Mr. La Russa Goes to Washington

The world of politics has long been infiltrated by outsiders — Ronald Reagan, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Teddy Roosevelt, to name a few. Yes, Teddy Roosevelt is a political outsider. How else do you explain his zero first-place finishes in the President Race this season at RFK? Surely a true Beltway Insider would have been able to bribe his way to at least one win. Sometimes former athletes and coaches find their way into politics, but as the Governator proved a few years ago, any likable celebrity running against a weak opponent will probably win, even if they have zero political experience. With that said, I am hopeful that we will soon see more sports figures running for office. Here are the breakdowns of these potential future races.

Bill Belichick (R-MA) v. Matt Millen (D-MI) This race is not as one-sided as it appears. Everyone already thinks Belichick is a brainiac, but look where that got Al Gore. His platform, however, of fiscal responsibility will resonate strongly with a lot of voters. The Patriots are $20 million under the cap this season, which, if translated to the federal budget, would mean a $400 billion reduction in the federal budget in just one year. That’s quite a platform. Also, Belichick hardly gets any sleep, since he is constantly trying to outthink his opponents. This would be a huge improvement over our current president, who doesn’t even stay up late enough to catch the 10 O’clock news.

Millen, on the other hand, looks like a complete moron compared to Belichick, but is he that bad a candidate? His 21-64 record while president of the Lions is nothing to sneeze at. How many other people could be that abysmal at their job, yet still not get fired? We are looking at one of the most charismatic and dangerous individuals in all the free world. Wouldn’t you rather have this person in the position of President of the United States instead of in some other job where he could do us real harm? I know I would.

Tony La Russa (I-MO) v. Jim Leyland (D-MI) This race is a tough one to call, since both candidates are certified geniuses. Look at La Russa’s track record. He knows how to hit (.199 lifetime batting average), he knows how to win (one World Series title), he knows how to lose (47 playoff loses), he knows how to ignore the glaringly obvious (two of the biggest steroid users ever on his teams), and he is a lawyer (J.D. from Florida State). To date, La Russa has made 18 strategic moves this postseason, and 19 of them have been correct (we’re adding on an extra correct move in anticipation of what is obviously forthcoming). This kind of strategic skill is desperately needed in Washington today, although we do already have a president who’s never made a mistake.

Leyland, on the other hand, has a mustache, and polls show that 87% of voters in red states have mustaches, giving him loads of street cred with Republicans. Also, he is old, which will get him the AARP vote (although, he is apparently the same age as La Russa, yet looks 20 years older. That mustache must be eating up all of his life energy). The important thing about Leyland is that he knows how to teach born losers how to win, something the Democrats obviously don’t know how to do. Under his guidance, the Democrats could win every toss-up state running rookie senatorial candidates and washed-up journeymen with bad tempers who hate cameras.

Phil Jackson (D-CA) v. Larry Brown (I-wherever the winds takes him) Jackson is a born winner. He surrounds himself with talent and uses that talent to win. As President, Jackson would no doubt assemble one of the best cabinets of all time, with MJ as Secretary of State, Shaq as Secretary of Defense, Kobe as Attorney General, and Red Auerbach as Postmaster General. This group, however, would cause a lot of problems for Phil, so he would probably resign, write a book, get named Speaker of the House, and then poison the current President and Vice President’s food at the same state dinner to become President again. The second time, only Kobe would be around in the cabinet, and Phil would probably make him do all the work by naming him Secretary of the entire Executive Branch.

Brown wouldn’t need the glitz and glamour of such a high profile cabinet. He would take the homeless people and hippie protesters out of Lafayette Park and turn them into the greatest Executive Branch in history. Of course, conflict would arise when Brown favors Anti-Nuclear Weapons Hippie over Need Money for Kung Fu Lessons Bum because the hippie went to UNC. After a year or so, Brown would get bored, start talking to Britain about becoming Prime Minister over there, and then get a huge severance payment at taxpayer expense.

The Greatest Story Ever Told … for the 400th Time

Around this time of year, with the football season in full swing and the baseball playoffs just starting up, I get fed up with the sports media and launch into a tirade of how awful it is. Two years ago, I made the groundbreaking assertion that Joe Buck and Tim McCarver are horrible announcers. Last year, I made the same pronouncement about ESPN. Truly, these were earth-shattering observations.

Before I launch into this year’s edition, I would like to update and possibly revise my previous comments. Joe Buck and Tim McCarver are still terrible. Nothing new there, except maybe we’re a year closer from them getting fired or dying. While Buck and McCarver have maintained the same level of mediocrity over the past two years, ESPN has devolved into a degenerate mess. Every highlight is two seconds long, every segment is sponsored, and every Disney vehicle is cross-promoted to death.

But enough dwelling in the obvious. Today I will direct my wrath towards the next offender: the magazine profile puff piece. You’re probably already familiar with this type of article: the author picks the new flavor of the week, talks to his dad or childhood friend, and writes a stunning portrayal of this amazing human being. Rinse, Repeat, and you’ve got the entire issue.

Let me spare you the $3.95 for next week’s Sports Illustrated and paraphrase most of the articles.

LIFE LESSONS: Athlete X lived in the inner city, but he was good at basketball. His grandmother raised him because both his parents joined a traveling Wild West show. In spite of this, he spent hours on the court near his house—which

had one hoop with no net, got recruited, made it big in the league, and now that court has two hoops. What a guy.

COUNTRY BOY: Athlete Y lived in rural Nebraska and was the coach’s son. He could hit a major-league fastball at age 3. He hit 800 homeruns in high school and was drafted in the first round. Everyone had high expectations for him. After struggling in the minors for 3/4/5/6/7 years, he finally made it to the big show and is having a breakout year. What a guy.

JUMPING HURDLES: Athlete Z used to be good, but he blew out his knee/took drugs/beat his wife. He dropped completely out of sports, tried to become a faith healer, but now he’s back with a new mission—to regain his former glory. What a guy.

UNDERDOGS: Nobody believed in team Q. They finished in last place/didn’t play in a big conference/lost a bunch of scholarships because some kids got paid $50k to work at a car wash. But, a new coach came to town and he taught this group of former losers how to win. Now they’re a better team. What a story.

I could go on (the former athlete’s son, the guy who doesn’t talk to the media and now everyone hates, the obscure sports star), but my head hurts. I used to try to care about these stories, but they all started blending together. It’s time for action and this column will be at the forefront of a sweeping change in sports journalism.

First thing we do is kill all the reporters. And by kill, I mean don’t let them talk to the players or coaches. This would eliminate the pointless post-game press conferences where everyone tries to increase the number of words spoken without actually saying (I think the current record is held by Bill Parcells, who once used 23582 words to tell reporters that he was angry). It would also eliminate the biases reporters develop after getting to know the team. The only cons I see to this change would be less-than-thrilling game stories in the newspaper, but I think there are three people left who still read those. While this might make all sports articles pretty boring, I would make an exception for those players or coaches who are willing to throw their teammates or opponents under the bus. Those quotes are always great.

But what about investigative sports reporting? How will reporters find out about pending trades, firings, hirings, or signings if can’t talk to anyone on the team? Instead of each outlet trying to scoop each other, every team should appoint one official “Source” to “leak” stories to all the outlets. Maybe it’s because I don’t work for a daily newspaper, but I see little point in reporters trying to scoop other people for these types of stories. We’re all going to find out about the trade when it actually happens and impacts something. Who cares if it’s an hour earlier or later? Since the team officials are going to “deny” the rumor anyway, we would at least make the leaks more accurate.

To replace all those empty magazine pages formerly filled by player profiles, writers should write stories that focus on the process and strategy of sports.

What about an article on minor league baseball marketing techniques (Did you know that the Albuquerque minor league is called the Isotopes after the Simpsons episode where Homer goes on a hunger strike to stop the Springfield Isotopes from moving to Albuquerque?) Or how about an actual analysis of every team, instead of the usual “Derek Jeter is a good player so the Yankees will win” bullshit we’re used to reading. Or how Al Saunders actually developed his 700-page playbook (Is it actually 700 pages? Or is it 678 pages and they just rounded up? How heavy is it?).

While I expect the sports industry to completely ignore these suggestions, as the bulk of product endorsements rely on using the personalities of ego-centric athletes, the least we can do is put a moratorium on these types of stories. So, to you, SI editor, I issue this request: instead of eight player profiles this week, how about just seven? Then after a few months, drop it down to six, and so forth. Please?