish the sports programs, you will hear it from enraged alumni.

      The studies only show that sports pay for themself when you don't include building and property expenditures which are in a separate fund in college and university accounting. If you include the costs of maintaining the brick and mortar facilities, sports do not bring in enough revenue. Most schools do not include it because it is funded from a debt service fund, but again, that is usually covered from the general fund, not funds from sporting activities.

      So yes, sports covers there cost, well, at least as long as you eliminate the major costs from the programs. Colleges and Universities would be better served if they admitted that sports do not cover their costs and instead focused on the positive things sports bring to the school.

    37. Re:But thats OK! by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 1

      You should have done a little research before posting. Baseball scholarships have some of the highest graduation rates among college athletes, with many schools in in the 90% to 100% range (actually higher than the non-athlete population). Part of this reasoning compared to say, football and basketball is that most of the season is during summer and not in the fall semester. Regardless, though, baseball scholarships also are very high graduates in the STEM fields.

      As for what do sports and higher education have in common, well that is simple, most "gifted" individuals tend to be gifted across the board, so they are gifted academically and athletically. The stereotype of the dumb jock is just that, a stereotype. Most, but not all, college athletes are very good students and go on to be successful in their career choices as most do not become professional athletes. On the otherhand, as a prospective employer, I am always interested in somebody who has demonstrated the ability to be a "team" player, is disciplined and any number of other attributes we attribute to sports. That doesn't mean that non-college athletes also don't posses these traits, but usually to succeed on the collegiate level, you have demonstrated that you do.

    38. Re:But thats OK! by thoth · · Score: 1

      IMO our society has a ridiculous fixation on sports.

      We do, but society has always had various spectacles for the public. 2000 years ago it was watching Christians vs the Lions at the Colosseum. Back then, popular gladiators or whatever got preferential treatment as well... granted, the stakes were higher. ;)

      Viewed as entertainment, it's all fine. Like many other things, I just wish all the externalized costs were properly accounted for and not shoved off somewhere else.

    39. Re:But thats OK! by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 0

      Feynman was a womanizer and misogynist. He freely admits to it in his autobiography. Stop idolizing the man. He's a disgrace and if he was around today would be tossed out of any reputable university.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    40. Re:But thats OK! by thoth · · Score: 1

      I agree... I do hate the fact that universities are basically the feeder systems for so many sports (football, basketball). At least hockey and baseball have minor leagues, however I'm not sure what proportion of pro hockey/baseball come from minor leagues vs colleges.

      Fundamentally, the mission of university is education and while sports are fine, I think the system as whole should downgrade to where university sports are on more of an intramural level. That, and the NFL and NBA should setup their own minor league systems.

    41. Re:But thats OK! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Feynman was a safe-cracker, among other hobbies. :P

    42. Re:But thats OK! by NoImNotNineVolt · · Score: 1
      You know who else has some of the highest graduation rates, particularly among STEM fields?

      People who have never willingly touched a baseball in their lives.

      As for what do sports and higher education have in common, well that is simple, most "gifted" individuals tend to be gifted across the board, so they are gifted academically and athletically.

      Which explains how Einstein, Feynman, and Hawking were such "gifted" athletes. And not just them, but virtually any other world-renowned academic was also a star college athlete. Please. Your idea of "gifted" individuals seems to consist of "people who graduated college". Color me unimpressed.

      On the otherhand, as a prospective employer

      Oh, a job creator. Much like all the other science greats, you're a prospective employer. No, really, I can hardly fathom the contributions you've made to society. They say Claude Shannon employed thousands. You, sir, must be the foremost authority on gifted individuals, since being a prospective employer usually entails the most rigorous of educations in science. I've heard that in order to be a prospective employer, one must have had at least a dozen papers published in Nature.

      You're right, though. Dumb jocks do make great employees. They can play by the rules, be team players. They can't really form critical thoughts, but that's okay. They're employees, not scientists.

      --
      Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
    43. Re:But thats OK! by Dahamma · · Score: 1

      I never said I idolized him, I just said he was brilliant (he was) and he encouraged non-academic pursuits as important to a healthy academic career (which I agree with).

    44. Re:But thats OK! by Dahamma · · Score: 1

      For every kid on a chess scholarship there's dozens of kids on basketball scholarships. Why is that? Why is it in society's best interest to reward people for playing basketball but not for playing chess?

      Actually a major problem with collegiate athletics now is NOT that scholarships are being given to athletes over chess players, it's that the colleges are making huge amounts of money off of may of these athletes (ticket sales, TV coverage, merchandising, even using their likenesses in ads and video games for free!) while basically giving them the equivalent of near-minimum wage in return. Highly competitive team sports at the college or pro level is supply and demand at it's extreme, just like many forms of entertainment. It is what it is and that's the way the world works.

      And yes, in some ways the whole system is pretty fucked up at many of the schools with great athletic problems but mediocre academic programs. But that's really orthogonal to this discussion. Would you prefer the football and basketball players get a salary equivalent to the income they draw instead of a scholarship, and then pay for tuition with that? For some major programs those salaries would be in the high 6 figures or more. At least with the current system some of the extra money goes to scholarships for other students (often in neglected sports, but sometimes in other areas as well).

    45. Re:But thats OK! by NoImNotNineVolt · · Score: 1
      On the one hand, it is unfortunate that these kids are being ripped off.

      On the other hand, why are they pursuing athletic careers at academic institutions?

      Would you feel bad for me if the graduate degree I got from the New York Yankees was worthless? I hope not, because what kind of idiot would expect an athletic institution to cater to academic interests?

      Would you prefer the football and basketball players get a salary equivalent to the income they draw instead of a scholarship, and then pay for tuition with that?

      Yes, very much so. If you get signed by an NFL or NBA team, then feel free to spend your money on higher education all you want. My objection is not that athletes seek higher education. My objection is that athletes that have no interest in higher education are forced into academic pursuits (necessarily displacing others, assuming full enrollment) as a part of their career track. This makes about as much sense as forcing software developers through MLB in order to be employable. In my eyes it's idiotic, but it's possible that I'm just not seeing the logic. I've been asking repeatedly for someone to state in clear and understandable terms why this seemingly absurd system is in society's best interest. I haven't gotten a satisfactory response yet.

      --
      Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
    46. Re:But thats OK! by Dahamma · · Score: 1

      Perhaps we should give scholarships based upon need/grades/test scores and move the folks that are only in school to play sports into some minor leagues that are funded by the major sports leagues instead of by tax payers.

      Wrong. The math is simple. Here's an example. The UT Austin football program brought in $133M (yes MILLION) last year. They gave about $5M in scholarships to the players, which is something like $40k per player on average. That's 3.7% to the players. Their net income from the program is something like $90-100M after all expenses (various employee payroll, facilities, etc). That goes back into the university for other athletic and non-athletic scholarships and the school budget in general. Not only to the taxpayers not fund the football program, it adds $90M+ to the bottom line that the taxpayers (or more likely, students via tuition) don't need to pay.

      In comparison the average NFL team makes about $250M a year in revenue. Player salaries are average almost 50% of the team revenue, which is about $125M in salaries. By that standard, if you thought of the players as "minor leagues" then college athletes (via simple supply and demand that is athletic entertainment) should be making more like $500K a year, not a $40K scholarship.

    47. Re:But thats OK! by LateArthurDent · · Score: 1

      The idea of a university, though, is that it would be a place focused on higher education. On the liberal arts.

      That excludes engineering too, which isn't part of the liberal arts. Seems a bit shortsighted. I think that's what colleges and departments are for. If the Engineering College was handling athletics, that'd be a focus problem.

      Wouldn't it be nice if there was a place for intellectuals to get together and study things amongst each other without having to deal with the proles and their brutish pursuits?

      "Brutish pursuits"? Ah, so elitism is the issue here. That's why we don't agree. I believe what goes into preparing a human being to athletically perform at the peak of what the species is capable of is as beautiful as writing a symphony.

      Wasn't that the whole raison d'etre of the university?

      To be removed from "brutish pursuits?" No. To teach liberal arts? Yes. But you lost that battle when they became places to get job training.

    48. Re:But thats OK! by jfengel · · Score: 1

      I'd feel better about it if the kids on scholarship took good advantage of their opportunity. If they're getting an education in exchange for providing a form of entertainment to their fellow students... yeah, I can see that. It's hard to quantify the value of entertainment, and a lot of alumni seem to feel pretty strongly about it.

      But while sports fans among the alums may it, that seems too much like subsidizing their entertainment if there isn't any other benefit. If the student-athletes aren't also students for real, then the vast majority of them are wasting their time, and it seems a poor mission for the college to serve as a pro-sports incubator as well. Let the NFL teams pay the colleges for the privilege.

    49. Re:But thats OK! by orthancstone · · Score: 1

      Presuming the person making them isn't driving up the cost of your baskets with his fancy degree.

    50. Re:But thats OK! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Feynman was a womanizer and misogynist.

      So that discredits everything else he ever did right?

      He's a disgrace and if he was around today would be tossed out of any reputable university.
      bwa HAHAHA!!!! You apparently never hung around any teachers have you? Most of the teachers I have known in my adult life are the most filthy, crazy, party people I have ever met. Just because they put on a game face during class does not mean that is what they are really like.

      And if you are hanging around them and they are not acting that way it is because they do not trust you. Given your comment I can see why. Your reaction to someone acting normal and not PC is to have them fired from their job. Bet your a hoot to hang around.... In the words of Wayne, NOT.

    51. Re:But thats OK! by Dahamma · · Score: 3, Interesting

      On the one hand, it is unfortunate that these kids are being ripped off.

      On the other hand, why are they pursuing athletic careers at academic institutions?

      Because despite what you seem to think, 95%+ of college athletes do not go on to play professional sports, but go into the working world like everyone else. It's not a career for the vast majority, it's an extracurricular activity they love and have been doing since they were little kids. And if they studied and committed themselves in college (as many do, again despite what you think), they come out with a bachelor's degree.

      My objection is that athletes that have no interest in higher education are forced into academic pursuits (necessarily displacing others, assuming full enrollment) as a part of their career track. This makes about as much sense as forcing software developers through MLB in order to be employable. In my eyes it's idiotic, but it's possible that I'm just not seeing the logic. I've been asking repeatedly for someone to state in clear and understandable terms why this seemingly absurd system is in society's best interest. I haven't gotten a satisfactory response yet.

      Your basic problem here (and the reason no one has given you a "satisfactory response") is that your assumptions are just wrong to start, so there is no response that would make sense to you. You are making an incorrect and stereotypical assumption that all college athletes are on some professional sports career track and don't study or benefit from a college education (or could even be as smart or smarter than non-athletes).

      As a personal example (maybe not *typical*, but also far from *unique*), my freshman roommate was on full scholarship for football and actually was one of the lucky few who drafted into the NFL, playing for a few years. He also had a 1300 SAT, an BA in economics, and is now very successful in a completely non-football related business. He's a smart guy, who has used and enjoyed both his athletic and academic abilities. What's wrong with that?

      Or if you want the purely numerical reason why it's in the *schools'* best interest (and to some extent students and taxpayers funding the school) - well, I already went over this in detail in another post, but here's the short summary of an example: UTexas football made $133M last year and paid their players $5M in scholarships; after all expenses they made over $90M for the school. An average NFL team makes about $250M a year and pays their players about $125M in salary. The equivalent (~50% revenue to players) for UT would then be about $500K per player, or an extra $60M over what they pay in scholarships. Instead that $60M is part of the $90M going to other school programs and expenses. Even paying the players salaries commensurate with professional programs (which won't happen, though paying something more might) nets the school $30M. The schools in the NCAA just aren't going to walk away from that. Sure, it's largely about money, but what in education, government, business, etc isn't these days? That answer may not be satisfactory to you, but it's the truth...

    52. Re:But thats OK! by VirginMary · · Score: 1

      People like sports...

      Yes, people are weird! Still don't see why that means that students and universities need to subsidize some people's hobbies! Amongst my friends about half like to watch sports for entertainment and the other half feel the way I do and would rather stare at a blank wall than watch sports. Personally I prefer reading a good book, watching animé or studying Japanese. And yes, I am a happy nerd!

      --
      When 1person suffers from a delusion,it is called insanity.When many people suffer from a delusion,it is called religion
    53. Re:But thats OK! by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 1

      I don't know what your problem is, or why you are so against sports, but there are many people who feel that it is important to exercise one's body along with one's mind, even Einstein, Feynman and Hawking did in their younger days before infirmity took the ability away.

      Yes, I am a job creator. I am also a bona fide democrat if that helps your sensibilities any, since you use the phrase in a perjorative way. As for the dumb jocks, you assume I hire. Well, the next time you need an ACL repaired or nerves grafted or any type of mircosurgery, remember this exchange and you can thank them. Not all of our engineers and researchers participated in organized athletics, but many did and I surely wouldn't turn down somebody who did if they had the qualifications we were looking for.

    54. Re:But thats OK! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does your business have a basketball team?

      Why not?

      And that's why I don't think a University should have one either.

    55. Re:But thats OK! by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 1

      I'd feel better about it if the kids on scholarship took good advantage of their opportunity. If they're getting an education in exchange for providing a form of entertainment to their fellow students... yeah, I can see that. It's hard to quantify the value of entertainment, and a lot of alumni seem to feel pretty strongly about it.

      But while sports fans among the alums may it, that seems too much like subsidizing their entertainment if there isn't any other benefit. If the student-athletes aren't also students for real, then the vast majority of them are wasting their time, and it seems a poor mission for the college to serve as a pro-sports incubator as well. Let the NFL teams pay the colleges for the privilege.

      While sports do not cover the total cost, there are benefits to sports programs, just as there are benefits to cultural and arts programs. The good news is that most student athletes do graduate (usually in six years instead of four) and in real degree programs. Many sports programs other than football and basketball have a higher graduation rate than the college/university rate as a whole. Part of this is that to keep their scholarship, many of these athletes have to maintain certain course loads and GPA. Another reason is that there is less presure to "pass" a swimmer or sprinter than there is a football or basketball player. But even in football and basketball, the two high revenue college sports, most programs have graduation rates in the 70% to 80% rate, at least at the Division I schools.

      So, for many of these kids, while the system may be using them to bring in the bucks and for entertainment purposes, they are getting the opportunity for a quality education. For most of them, it appears that they are not squandering that opportunity, either.

    56. Re:But thats OK! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you think college sports are not subject to amoral/destructive pressures? College athletics has a lot of problems, too...

    57. Re:But thats OK! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The good news is, once you figure out that sports == crap, and ignore it?

      What makes someone else's interests - video games, comic book superheroes, science fiction movies, alt. rock music for example - better or worse than sports?

      This is just another version of "people like me - cool. People not like me - losers."

    58. Re:But thats OK! by niado · · Score: 1

      People like sports...

      Yes, people are weird! Still don't see why that means that students and universities need to subsidize some people's hobbies! Amongst my friends about half like to watch sports for entertainment and the other half feel the way I do and would rather stare at a blank wall than watch sports.

      Your friends don't seem to be a representative group :)

      Sports are hugely popular. There are historical reasons they are tied to post-secondary education here in the US, but "people like sports" is the maybe-too-short-answer.

    59. Re:But thats OK! by VirginMary · · Score: 1

      Your friends don't seem to be a representative group :)

      I sure hope not! The majority of mankind seems to be deeply superstitious, too and almost all of my many friends are atheists or agnostics. I also like to think that most or all of my friends have no strong national attachments a.k.a. "patriotism". So, yes, I like to believe that they are highly unrepresentative of humanity in ways that are important to me. OTOH, they are more representative in that I have American, European, Asian and African friends.

      Oh, just to clarify: I see nothing wrong with watching sports for entertainment. It's just not my cup of tea and I haven't been able to relate to doing that since I was around 14.

      --
      When 1person suffers from a delusion,it is called insanity.When many people suffer from a delusion,it is called religion
    60. Re:But thats OK! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't understand why it is in society's best interest to do it this way.

      Do you understand why not everything is done in a way that serves "society's best interest"?

    61. Re:But thats OK! by NoImNotNineVolt · · Score: 1

      No. I don't.

      Nor do I understand why society insists on continuing to do things in a way that does not serve society's best interest.

      It seems irrational to me. That's my point.

      --
      Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
    62. Re:But thats OK! by jfengel · · Score: 1

      It's all of the other programs (I just met somebody who went on a partial bowling scholarship) that really seem to exemplify what college sports should be. They make for well-rounded students while simultaneously giving some kids a chance to hit a school they couldn't have done otherwise (or at all).

      When people complain about college sports, it's really football that they have in mind, and basketball to a lesser extent. The relationship between colleges, the teams, and the professional industry that has sprung up around them has become rather pathological. But it's also so ingrained that I don't know if it can be fixed, and may simply have to be viewed as a loss-leader for the rest of the programs.

    63. Re:But thats OK! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least the baseball player offers something to the school unlike AA students promoted above their ability.

    64. Re:But thats OK! by drsquare · · Score: 1

      So if you're not good at baseball you can't get an engineering degree? Strange system. Does it work the other way around? If you're good at maths do you get to be a pro athlete?

  4. Not brilliant or novel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lying on television isn't brilliant or novel at all. Since the is a common medium for viewing the game. Ultimately isn't it the goal to make it as entertaining as possible so people keep throwing millions of dollars at it. Wrestling is faked already, why should other sports be any different?

    1. Re:Not brilliant or novel by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      Lying on television isn't brilliant or novel at all. Since the is a common medium for viewing the game. Ultimately isn't it the goal to make it as entertaining as possible so people keep throwing millions of dollars at it. Wrestling is faked already, why should other sports be any different?

      because of betting, which by extension makes them fraud.

      what, you thought they exist just for entertainment? as if...

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
  5. I can't count on one hand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I can't count on one hand how many people I offended back in the day when I kept exclaiming that McGuire was on steroids. It would make a McGuire fan go completely rabid. I was in high school, and one guy almost punched me over it.

    Of course, I was right. Common sense and all that.

    1. Re:I can't count on one hand by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · · Score: 1

      You and me both. It was pretty obvious, if you didn't hail from St Louis. Sosa too...

      --
      Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
    2. Re:I can't count on one hand by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      You...you don't wanna watch old Arnold Swartzenegger movies.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    3. Re:I can't count on one hand by locopuyo · · Score: 2

      It sounds like his fans had roid rage.

    4. Re:I can't count on one hand by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · · Score: 1

      I don't want to watch *any* Schwarzenegger movies. But I don't understand the full implication. Yes, he used steroids, obviously. Are you thinking that I didn't know this, or that his muscles are more obvious than McGuire or Sosa's? Or what? Or I'd reflect on how California could elect him as Governor and despair?

      --
      Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
  6. Shocked, shocked! by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

    Cheating in sports? Who'd of thought it!

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    1. Re:Shocked, shocked! by Synerg1y · · Score: 2

      Here's the actual cheat:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spitball

      Pretty disgusting stuff.

    2. Re:Shocked, shocked! by larry+bagina · · Score: 1

      You think that's disgusting? There are other body fluids that are also used, if you get my drift. Back in high school, our pitcher hit a batter with a cum ball. (The batter mad some comments about his girlfriend).

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    3. Re:Shocked, shocked! by torsmo · · Score: 1

      Happens in cricket, as well, and is termed as ball tampering. It's illegal and is done to affect the aerodynamics of the ball. Bowlers (the equivalent of pitchers) work on one hemisphere of the ball and keep it smooth and shiny by applying saliva, sweat etc. and rubbing it vigorously against fabric. Using any means other than body fluids and natural wear and tear on the ball to affect its swing is illegal and carries harsh penalties.

    4. Re:Shocked, shocked! by operagost · · Score: 2

      I know baseball can be a slow game, but how did he find time to wank while on the mound?

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    5. Re:Shocked, shocked! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know baseball can be a slow game, but how did he find time to wank while on the mound?

      If I like the girl, I will find some way to at least wank while on the mound.

    6. Re:Shocked, shocked! by cluedweasel · · Score: 1

      Yep. I was a semi-pro cricketer in the Derbyshire League in England back in the day. As a fast bowler, I was encouraged to "tamper" with the ball. One method was to pick up some dirt along with the ball when fielding near the crease. That way, i could keep a little in my pocket and use it to roughen one side of the ball to cause it to swing. Picking at the stitches to raise them on the seam of the ball was another. I'm sure all the same tricks are present in baseball too.

  7. Re:who needs to cheat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    There's no crying in Baseball!!!

  8. To quote Homer Simpson. . . by smooth+wombat · · Score: 4, Funny

    after he gave up drinking for a time to please Marge:

    I never realized how boring this game is.

    --
    We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    1. Re:To quote Homer Simpson. . . by stoolpigeon · · Score: 2

      Annnd... there's a beach ball on the field.......

      one of my favorite scenes.

      --
      It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
  9. Isn't that the point? by simonbp · · Score: 2, Funny

    Isn't that kinda the point of baseball? It's only cheating if they catch you? Is a scuffed ball any different from stealing a base?

    1. Re:Isn't that the point? by dreamchaser · · Score: 2

      Isn't that kinda the point of baseball? It's only cheating if they catch you? Is a scuffed ball any different from stealing a base?

      Stealing a base is a legally allowed move in the game, so yes it is very different.

    2. Re:Isn't that the point? by Abstrackt · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Stealing a base is more like taking your time when your opponent forgots to stop their clock in a game of speed chess. It's not cheating so much as taking advantage of inattentiveness.

      --
      They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance. - Terry Pratchett
    3. Re:Isn't that the point? by niado · · Score: 2

      Another interesting example is fouling in basketball. You are legally not allowed to foul in the game, but fouling happens constantly and the players are only punished for a small fraction of the fouls that occur. Fouling is openly used in various strategies, and players often have trouble mitigating the advantages gained by fouling because free throws are difficult, and referees are not omniscient.

    4. Re:Isn't that the point? by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      Stealing a base is done out in the open and in no way can be considered cheating.

      --
      Good-bye
    5. Re:Isn't that the point? by justthinkit · · Score: 1

      Thank you for posting this. The primary reason I dislike the game, though I like very nearly all sports. By coincidence the 2013 Scripts just started up on ESPN...

      --
      I come here for the love
    6. Re:Isn't that the point? by justthinkit · · Score: 1
      To expand on my previous post...it is good enough in football to "run out the clock" but basketball chooses to make the end of the game "exciting" by stretching the last 60 seconds into 30 minutes through small consequence penalties that bring the game literally to a halt a dozen times. Great for stuffing in more commercials, horrendous for the sport.
      .

      The basketball fouling problem would go away if (1) an additional penalty shot was awarded. Instead of one shot there were two; instead of two there were three, etc. or (2) if flagrant fouls and some technicals led to ejections [like in soccer] or (3) if only fouls in the last 30 seconds of the game had the increased penalties listed in -1- above or (4) if fouls led to that player being sidelined for several minutes (even if the penalized team was allowed to replace him on the floor).

      Fouling in basketball is condoned bullying. Like going to a seminar on how to assault someone and watching a basketball game break out (to borrow and then bludgeon the hockey line).

      --
      I come here for the love
    7. Re:Isn't that the point? by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      stealing a base is in the rules.

      tampering with the playing utilities however is against the rules..

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    8. Re:Isn't that the point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Another interesting example is fouling in basketball. You are legally not allowed to foul in the game, but fouling happens constantly and the players are only punished for a small fraction of the fouls that occur. Fouling is openly used in various strategies, and players often have trouble mitigating the advantages gained by fouling because free throws are difficult, and referees are not omniscient.

      That's one reason I can't stand basketball. The rules of the game are the the rules written on paper. This teaches kids (and adults) that the system is corrupt. While that's true, it's not a good message. I heard a basketball coach get all upset because his players we're dressing up nice enough on the way to the game. WTF? Fix the obvious cheating and rule braking condoned by the refs first. Change the rules to match the game as it's played. That's not hard at all.

    9. Re:Isn't that the point? by niado · · Score: 1

      Basketball is still my favorite sport to watch, but I agree that the foul system needs a serious revamp, especially to improve flow near the end of games. There are a lot of complications in basketball though, mostly due to the inherent format of the game.

      Basketball is the rare sport where teams regularly score 100 points (that is FIFTY GOALS) and the game is frequently decided by a single point. This is a 1% swing in actual scoring that often decides games. This means that near the end of a close game, every movement of every player could potentially have a disastrous impact on the fate of the game. One foul can turn into 2 points, or 0 points, for the other team, and the results there can (and often do) make the game-winning difference.

      Also, since basketball is a "free-movement" sport (players can stand and move anywhere, at any time) there is a lot of constant motion, and free-fighting for position. Imagine if in baseball the guy on base and the baseman both wanted to stand in exactly the same spot, and the result of the entire game could depend on which one of them was able to get to the spot, keep the spot, and/or force the other player to relinquish the spot at the right moment. It's chaos. Because of this you end up with a lot of borderline-illegal and definitely-illegal contact while players are vying for position. Not to mention the on-ball action! The method of scoring in basketball requires a player to take the ball and somehow get it into a goal which the ball can barely fit through, while the other guy is trying to physically prevent you from doing so. If you can brush a guy with your hip and affect his balance just a wee bit, though not enough for the referee to notice, that might win you the game.

    10. Re:Isn't that the point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Another interesting example is fouling in basketball. You are legally not allowed to foul in the game, but fouling happens constantly and the players are only punished for a small fraction of the fouls that occur. Fouling is openly used in various strategies, and players often have trouble mitigating the advantages gained by fouling because free throws are difficult, and referees are not omniscient.

      That's why I want to replace free throw shooting, which is boring and can easily make the last 2 minutes of game time ridiculously long, with a hockey-style penalty box.

    11. Re:Isn't that the point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The method of scoring in basketball requires a player to take the ball and somehow get it into a goal which the ball can barely fit through, while the other guy is trying to physically prevent you from doing so.

      How does twice the diameter (rim: 18 inches, ball: 9 inches) qualify as "barely fit through"?

    12. Re:Isn't that the point? by justthinkit · · Score: 1
      Good points. Football games are often decided on the last throw, the last score as well. I agree that basketball has a movement issue that few other sports have, making the refereeing of same an inexact science. Frankly I am astounded how well the basketball refs do -- they might be some of the greatest refs in sports.
      .

      What I disagree with in how the end of basketball games is allowed to play out is that physical "contact" determines almost everything that happens (in close games, anyway). And this is the opposite of the grace in how a football game ends. "We have the ball, we have 3 downs, we are up by 5 points and we are going to run out the clock" is often how it all ends. It doesn't mean the previous 59 minutes weren't awesome. It just means the game is effectively over.

      Basketball has the announcers saying "They have to foul them now" and "they have a foul to give" (what if instead they said "they have a punch to throw"?). Basketball could just say "There are 20 seconds to go, we have the ball, the lead and the 24 second clock to run out the game, and that is what we are going to do". The previous 47 minutes could still have been awesome. Don't end the game with violations that help the violators. NBA claims to be all about the message they send to kids, to a creepy extent. How ironic that the message they send at the end of each game is "Violence pays off".

      --
      I come here for the love
    13. Re:Isn't that the point? by niado · · Score: 1

      Good points. Football games are often decided on the last throw, the last score as well.

      Yes, but a single "score" in football (a 6pt touchdown) could be anywhere from 100% to 10% of the total team score. It is rare for a team to score even 60 points in football (10 touchdowns worth), and in those cases one team is generally far, far ahead. In basketball each individual goal seems like it shouldn't be that important, since they can make 50 in a game, but it IS that important if the game is closely played. It is just a very different scoring mechanic.

      What I disagree with in how the end of basketball games is allowed to play out is that physical "contact" determines almost everything that happens (in close games, anyway). And this is the opposite of the grace in how a football game ends. "We have the ball, we have 3 downs, we are up by 5 points and we are going to run out the clock" is often how it all ends. It doesn't mean the previous 59 minutes weren't awesome. It just means the game is effectively over.

      Basketball has the announcers saying "They have to foul them now" and "they have a foul to give" (what if instead they said "they have a punch to throw"?). Basketball could just say "There are 20 seconds to go, we have the ball, the lead and the 24 second clock to run out the game, and that is what we are going to do". The previous 47 minutes could still have been awesome. Don't end the game with violations that help the violators. NBA claims to be all about the message they send to kids, to a creepy extent. How ironic that the message they send at the end of each game is "Violence pays off".

      Completely agree. Though throwing a punch in basketball is supposed to be an automatic ejection :)

    14. Re:Isn't that the point? by justthinkit · · Score: 1
      The average football game is every bit as close at the end as any basketball game. The total number of scores per game is not relevant. Neither is the exact score differential.
      .

      The bottom line is simple. Either the other team has a chance at the end -- in football, basketball, baseball or lawn darts -- or they do not.

      Football accepts the inevitable and doesn't end violently. So does baseball. Basketball doesn't, and sometimes lawn darts doesn't.

      --
      I come here for the love
    15. Re:Isn't that the point? by niado · · Score: 1

      The average football game is every bit as close at the end as any basketball game. The total number of scores per game is not relevant. Neither is the exact score differential.

      I may not be explaining my point properly - in football (or most other sports) a single score is difficult to achieve, and often requires great effort by the entire team.

      In basketball, scoring is comparably trivial, and games often hinge on a single foul call, which could be incidental, or commonplace. It is difficult to mete out appropriate punishment for fouls in the game, without impacting the game too much.

      I certainly agree that the end of a basketball game is usually torturous, but I can't think of a great solution to the problem without changing some pretty fundamental things about the game. There are things that could be adjusted to improve it, but anything I can think of would only be a bandaid.

      I kindof like the 'penalty box' idea (maybe only in the last 2 minutes of the game or something), but I think even that would be too much of an impact for trivial fouls.

    16. Re:Isn't that the point? by justthinkit · · Score: 1
      I think some kind of coarse correction is needed. It will not eliminate the potential for a bad call to influence the outcome of the game. But then this is possible in any sport. A perfect game "did not happen" because of a horrendous missed call -- this year -- but no changes were made and the commish didn't step in and say "heh, we've all looked at the replay and changed our mind about that call after the fact." The changes that are needed are (1) shorten the end of the game by (2) NOT EVER rewarding someone in any way for fouling another player. No, you do not want to give a penalty when one is not called for, but this is the penultimate problem already conceded. Anyway, to do all this, basketball (i.e. David Stern) will have to relinquish its craving for an "exciting" ending, as this leads to an "assault is good" ending. I doubt he will do this because he thinks he will lose ad views as a result.
      .

      One thing I think you are not fully considering is that players adapt very well to the rules "as the refs are seeing them today". In baseball the early batters return to the dugout and inform everyone else how the home plate umpire is calling the game. In football there is a lot of consideration given, by analysts, to who is refereeing a game, precisely because it is known how each person refs, and so how players will adapt to this. I think you are being a bit over-protective of a bad system, rather than wanting to embrace a new one, one that will still need to have the bugs worked out.

      Another thing we have not mentioned is video replay. This is becoming a bigger factor each day. Baseball, the sloth of sports when it comes to "advancing the game" is already using it, but will have to fully embrace it to simply make their game fair (and less open to betting-related corruption of the officiating). Every sport needs more video replay -- and heh, David S., you can fit in ad views while they are reviewing the replay!!!1!

      I would rather a game be stopped to get the call right than for any other reason (aside from player injury, of course). Also, there are anti-flop rules in basketball that remove the temptation to fake contact.

      --
      I come here for the love
    17. Re:Isn't that the point? by niado · · Score: 1

      The changes that are needed are (1) shorten the end of the game by (2) NOT EVER rewarding someone in any way for fouling another player. No, you do not want to give a penalty when one is not called for, but this is the penultimate problem already conceded.

      This actually reminds me that in the NBA (though not college) they recently implemented a very interesting rule called a "clear-path foul". If a defender fouls an opponent in open court who had a "clear path" to the basket, the offensive team shoots free throws AND retains possession of the ball. I would like to see this happen for all fouls in the final 2 minutes of the game. That would probably go a long way toward solving the end-of-game-slugfest problem.

      Another thing we have not mentioned is video replay. This is becoming a bigger factor each day. Baseball, the sloth of sports when it comes to "advancing the game" is already using it, but will have to fully embrace it to simply make their game fair (and less open to betting-related corruption of the officiating). Every sport needs more video replay -- and heh, David S., you can fit in ad views while they are reviewing the replay!!!1!

      I would rather a game be stopped to get the call right than for any other reason (aside from player injury, of course). Also, there are anti-flop rules in basketball that remove the temptation to fake contact.

      I agree about getting the calls right. More video replay would slow down the game, which is bad, but it would help to get more calls right, which is good. There are other ways to reduce fouls and speed up the flow of the game that could make up for the delays from video replay.

      I love having anti-flop rules, because nothing irks me more than a flopping...but unfortunately the anti-flop rules currently in place are remarkably ineffective. The refs currently can't go to the monitor to determine a flop after the fact, and players are exceedingly good at performing convincing flops that are difficult to detect in real-time. Currently, flops are determined outside of the games, and players are fined for it - but any player would gladly spend the fine money to give them an edge in the game, so this doesn't seem to reduce flopping at all as far as I can tell.

    18. Re:Isn't that the point? by justthinkit · · Score: 1
      This actually reminds me that in the NBA (though not college) they recently implemented a very interesting rule called a "clear-path foul". If a defender fouls an opponent in open court who had a "clear path" to the basket, the offensive team shoots free throws AND retains possession of the ball. I would like to see this happen for all fouls in the final 2 minutes of the game. That would probably go a long way toward solving the end-of-game-slugfest problem.
      .

      There ya go. Awesome. Now to tweak the de-flopping.

      --
      I come here for the love
  10. Hey BBWAA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Take that and chew on it for a while!

  11. Kool-Aid Man went to law school? by korbulon · · Score: 0

    "Would counsel please approach the bench?" "Oh yeahhh!"

    1. Re:Kool-Aid Man went to law school? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You owe me more coffee and pants.

  12. Re:who needs to cheat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nah but its only popular because it's the place public drunkeness is allowed in American culture. After all it's not like you go to watch a non-stop exciting game.

  13. MLB has much bigger problems by schwit1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Slow play and umps that can't find the strike zone with a telescope

    Coaches should get red flag just like football so replay could be used. Replays should be done at MLB HQ like the NHL does it.

    MLB should institute an automated strike zone and a pitch clock when no one is on base.

    1. Re:MLB has much bigger problems by Formorian · · Score: 1

      If I had points I'd mod you up. Make the game faster. Use electronic scoring for pitches, so all things are equal. Not 1 ref has this strike zone, this ref has that one, etc.

      Baseball is quickly becoming the last sport in America and the oldest (in the fans that watch). I can't watch it. They start the World Series like after 9PM EST, games are 3.5-4hrs long. Yeah I have to be up for work, so yeah not staying up for that. SO I haven't watched world series in many years.

    2. Re:MLB has much bigger problems by alen · · Score: 1

      they do replays for some plays, but i've read the equipment they use is 90's era TV's

      no money for new equipment

    3. Re:MLB has much bigger problems by CoderBob · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The World Series starts after 9PM because much earlier than that and you leave out the west coast TV market. 9PM EST = 6 PM Pacific.

      Perhaps I am an oddity, but I find basketball much more annoying to watch than baseball, and football really isn't any better. In terms of continuous action, I would put forth that the NHL is actually the most "gameplay" for the length of a game.

      I'm not saying Football and baseball are "equal" in downtime, but if you start adding up the time between a play being declared dead and the actual start of the next play (not men lining up, but when the ball is snapped), I think that the amount of time that is spent not "playing" the game becomes more comparable. Yeah, there's a clock counting down, but what is the actual run-time of a typical football game at this point? 3.5, 4 hours?

    4. Re:MLB has much bigger problems by Formorian · · Score: 1

      football usually right around 3. I usually start a game at 1 and it's over by 4, sometimes 4:15.

      I get your point about west coast, but 5pm is late enough and you're not leaving out cause game would still be getting over at 5pm start 9pm. I don't care about watching first few innings. Plus the majority of Baseball fans are northeast/East Coast compared to other area's, you're cutting out you're biggest supporters. Also, the metric shows you're loosing young people. And I know my sports interest stem from what I watched growing up. I know with my kids we don't even watch baseball together. Anyways, I heard a stat, not sure it's true but baseball games even 15 years ago used to be 3.25hrs long, now they are like 3.65. I'm too lazy to actually find out if that's true right now tho.

    5. Re:MLB has much bigger problems by gnick · · Score: 0

      ...I would put forth that the NHL is actually the most "gameplay" for the length of a game.

      Not an MMA fan then?

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    6. Re:MLB has much bigger problems by coinreturn · · Score: 1

      The World Series starts after 9PM because much earlier than that and you leave out the west coast TV market. 9PM EST = 6 PM Pacific.

      Perhaps I am an oddity, but I find basketball much more annoying to watch than baseball, and football really isn't any better. In terms of continuous action, I would put forth that the NHL is actually the most "gameplay" for the length of a game.

      I'm not saying Football and baseball are "equal" in downtime, but if you start adding up the time between a play being declared dead and the actual start of the next play (not men lining up, but when the ball is snapped), I think that the amount of time that is spent not "playing" the game becomes more comparable. Yeah, there's a clock counting down, but what is the actual run-time of a typical football game at this point? 3.5, 4 hours?

      Though I gave up watching any sports years ago, football actually has things going on before the ball is snapped: man in motion actually does change play. But Aussie rules football kicks ass on all other sports.

    7. Re:MLB has much bigger problems by alen · · Score: 1

      true, but in hockey and soccer it seems like all they do is pass the puck/ball around for 2 hours with one or two points scored in a game

    8. Re:MLB has much bigger problems by chuckinator · · Score: 1

      MMA would be far more interesting if they flooded the arena and had mock naval battles.

    9. Re:MLB has much bigger problems by niado · · Score: 1

      MMA is not a "game". It's sortof a sport, and is certainly an "athletic competition". Difficult to compare with the mainstream sports (unless you include boxing in that group).

      I would liken it more to skydiving - the goal is pretty much to avoid dying while looking awesome.

    10. Re:MLB has much bigger problems by interkin3tic · · Score: 2

      I've also heard suggestions that a larger ball should be used, that baseball is too pitcher-centric, and that slowing down the pitches would encourage more interesting aspects of the game. Seems like reducing the importance of the pitcher would also reduce the incentive to have pitchers cheat.

      I don't claim to know anything about baseball, so that could be an idiotic idea. If it is... well I'm still an idiot, but that suggestion isn't a reflection of that fact.

    11. Re:MLB has much bigger problems by niado · · Score: 2

      MMA would be far more interesting if they flooded the arena and had mock naval battles.

      bazinga!

    12. Re:MLB has much bigger problems by CoderBob · · Score: 2

      Hockey for me was an acquired taste, probably from exposure to the Redwings growing up in Michigan, and then moving to Grand Rapids where their AHL farm team is. The Griffins are even in the AHL playoffs this year, so I get bonus hockey after the Redwings bowed out against Chicago last night.

      The best hockey games are really the low-scoring ones where both teams are very evenly matched and playing all-out, which happens more often now that their is a cap system. If it is a low-scoring game because both teams suck, then it can be a snoozefest.

    13. Re:MLB has much bigger problems by CoderBob · · Score: 1

      Man in motion does change play, yes, but to me it's in the same category as a pitcher shaking off signs from the catcher. They both can be important to the outcome, but they aren't "exciting" the way a long fly ball is, or watching a running back shake off a couple of tacklers. Most of the complaints I hear or read about the pace of baseball are based on the time between the pitcher throwing the ball and then the ball coming back to the pitcher, which leaves out the arts of shortening the lead of a base-runner, or taking time on the mound to ice a batter (see football coaches calling timeouts RIGHT before the opposing team's kicker gets ready to kick a field goal). I just think if we're going to compare the actual time of "play" versus the running time of the game, it should be an apples to apples comparison.

    14. Re:MLB has much bigger problems by CoderBob · · Score: 1

      I like Niado's answer below, but if you want to bring MMA in, there seems to be an awful lot of posturing around the cage, and "commentary" that pads the length of the pay-per-views. There are some epically long bouts, but there are also those done in 30 seconds in the first round by submission, followed by another 10 minutes of broadcast before the next fight.

    15. Re:MLB has much bigger problems by CoderBob · · Score: 2

      s/below/above/

      I can't brain today, I have the dumb.

    16. Re:MLB has much bigger problems by jfengel · · Score: 1

      The episodic nature of football can be an advantage. The ball is only in play for a few seconds at a time, but an awful lot happens in those few seconds. 22 players are each doing something very specific and highly coordinated. The play is worth watching from several different angles to appreciate all that's going on.

      TV timeouts and other things have dragged that out much further than is interesting: commercials are never fun. But that's the thing with continuous play sports like soccer: you can cut away from it without feeling like you've missed all that much. What you did miss can be re-shown in highlights.

      I agree that hockey manages to blend it exceptionally well. All 14 players are nearly continuously involved in a fairly active way. (OK, maybe the goalies spend time genuinely out of the action.) It makes a great spectator sport: there's always something important going on, not just when there are goals.

      But American football is also a really good spectator sport. It just takes a bit of assistance to see everything that's going on. (It's better live than on TV, but even in a stadium there are replays on the giant monitors. I honestly don't know what it is people see in high school football, which lacks that.)

    17. Re:MLB has much bigger problems by pulski · · Score: 1

      Don't forget that NFL Football is played mostly on Sunday. Monday and Thursday games are played at night, starting at 8:30pm Eastern. Baseball is played 7 days a week.

    18. Re:MLB has much bigger problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Women versus Dwarves, prisoner executions, etc.

    19. Re:MLB has much bigger problems by CoderBob · · Score: 1

      I wasn't trying to knock the episodic nature of football (I like that phrasing, by the way) but point out that saying baseball is "slow" because of the periods of time in which the ball isn't in play is not comparing apples to apples. As a baseball fan, I appreciate the time between pitches, with all of the mental games that go on between pitcher and batter or pitcher and baserunner(s). It is great to watch when a pitcher and catcher are in sync and barely need to communicate, as well. It probably helps that I'm enough of a math nerd to enjoy the ridiculous number of statistics tracked in baseball.

      I've noticed that some football fans don't think twice about that time between plays, or a team repeatedly taking a knee to end the half (that REALLY bothers me for some reason, and I don't know why that sets me off but a batter stepping out of the box does not), but will knock baseball for time between pitches, "the slow pace" of the game, that kind of thing. If you enjoy the sport, even just to watch, you'll look past the things that drive others batty.

    20. Re:MLB has much bigger problems by coinreturn · · Score: 1

      So you don't think linebackers running toward the line of scrimmage, timing the snap counts as game play?

    21. Re:MLB has much bigger problems by CoderBob · · Score: 2

      I must be doing a bad job of trying to say this.

      I'm not saying that stuff doesn't count as gameplay- but I'm saying that by virtue of THAT counting as gameplay, the same courtesy should be applied to the pick-off throw to first to shorten a baserunner's lead, or the second baseman moving slightly behind the baserunner to encourage a pick-off throw, or a batter calling for time right after a pitcher gets set, just because they made the batter wait earlier, or any of the other myriad things that aren't directly related to putting the ball in play. Linebackers running towards the line is actually a good example of gameplay, in that it is a counter to the whole "run the play clock down to the last second before the snap" by the offense, which is still better than "I'm going to just hold the basketball and let the clock run" I see when I end up at a sports bar and the NBA is on.

      It's easier for me to pick out the things in football that I would consider "waste of time" because although it doesn't cause me to change the channel, I don't really make it a point to watch. For people who feel that way about baseball, it is easy for them to point out the things in baseball they consider "slow". Time spent around any sport usually leads to spectators picking up the little things that can mean a lot to an entire game, so for those fans, the little things all tend to mean something important, whereas those little things in other sports "don't count".

      If it helps, I would probably rate the sports in terms of my enjoyment as a spectator as: NHL > Baseball > Basketball (NCAA) > Football > Golf > Tennis > Billiards > Curling > Figure Skating > Marathon Running > Power Walking > Basketball (NBA).

    22. Re:MLB has much bigger problems by thoth · · Score: 1

      Perhaps I am an oddity, but I find basketball much more annoying to watch than baseball, and football really isn't any better. In terms of continuous action, I would put forth that the NHL is actually the most "gameplay" for the length of a game.

      I'm with you!

      I can't fully explain why, but I enjoy watching an occasional football game. It's like a violent chess match - both sides pick plays, execute them, how it turns out depends on physical abilities and sometimes sneaky play. The downtime is pretty high though.

      Baseball is like watching live (in person) with friends - you can chat, eat/drink, kinda half pay attention to the game and still keep up. There are so many games a season prices are lower than football. The rules are pretty easy to understand and umpire rulings aren't that mysterious. At worst, a slow mo replay might be controversial as to whether the a runner is safe or not. The strike zone can be a bit shall we say, ill defined.

      Hockey definitely is a lot of action, the clock doesn't stop too much. One issue is I can't see the puck and it has a bit of the soccer scoring issue, but overall a decent time.

      I can't stand basketball though. One reason is I can't follow any of the calls. The actual rules involving travelling never seemed enforced, there are so many technical fouls (zone vs man-to-man, illegal defense - wtf is that? I can see in football some dude lined up over the line, but in basketball he was... defending "improperly" in a game with continuous motion?), play stops on a judgement call (offensive charging vs defensive blocking) or some other foul that seems totally arbitrary. In a close game, the only way the team behind can get the ball is the foul strategy, which I find to me tedious as hell.

      Everything considered baseball might win out for cost, need to pay attention, understanding the game, and general relaxing where you don't really need to watch with full attention. Really the only thing that bugs the crap out of me in baseball is near continuous spitting from pitchers, especially when the camera is zoomed focused on them. ;) Another advantage of watching in person, you don't see that as much!

    23. Re:MLB has much bigger problems by jfengel · · Score: 1

      I'm not a baseball fan, but I know genuine baseball fans. The game is much more interesting with them around; they're seeing a lot more than I do and can point it out to me. I'm not gonna take the time that they have to put in to develop that much appreciation, but I appreciate that they do.

      I suppose I should sit down with a soccer fan at a similar level one day and have the point out all the stuff that I'm missing.

    24. Re:MLB has much bigger problems by hey! · · Score: 1

      And if chess players were allowed to hit each other with sticks, it'd be a lot more interesting for the average viewer.

      I actually think the larger ball idea is interesting, but the real problem is that Americans don't have the attention span they used to. If you've ever tried to explain baseball to someone in a country where it isn't played, you'll know it takes a great deal of information just to follow basic game play. Worse, baseball is a game of evolving situations; it takes a database of dozens, if not hundreds of games watched to really understand what's going on. So tweaks like the larger ball are likely to do little for the casual fan and nothing for the dedicated fan.

      The Italian Baseball League has an interesting solution. They reduce the length of the game to seven innings (nine is often too long for non-fanatics) and if there is a tie the winner is decided by a home run derby -- kind of the way soccer tournament advancement is done by a penalty shoot-out in a tie game.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    25. Re:MLB has much bigger problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i suppose you like the idea of 5 hr games?

    26. Re:MLB has much bigger problems by gottabeme · · Score: 1

      In the early days of baseball, in the 19th century, the pitcher was required to pitch the ball where the batter told him to. And they threw underhanded. And then they realized that slow-pitch softball is boring.

      These "suggestions" are really, "I don't get it so let me change it into something I like." It's akin to saying, "I don't get Chopin's music, so you should play it on a recorder, slowly."

      Pitching is an art, and the contest between the battery and the batter is a game in and of itself. There are subtleties. But many people nowadays can't appreciate something unless it's in-your-face, slam-dunk, spike-the-ball, constant-movement... Some people play Call of Duty, some people play DayZ.

      --
      "Those who consume the bulk of goods are those who make them. We must never forget this secret of our prosperity."
    27. Re:MLB has much bigger problems by gottabeme · · Score: 1

      There exists a game with a larger ball. It's called softball. And it sucks. People who have never played baseball competitively aren't really qualified to have an opinion. Kids used to grow up playing baseball in the sandlot with their buddies before dinner. Nowadays they grow up playing Xbox and then say that baseball looks boring and they should use a bigger ball.

      --
      "Those who consume the bulk of goods are those who make them. We must never forget this secret of our prosperity."
  14. Walk Away by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There's only one solution to a completely corrupt system. Walk away from it. Broshius made the correct decision by leaving the game behind him.

    You cannot change a corrupted institution from within. I'll repeat that. You cannot change a corrupted institution from within. There are too many people inside who have spent their lives justifying and profiting from their misdeeds, who are not about to turn over a new leaf or air their dirty laundry because you've made an appeal to their conscience. They killed theirs long ago.

    The best thing to do is leave the rotten ship to sink all by itself. Every honest person who stands by a rotten game, or bankrupted bank, or broken political party is just propping up an at best amoral system, and usually an immoral and even illegal one. There is no obligation to stay loyal or remain in solidarity with a disloyal and dishonest organisation.

    Broshius has done more for baseball as a law student that he ever could have as a player or a fan.

    --
    May the Maths Be with you!
    1. Re:Walk Away by Spudley · · Score: 1

      There's only one solution to a completely corrupt system. Walk away from it. Broshius made the correct decision by leaving the game behind him.

      You cannot change a corrupted institution from within. I'll repeat that. You cannot change a corrupted institution from within. There are too many people inside who have spent their lives justifying and profiting from their misdeeds, who are not about to turn over a new leaf or air their dirty laundry because you've made an appeal to their conscience. They killed theirs long ago.

      The best thing to do is leave the rotten ship to sink all by itself. Every honest person who stands by a rotten game, or bankrupted bank, or broken political party is just propping up an at best amoral system, and usually an immoral and even illegal one. There is no obligation to stay loyal or remain in solidarity with a disloyal and dishonest organisation.

      Broshius has done more for baseball as a law student that he ever could have as a player or a fan.

      I've quoted the above comment in full because it deserves repeating.

      Well said. I came here to post pretty much the same thing, but I won't bother, since you said it so well.

      --
      (Spudley Strikes Again!)
    2. Re:Walk Away by Agent0013 · · Score: 1

      I think this applies to police also.

      --

      -- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
    3. Re:Walk Away by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about walking away from a country, e.g. The United States?

    4. Re:Walk Away by readingaccount · · Score: 1

      A lot of people DO leave their home countries for a better life elsewhere. A shitload of people do actually. It just so happens that leaving the US to go elsewhere is somehow noteworthy - as if anyone would willingly want to leave the US.

    5. Re:Walk Away by gottabeme · · Score: 1

      I am disenchanted by cheating and corruption in professional baseball.

      But the game of baseball lives on in many places. Baseball is more than MLB. Those who love the game don't need MLB or any other certain venue.

      --
      "Those who consume the bulk of goods are those who make them. We must never forget this secret of our prosperity."
  15. What kind of hardware do I need to play this? by Guano_Jim · · Score: 5, Funny

    I've been trying to download this "baseball" game all morning and all every website I visit just shows me a bunch of sweaty dudes in pajamas.

    They're using wooden controllers (!) and even worse, they're outside. Is this a beta? wtf

    1. Re:What kind of hardware do I need to play this? by internerdj · · Score: 1

      Don't worry. If you are posting to slashdot without anyone having introduced it to you at this point then you are so far behind the learning curve it isn't worth picking up a copy.

    2. Re:What kind of hardware do I need to play this? by BenFenner · · Score: 1

      It was probably before your time. I was quite good at it in my day.

      http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/64/Baseball_NES_box_art.jpg

    3. Re:What kind of hardware do I need to play this? by matrim99 · · Score: 2

      No worries, you can always buy the DLC (steroids) that everyone is complaining about as being Pay to Win.

      --
      Right. No, your other right. No, the other other right.
    4. Re:What kind of hardware do I need to play this? by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

      I've been trying to download this "baseball" game all morning and all every website I visit just shows me a bunch of sweaty dudes in pajamas.

      They're using wooden controllers (!) and even worse, they're outside. Is this a beta? wtf

      Be careful, adult videos/websites are *really* going to confuse you... Similar wooden controllers though.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    5. Re:What kind of hardware do I need to play this? by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

      Nah, you're just looking at pro-level play, where they have all sorts of insane rules and handicaps (e.g. wooden controllers) since the game engine is easily broken by typical high-level play. Most normal players aren't good enough to break anything even if we tried, so we use aluminum controllers, are drunk half the time, wear whatever the hell we feel like wearing, and wait until the ball of fire is no longer in the sky before we play.

      As for what it is, it's best described as an MMO analog ARG consisting of 9-stage, PvP, tank-and-spank matches. The only quirk you really need to look out for is that the person designated to do the spanking is labeled as a "batter", and if they succeed in getting their "hit" debuff on the target, they become a "runner". When the field gets flipped, as it does once in each stage of the fight, your team is responsible for tanking the damage from the batter/runner without allowing them to succeed in landing a "run" on your team.

    6. Re:What kind of hardware do I need to play this? by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      I've been trying to download this "baseball" game all morning and all every website I visit just shows me a bunch of sweaty dudes in pajamas.

      They're using wooden controllers (!) and even worse, they're outside. Is this a beta? wtf

      http://kyoto-report.wikidot.com/local--files/baseball-nes/NesBaseball.png you need a nintendo. the pitcher is the guy in the middle(it's not a bar! it's not a tapper clone!).

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
  16. everybody does it by alen · · Score: 1

    batters kick dirt onto the batters box to make it harder to call a strike
    catchers call the pitch and jump in or outward just before its thrown. or move their glove after its caught to increase the amount of strikes
    pitchers are always rubbing their sweaty heads right before throwing the ball

    in the end it doesn't really help. a good pitcher is good for 100 some pitches. but these tough guys are always telling the manager they are OK in the 6th inning right before they give up a bunch of runs. or a few pitchers will get injured and the rest of the staff has to take up the slack with less rest. a starting pitcher needs close to a week of rest after a game. a few injured players will tire out your pitching staff and result in more runs given up

    fatigue and acting tough has a much greater effect on the game than foreign substances

    1. Re:everybody does it by gottabeme · · Score: 1

      The batter's box is not used to call strikes. That's what the plate is for.

      The catcher giving a sign to the pitcher is not cheating. The catcher moving behind the plate is not cheating. The catcher moving his glove is not cheating.

      The pitcher rubbing his head is not cheating unless he's applying a foreign substance to the ball. Sweat is not a foreign substance.

      Pitchers used to pitch 9+ innings on 3 days rest. Then they invented closers and setup men and pitch counts. And then they had to invent Tommy John surgery.

      --
      "Those who consume the bulk of goods are those who make them. We must never forget this secret of our prosperity."
  17. Wait..LOL WUT? by ArhcAngel · · Score: 3, Funny

    So the guy has an ethical dilemma with an out pitch but not with becoming an attorney? I have yet to meet an attorney that didn't employ at least a few ethically questionable tactics.

    --
    "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
    1. Re:Wait..LOL WUT? by Bill_the_Engineer · · Score: 2

      It's called saving face. The coach didn't have much faith in his skill and encouraged scuffing the ball to improve his performance. In the end, he did right thing. Instead of resorting to cheating to improve his chances of making it to the major leagues, he realized his limitations and chose a new career path instead. He decided to become a lawyer. Lawyers know how to put a positive spin on anything, and he demonstrates how he is a natural.

      --
      These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
    2. Re:Wait..LOL WUT? by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

      I have actually met some ethical lawyers. They aren't Johnny Cochrane, they also aren't Atticus Finch, but many of them do very ordinary things like draw up contracts that accurately describe the agreements their bosses came to. There are also guys like Lawrence Lessig and Ray Beckermann (NewYorkCountryLawyer) who try to put their skills to use for what they see as the greater good.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    3. Re:Wait..LOL WUT? by ArhcAngel · · Score: 1

      I never said I hadn't met a lawyer who used their power for good. Even the good ones employ devious tactics at some point. Kind of a nature of the beast thing. I also don't doubt there are lawyers who do not use said tactics but their numbers are statistically insignificant.

      --
      "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
    4. Re:Wait..LOL WUT? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I never said I hadn't met a lawyer who used their power for good. Even the good ones employ devious tactics at some point. Kind of a nature of the beast thing. I also don't doubt there are lawyers who do not use said tactics but their numbers are statistically insignificant.

      There is a considerable difference between "devious" and "illegal", and last time I checked, asking a pitcher to modify the very object used in the game was not allowed by any stretch of the imagination.

    5. Re:Wait..LOL WUT? by niado · · Score: 1

      I also don't doubt there are lawyers who do not use said tactics but their numbers are statistically insignificant.

      I'm pretty sure a large portion of lawyers basically spend their careers drawing up contracts and filing bankruptcy's and other mundane things, with little opportunity to employ shady tactics.

      But I'm being pedantic here - everyone gets your point.

    6. Re:Wait..LOL WUT? by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      The entire profession is absent ethics. They love the argument, not the Truth.

      --
      Good-bye
    7. Re:Wait..LOL WUT? by ArhcAngel · · Score: 1

      asking a pitcher to modify the very object used in the game was not allowed by any stretch of the imagination.

      But it is still not "illegal". Taking steroids isn't illegal either. They are banned by many professional sports. The fines and penalties imposed are by the organizations that govern their respective sports.

      --
      "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
    8. Re:Wait..LOL WUT? by Zordak · · Score: 1

      And what is the Truth, since you seem to know so much about both the legal profession and the Truth? I once litigated a patent case where a key infringement question was whether a headphone whose rear cavity was sufficiently leaky had a meaningful acoustical compliance that could be compared to another acoustical compliance. One side said yes, the other side said no. There were no textbooks that addressed the exact configuration in question. Both sides had experts. I was genuinely thoroughly convinced that our side was right, and I thought our expert was more qualified. But it never crossed my mind to accuse opposing counsel of misconduct because they espoused a credible position that was favorable to their client and that I disagreed with. The case settled, so there was never a final determination of which side was right. But since you have the key to all Truth in the universe, perhaps you could share with me the True Answer to this puzzle.

      By the way, you miss the whole point of what lawyers do in litigation. (Plenty of lawyers write contracts all day. All I do these days is write patent applications all day.) They are not there to search for some final, objective Truth. Usually, there is no final, objective Truth. They are there as advocates. Their purpose is to make the best case they can for the one of many possible interpretations of law or facts that is most favorable to their clients.

      In other words, if you are searching for some ultimate, philosophical Truth, call a priest. If you are searching for a falsifiable model of an objective phenomenon, call a scientist. If you have been accused of, for example, "Reckless Endangerment," and you want somebody who will zealously argue that your particular behavior was not "reckless" according to the statutory definition, hire a lawyer.

      --

      Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
    9. Re:Wait..LOL WUT? by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      Fair enough. I overstated and got smacked for it. I dont like the adversarial nature of court, it can make things cloudy and introduces ego into the equation. I realize its a big dance with many subtle movements and I clumsily stumbled in my statement.

      --
      Good-bye
  18. control of the ball trumps foreign substances by alen · · Score: 1

    having the ball fly crazy won't make the batter try to hit it. a good pitcher like Justin verlander has control of the ball. he can aim a pitch onto the outside of the strike zone to trick the batter. a good pitcher will know the batter's habits and style of swing and adjust his pitches for that.

    a good batter will avoid swinging at a bad pitch

    sounds like this guy did a study on a few pitchers who had no chance to make it to the majors and tried to cheat their way in which would not have worked anyway since the worst major league hitters are as good as the best Triple-A hitters

    1. Re:control of the ball trumps foreign substances by dkleinsc · · Score: 2

      a good pitcher will know the batter's habits and style of swing and adjust his pitches for that. a good batter will avoid swinging at a bad pitch

      Yogi Berra said it better: "Good pitching beats good hitting, and vice versa."

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    2. Re:control of the ball trumps foreign substances by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Lets not forget, most batters have decided to swing before the ball is released.
      For most swings, their is no conscious decision to swing once the pitcher finished the wind up. Not enough time. less then .5 seconds.

      Anything you can do to the ball that hides the pitchers intent hurt the batters odds of a hit.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    3. Re:control of the ball trumps foreign substances by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Your first two sentences are way off. Maybe in the lowest levels of the game this would possibly be true, mostly for kids who weren't all that great at hitting in the first place. If you're trying out for teams beyond junior high and above and you're doing this, you're very lucky.

      Here's a good breakdown of a pitch from a former major league hitter/coach.

      http://www.exploratorium.edu/baseball/biobaseball.html

      Your last sentence is spot on though.

  19. What is Baseball? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is this Baseball game something that is on Windows 8 or something new on 8.1?

    1. Re:What is Baseball? by Cito · · Score: 1

      I think it will require the new DirectX 12 from Windows 9.0 so you may want to wait :)

      Windows ME 2.0 relabeled as Win 8 isn't powerful enough to play baseball yet.

  20. Says the guy who didn't make it to the show by Gothmolly · · Score: 1, Insightful

    So a minor leaguer who didn't cut the mustard decides that everyone in the Majors is cheating? Color me surprised.

    --
    I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
    1. Re:Says the guy who didn't make it to the show by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Cheating isn't his excuse, it's his observation from the time he played (his coaches told him how to cheat), and from watching the game at the top level. At no point does he say the cheats prevented him from becoming a pro. Type reading next time, or do you always want to come across as a complete tosser?

      If you don't believe him, read the fucking report and dispute it.

    2. Re:Says the guy who didn't make it to the show by alen · · Score: 1

      check out his stats on fangraphs.com
      he wasn't good enough to make it to the big leagues. he started in AA where he did OK. in Triple-A his numbers dropped and that was it.

      chances are a lot of guys cheat, but which ones? are the best ones who make it to the pro's cheat? most likely not since your average MLB hitter won't swing at most pitches that fly erratically. sure he'll get a few who do, but most average hitters will blow him out of the game

    3. Re:Says the guy who didn't make it to the show by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      most likely not since your average MLB hitter won't swing at most pitches that fly erratically

      Yu Darvish and every knuckleballer ever would like a word with you...

    4. Re:Says the guy who didn't make it to the show by bobthesungeek76036 · · Score: 1

      Yu Darvish and every knuckleballer ever would like a word with you...

      Good luck understanding him...

      --
      Karma: Bad
    5. Re:Says the guy who didn't make it to the show by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 1

      most likely not since your average MLB hitter won't swing at most pitches that fly erratically. sure he'll get a few who do, but most average hitters will blow him out of the game

      Mariano Rivera has made a Hall of Fame career out of a single pitch that delivers an erratic flight-pattern.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    6. Re:Says the guy who didn't make it to the show by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The cutter isn't that unpredictable; Mo just perfected its delivery to jam batters and produce soft outs.

    7. Re:Says the guy who didn't make it to the show by MouseTheLuckyDog · · Score: 1

      Maybe he didn't do so well in triple A because he refused to cheat unlike his teammates who cheated and piled up better stats.

    8. Re:Says the guy who didn't make it to the show by gottabeme · · Score: 1

      A cutter is not erratic. It's very controllable, that's why he can use it effectively. What makes it hard to hit is that its movement is very late.

      A knuckleball is erratic.

      --
      "Those who consume the bulk of goods are those who make them. We must never forget this secret of our prosperity."
  21. They need to adopt the NACSAR rule by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 1

    If you ain't cheaten, you ain't winnin.

    --
    I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    1. Re:They need to adopt the NACSAR rule by Nukenbar · · Score: 1

      If you are not cheating, you are just cheating yourself.

    2. Re:They need to adopt the NACSAR rule by Zynder · · Score: 1

      If you're not first, you're last! Woooooooooooo!

  22. Re:who needs to cheat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    If you took a line drive to the nads, I bet you'd cry.

  23. How to fix the drug enhancement issue by geekoid · · Score: 1

    Everyone gets tested after a game, any single person come sup positive, then game is considered a loss. Happens twice, they give up 25% of merchandising for a year.

    Make it an incentive for the owners to fix it, and the owners will fix it.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    1. Re:How to fix the drug enhancement issue by geekmux · · Score: 1

      Everyone gets tested after a game, any single person come sup positive, then game is considered a loss. Happens twice, they give up 25% of merchandising for a year.

      Make it an incentive for the owners to fix it, and the owners will fix it.

      End result: Every single team purposely throws a "cheater" into the drug testing mix, resulting in losses for every single team. Happens twice, and the entire franchise is dinged 25% on merchandising, causing the merchandisers to be punished, creating a 30% markup to account for losses. Fans are the ones ultimately punished.

      C'mon man, you gotta do better than that. I promise you that is what would happen when billions are at stake. They would band together quicker than oil companies fixing gas prices just to break that system in half and go back to the "good ol' days".

  24. If you can throw. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you can throw the ball 100 mph in the strike zone, you throw the ball 100 mph in the strike zone.

    If you can't you whine about it and write sour grapes crap that ends up on Slashdot.

    1. Re:If you can throw. by MouseTheLuckyDog · · Score: 1

      As a Cub fan who saw a really great opportunity pass by, I can say that Greg Maddux almost never threw at 100 miles per hour. Hell a lot of the time he didn't even hit 90 mph.

  25. I know people who think all pro-sports are fixed by mark-t · · Score: 1

    ... and would chalk up players who are "caught" cheating as all part of how the games are rigged, done solely to keep fans interested in the game by trying to reinforce the notion to the fans that it's not fixed.

  26. Axiom to live by in sports and life. by doubledown00 · · Score: 1

    "If you're not cheating, you're not trying."

  27. OUTSIDE?? by washort · · Score: 3, Funny

    Aren't there bears outside?

    1. Re:OUTSIDE?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yes, but you can see them in really high def 3d

    2. Re:OUTSIDE?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I keep all my bears inside.

  28. Third type of cheating by puddingebola · · Score: 2

    I think he left out a third category of cheating: cheating that transcends the sport and becomes an object of admiration among fans. The textbook example would be Gaylord Perry. One of the more interesting sports interviews I've heard involved Perry describing his elaborate routines to keep the opposition guessing where he had hidden a gob of vaseline. Apparently there were people on the opposing team whose job it was to watch him during the game and try to catch him cheating. The vaseline, of course, moved from his pant leg, to his cap, to the back of his neck, which he rubbed to loosen up... etc. I agree with a previous post that the economic rewards are too large to stop it, but I admire the author of this article of refusing to take part. It is possible, I think, however, for people to become so accustomed to cheating that they accept some forms of it as part of the game. Gaylord perry demonstrating a spitter: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXLc8hKoaBw

    1. Re:Third type of cheating by wilby · · Score: 1

      I agree, Gaylord Perry got an advantage by making the opponent worry about his "cheating".
      It gave him a mental edge.
      A baseball coach once said the difference between AAA (minor league) and the majors is between the ears.

    2. Re:Third type of cheating by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And yet Gaylord Perry is in the Hall of Fame. Way to go BBWAA!

    3. Re:Third type of cheating by MouseTheLuckyDog · · Score: 1

      I have to admit that I am bothered that Perry achieved the success he did, but I seem to remember interviews after his career was over, where he said that a lot of the time he succeeded because of opponents being distracted by their concern over how he was cheating even when he didn't.

  29. Background explanations for Europeans & others by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve · · Score: 1

    "The Show" = Big Leagues = Major League Baseball, the highest professional baseball league.

    Note that there is no question at all that MLB is the best professional baseball league. This is not like soccer/football where fans night argue that the EPL or Bundesliga or La Liga or some other league is the best. MLB to every other baseball league is like the EPL to MLS or worse.

    The fact that Broshuis (his name is misspelled on the original post) was asked to cheat is a good indicator that on talent alone he wasn't good enough for MLB. I found his minor league record and at the highest level of minor league baseball, AAA, (consider this to be something like playing soccer/football in Football League Championship in England) he barely played and was bad. He played quite a bit in AA, which is the league below AAA, and had mixed results. I've seen worse for sure, but nothing in his stats was so great, even at his best, that it looked like he was going to be a future pitcher in MLB. He barely got a chance in AAA (3 games) which to me strongly suggests that his organization gave up on him being a serious candidate for MLB and gave him a very quick test to see if he might be better than they thought, and he wasn't.

  30. Re:Background explanations for Europeans & oth by Spudley · · Score: 1

    The fact that Broshuis (his name is misspelled on the original post) was asked to cheat is a good indicator that on talent alone he wasn't good enough for MLB.

    Hmmm, well that assumes that everyone else is playing honestly.

    If his assertion of rampant cheating is accurate then no, it doesn't indicate anything.

    --
    (Spudley Strikes Again!)
  31. Lance is a loser. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lance is a loser. I hear Sheryl Crow broke up with him because he didn't have enough stamina in bed!

    1. Re:Lance is a loser. by Cito · · Score: 1

      the poor boy only has 1 testicle... what do you expect

      of course he only lasts 'half' as long now.

  32. People still watch baseball? by fredrated · · Score: 1

    Who knew?

  33. sports scholarships are stupid by Frankie70 · · Score: 0

    A baseball scholarship put my wife's oldest brother through an engineering degree.

    That's remarkably stupid isn't it. You get a chance to do study engineering because of your proficiency in baseball.

    Is there anything more stupid?

    1. Re:sports scholarships are stupid by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      The cost of a college degree?

      Perhaps if there was some way to offset it. Say by playing a game that entertains lots of other people who would pay to see it.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    2. Re:sports scholarships are stupid by nbauman · · Score: 1

      You get a chance to do study engineering because of your proficiency in baseball.

      Is there anything more stupid?

      Getting a chance to study engineering in order to build nuclear-armed ICBMs to blow up the world.

      (I get your point. But you asked.)

    3. Re:sports scholarships are stupid by Aerokii · · Score: 1

      Man uses skill to pay for education which furthers his knowledge in his desired field.

      I'm not sure I see the problem.

  34. I have an idea by slashmydots · · Score: 1

    Since baseball is pretty much 1% playtime, 99% dicking around, they should eat into the 99% by inspecting every single thrown ball, lol.

  35. So You're Saying That Democracy Is Doomed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's the most corrupt system of government in the world...except for all the other systems.

  36. Unenforceable rules by dpidcoe · · Score: 1

    The problem with baseball is that it's designed such that a lot of the rules become so straw splitting as to be unenforceable.

    You're not allowed to spit on the ball, but what if it's raining or your fingers are sweaty? It's not like it's harmful to anyone or giving an unfair advantage, since all the pitchers can do it (unless someone has some kind of condition that prevents them from generating saliva or something)

    Basically this creates an environment in which players can't really see the reason for the rule and the thing is so vague and arbitrary that they don't see the big deal in breaking it. Break a bunch of small ones and suddenly "cheating" in bigger ways seems par for the course.

    If they want to fix it, they need to start allowing more things so that they can really start cracking down on the stuff that's actually giving an unfair advantage.

    1. Re:Unenforceable rules by dtmos · · Score: 1

      You're not allowed to spit on the ball, but what if it's raining or your fingers are sweaty?

      If it's raining, all surfaces of the ball will be equally wet, and its trajectory will be unaffected.
      Having wet fingers is insufficient to affect the flight path of the ball -- the ball must be really loaded up with sputum, on exactly one side, to affect the flight of the ball.

  37. Doctoring the ball .... by King_TJ · · Score: 2

    While I think the performance-enhancing drugs take things way too far, I don't know how much of an ethical dilemma I see with such tactics as figuring out a way to scuff up the baseball before throwing it, to try to achieve some unpredictability?

    I'd tend to side more with the "it's just part of the game" camp on that, because when it comes right down to it? It's all about making it as difficult as you can for the batter to hit what you throw at him. A regulation baseball has certain parameters to it that can't be changed without substituting it for a modified ball, and to me THAT'S where you'd want to draw the line on what's allowed. I mean, if the weight of the ball is drastically altered or you use a smaller or larger ball, that's just as much a change as, say, scooting the bases closer together on the field.

    As far as I'm concerned, I'd rather see the rest of it just be out in the open. Say "No, we simply don't CARE if you think you have some secret tactic to gouge up the ball a little bit or scuff up its surface before pitching it. Go for it if you think it helps you!" You're always going to have small changes that potentially give small advantages to those who take advantage of them. I'm pretty sure there are certain types of shoes with certain cleat patterns which wind up giving some slight advantage over others too. Are we going to get so anal, we require only shoes with soles matching a precise pattern and dimensions, or else it's "cheating"?

    (And honestly, even on the whole drugs issue? The biggest reason I have any problem with that is because it wasn't widely in use or even available in previous generations -- yet part of the game involves tracking records and seeing who is talented enough to break them over time. It's not a fair "A to B" comparison anymore between the "old time greats" and today's players, if the modern players are all juiced up. If the sport actually came out and said, "We consider performance enhancing drugs to be fair play." and ALSO said a line would be drawn where old statistics were "frozen in time" and everything effectively started over? Then I'd be hard pressed to find a reason to call it "cheating" anymore. (I might not like the fact it encourages people to treat their own bodies as disposable for the purpose of getting a little more of an edge in the game ... but that's each individual's own decision to make.)

    1. Re:Doctoring the ball .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whatever... you are one of the people that say the baseball follows a perfect parabolic arc as it approaches home plate, the curveball is just an illusion. The crazy thing is, is that you can be bought for $5,000 and you don't even know it. Oh that's right you already were. Bend over bitch.

  38. Re:who needs to cheat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But lots of whining.

  39. False positives by dtmos · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Everyone gets tested after a game, any single person come sup [sic] positive, then game is considered a loss. Happens twice, they give up 25% of merchandising for a year.

    Fine, except that the tests are not perfect, and false positives exist. Think about it -- suppose the test was 99% accurate, but produced 1% false positives. There are 25 people on an MLB team, and the team plays an average of 6.3 games per week. That's an average of 25 * 6.3 = 157.5 tests per team per week, which will produce an average of 1.575 false positives per team per week, or 1.575 * 26 = almost 41 false positives in a 26-week season. Per team.

    There are 30 teams in MLB, so under your proposal one is looking at (157.5 tests per team per week) * (30 teams) * (26 weeks per season) = 122,850 drug tests every season. The false positive rate would have to get down into the parts per million range to do anything other than punish random team owners for the finite quality of drug tests. The effect could, in fact, be counterproductive; with so many false positives, the actual drug users could be emboldened to hide among them.

  40. Re:who needs to cheat by RabidReindeer · · Score: 1

    There's no crying in Baseball!!!

    They should rename it to Mutantball. Apparently, baseball, like many other sports, is no longer playable competitively by normal human beings.

  41. Re:who needs to cheat by RabidReindeer · · Score: 1

    Nah but its only popular because it's the place public drunkeness is allowed in American culture. After all it's not like you go to watch a non-stop exciting game.

    That's what football is for. The Florida-Georgia game's nickname is "the World's Largest Outdoor Cocktail Party".

  42. Re:who needs to cheat by AdamWill · · Score: 2

    And yet the original wasn't called humanball, and whatever drugs are involved, the game still definitely involves bases.

  43. Cheating from a Game Theory perspective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The cheater is always self-penalized, on a subconscious level, no matter whether it is baseball, an online game, politics, finance, industry, arts, etc. When one cheats, they are imprinting a subconscious self-suggestion which says "I'm useless" and this unobserved fact, cripples their potential for life: http://www.scribd.com/doc/144527545

  44. cheating not new by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    5 to ten years aga i watched the kentucky derby live on tv.
    after the win someone with a shoulder cam i presume from the network records some one(heavey set man in a grey suite)
    walking up to the horse and rider and shaking hands.
    but it was'nt a hand shake,it was a hand off.
    the rider placed something in his hand.
    on the last stretch the rider and horse went from being back going very fast to ludicriss speed.
    i believe the rider handed off a zapper.(stun gun for horses,wont knock em out but will get a last minute surge from them.)
    now i seen this live on tv.
    many others had to have seen it.
    but nothing.
    i thought the powers that be would have nailed it.
    nope.
    cheating in sports is the norm.
    regards
    mike

  45. Cheating by manu0601 · · Score: 1

    I am not familiar with this game, and I fail to understand what cheat TFA is about. To cheat, you must break a rule. What is the broken rule?

  46. how can he have ethics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    when he is a law school student?

  47. Sportsmen Cheat ... by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

    Wow, the betting shills at the side of the Roman Colloseum will be shocked, SHOCKED I tell you!! that this could happen. They thought that it had been stamped-out by the invasion of the accountants.

    --
    Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  48. Who really is hurt? by IndieVoter · · Score: 1

    Cheating and lying is rampant in all facets of human existence. As a society that is totally outward focused, that is we only care about what other say about us, the only harm in lying or cheating is getting caught. We have a number of convenient outs for our actions... usually involving similar acts by others.

  49. cheap jordan shoes,Air max shoes,sunglasses sale by top+replica+rolex · · Score: 1

    YOU MUST NOT MISS IT! The website cheap wholesale and retail for many kinds of fashion shoes, like the nike,jordan, also including the handbags,sunglasses,jeans,shirts,hat,belt and the watch, All the products are free shipping, and the price is competitive, after the payment, can ship within short time. the goods are shipping by air express, such as EMS,DHL,the shipping time is in 5-7 business days! http://www.sport3trade.net/ cheap jordan for $40, Air Max 90 for $41, air shox for $40, best handbags for $39, Sunglasses for $18, wallet for $19, belt for $18, T-shirts for $20, Jeans for $39, NFL/MLB/NBA jersey for $25, Top Rolex watch,jordan for cheap, http://www.sport3trade.net/