Tag Archive: Column

  1. JANES: This season could be one of Yale’s most successful

    25 Comments

    This could be one of the best years in Yale sports history.

    Tragedy and off-field issues have distracted from a year loaded with success and potential — and rightfully so — but with statements made, investigations underway and the facts as straight as anyone can hope to get them, it’s time to shift the focus back to the games.

    Do so, and you’ll see what I mean: this really could be one of the best years in Yale sports history. And I’m not just saying that out of my sometimes unrealistic but always well-intended Yale-superfan optimism. The stats don’t lie.

    In the 55 years since the Ivy League began play in sports other than football, Yale’s high-water mark for conference-championship success has been eight. The Bulldogs won eight titles in a single academic year twice in that span, once in the first season of Ancient Eight play, 1956-’57, once in the 1980-’81 season.

    Yale has brought home seven titles in an academic year just four times in that nearly half-a-century span. The first came in the 1958-’59 year, the second in the 1978-’79 season, and the third in the 1989-’90 season. The fourth seven-win season was, you may be surprised to hear, last year.

    Now, keep in mind that the first women’s Ivy League Championships were held in the 1973-’74 season, and the gravity of last year’s success grows. That year, the only women’s sport in competition was crew (title won by the now-incorporated Radcliffe), and it would take until the 1976-’77 season for even six women’s championships to be contested, when basketball, gymnastics, ice hockey, swimming and track and field were added to the mix.

    Take that 1976-’77 year, then, as the first that the Ivy League Championships landscape began to resemble its current self, and last year’s success was, arguably, the fourth-best season in Yale’s history in the Ivy League.

    Surprising? Perhaps. But only because last year’s success wasn’t anything out of the ordinary. The titles were spread among teams we expected to win (men’s ice hockey, volleyball) and teams we — rather unfairly — forget win so regularly (the squashes, golf teams, and so on). Women’s tennis’s run to a share of the Ivy title was certainly memorable, but not so improbable that anyone could be prompted to say Yale had overachieved. The Bulldogs’ historic success last year was the product of teams for whom success has become, quite simply, unsurprising.

    As such, this success was likely underappreciated, and few people probably realize the unique position in which the athletic department finds itself this season.

    From the title perspective, we’re ahead of last year’s pace. The field hockey team, which broke through after 30 years to claim its second title in school history, joined volleyball as fall, 2011 champions. By Feb. 7, 2011, Yale held one Ivy title. As of Feb. 8, 2012, we hold two.

    Now I know what you’re thinking: that stat means nothing when there’s so much work to be done. And you’re right: projecting all of last year’s champions to repeat is perhaps not wise. But it’s not completely unrealistic.

    Let’s go step-by-step starting with squash. The men’s team is currently ranked No. 1 nationally, and the women No. 2. Not No. 1 in the Ivy League — the country. Though the men dropped a somewhat surprising match to then-No. 3 Princeton last weekend, it’s important to note that All American superstar No. 2 Hywel Robinson ’13 was injured for that showdown, which caused some last-minute shifts in the Yale ladder heading into a tough road match. Either way, the loss means the Bulldogs need some help from Cornell and Columbia, Princeton’s final Ivy League opponents, if they’re to grab a conference title. Even if they don’t get that help, however, a national title is on the table, and that epic win over then-No.1-for-13-years Trinity will be remembered for many seasons to come.

    The women are in better shape to repeat. Millie Tomlinson ’14 hasn’t lost a college match yet, and last year’s national individual champion keeps blowing through her competition, leading the undefeated Bulldogs into their toughest match of the season this weekend against No. 1 Harvard. The Crimson present the biggest obstacle between Yale and another Ivy League title, so this Sunday’s matchup at the Brady Squash Center will go along way towards determining whether or not the women’s squash team can add to this year’s title total.

    Now, on to golf. On the men’s side, the Bulldogs return three of their top-four finishers at last year’s Ivy League Championships, where the team dominated the field by 20 strokes to take home the title. Admittedly, the player not returning is a big deal: 2010-’11 captain and All-Ivy pick Tom McCarthy ’11. But even without McCarthy, Yale closed out its fall season with an impressive seventh-place showing at the Northeast Invitational (four spots ahead of last year’s finish), bolstered by the solid play of William Davenport ’15. He turned in a strong fall for Yale, and should help ease the loss of McCarthy.

    The women, too, lost a great force in their 2010-’11 captain, Alyssa Roland ’11, who was an individual Ivy League Champion as a sophomore. But the celestial sophomore duo of Seo Hee Moon, who has seven wins in her young career, and Sun Gyoung Park, Yale’s top finisher at the NCAA regional last year, should position the Bulldogs to make a run at another title. Harvard and Columbia have bolstered their rosters with some freshmen talent, but Yale will be a formidable opponent in its title defense.

    Women’s tennis has reached its highest ranking of 2012 this week, No. 35, thanks in large part to an upset win over then-No. 21 Notre Dame and a near-miss against No. 10 Michigan. As scary as it is for the rest of the Ivy League, the Bulldogs look better than last year — and are still improving — which bodes well for their title prospects.

    But beyond teams that won last season, there are others that could make a run at titles to push Yale to that eight-win mark or beyond in 2012. The men’s fencing team, for one, dropped a heartbreaking title match against Harvard last year by one point. The No. 10 Bulldogs get their chance at revenge this weekend as they host this year’s Ancient Eight Championships. Fencing is a sport to watch. The women have also been dominating of late, turning in convincing wins to build momentum into Saturday’s matches.

    Men’s lacrosse is always a team to watch, especially considering it comes into the 2012 season ranked 13th in the Inside Lacrosse national poll. The Elis will feature two Major League Lacrosse Draftees this season — Greg Mahony ’12 and 2011 All-American Matt Gibson ’12 — who were drafted last weekend.

    Yale baseball, which finished second in its division last year, will undoubtedly be hurt by the loss of a senior class that featured first baseman Trey Rallis ’11, last year’s Ivy League Player of the Year. But with a ton of talent in the freshmen class — particularly on the mound — and a lot of talented underclassmen in general, the Bulldogs could surprise some people in the Ivy League this year.

    Oh, and look out for Yale softball: just saying …

    Finally, it’s way too early to lose track of the winter sports just yet. Men’s basketball is just a game (okay, a win against No. 21 Harvard) out of first place, and gets another shot at the Crimson, albeit in Cambridge, Feb. 18. Win out, and the Elis will have a share in the Ivy crown and a playoff game with Harvard to decide the bid to the tourney.

    At 4–2 in conference play, women’s basketball is right in the hunt as well. The team may need some help around the league to chase down 5–0 Princeton, but Harvard (4–1) is well within reach, especially considering the Bulldogs have another trip through the Ivies remaining.

    Finally, there’s men’s hockey. Their quest for an Ivy League title, though bumpier than Yale fans, used to success, might be willing to tolerate, is far from over. The Bulldogs sit behind just two Ancient Eight teams entering this weekend: Harvard (four points up) and Cornell (nine points up). Yale plays both of those teams in its remaining schedule. Keep in mind that a win in either of those games makes up three points on either team, and the Bulldogs can still pull a title off. It’s not over for Yale hockey just yet.

    In other words, look out for Yale sports in the coming months, and start counting the Ivy titles as they come in. We’re ahead of schedule in some ways, behind in others, but nevertheless poised to make another push at Yale conference title history. And regardless of how many Championships come to New Haven in 2012, the fact that Bulldog teams are anywhere near duplicating last year’s historic success reveals a trend that means eight won’t be Yale’s highest title total for long.

  2. JANES: Light and truth and athletics

    Leave a Comment

    “Lux et Veritas.” Light and truth. Hard enough to find one at a time these days in college sports. But the combination? Nearly impossible.

    It’s hard consistently to find integrity in college sports. Blame money. Blame the lure of professional sports. No matter how you look at it, the old adage “A lie by omission is still a lie” is proving truer and deadlier than ever. Penn State, Ohio State, USC and countless others were all brought down because people knew the truth and failed to bring it to light.

    Ironically enough, this is especially valid for Yale athletics in light of accusations leveled against Patrick Witt.

    Let’s step back: I am not and would never suggest that the Witt issue is on a scale even close to what happened at Penn State or elsewhere. And I should take this opportunity to assure you that I don’t pretend to be an expert on the Witt saga by any means. No one, perhaps except Witt himself, is an expert. But this uncertainty is precisely why the comparison to Penn State and others is apt. The root of frustration here and there is exactly the same: no one knows anything.

    In an age when it’s easier than ever to know all the things that might be true, it’s harder than ever to know what is. It is absolutely unacceptable to quote six anonymous sources in a biased attack, warranted or not, of someone’s character (and I’m surprised the New York Times did). But quoting reliable sources on record in these cases is also impossible, simply because there are none willing to give their names.

    Even in the rare case that official statements are explicit and elucidating, no one believes they are the whole truth. We all know that the authorities making these statements on behalf of college athletes have agendas to protect their own — to uphold reputations and guard against legal ramifications.

    And who can blame them? Loyalty is admirable, and reputation is crucial. Alleged perpetrators refrain from comment. Their legal representation is cautiously vague. University policies keep the media at arm’s length in order to protect students. Teammates and friends close ranks around their own. The system for dealing with problems in college athletics puts a premium on silence.

    But that silence is becoming problematic. At Yale, in particular, even the justified firing of a coach or the tensions borne of a disappointing loss on the field are taboo subjects. No one wants to put a chink in the armor of the Athletic Department.

    I’m speaking as a Yale varsity athlete and one of Yale Athletics’ biggest fans. I never like to see a negative report about something that happens in our community, whether in on-field results or off-field missteps. But if a less than positive report is warranted, avoiding the truth or euphemizing about it is, quite simply, an insult to the intelligence of players and fans.

    In the Twitter era, media and fans are more equipped than ever to track down the information they want, and when the media doesn’t get information from sources that are authorized, official or reliable, readers try to find it elsewhere. A lack of transparency can be dangerous, as well as belittling to a community looking for facts. And in addition to the occasional scathing, unconfirmed report, media speculation breeds frustration and distrust. Let’s be honest: in the court of public opinion, nothing sparks the imagination more than the phrase “no comment.”

    We may understand why the accused in cases such as Witt’s don’t say anything, and within the current climate, his reluctance to provide clarity and the administration’s strict adherence to policy is expected. But if everyone did what was expected of them, why are that polarizing New York Times story, Witt’s official response and the truth still topics of heated conversation?

    The reason is that doing what’s expected of you simply isn’t enough in college sports anymore, and everyone senses it. Passing the buck, declining comment or conducting investigations doesn’t appease a curious community now empowered to hunt down information as never before.

    Nor should it.

    With the current prominence of college athletics, figures such as coaches and star quarterbacks are representatives of their schools. College communities have a right to know when these representatives make mistakes, just as they would with a corrupt professor or other prominent campus figure. In this day and age, student-athletes are visible representatives of their schools in ways most students might not experience. As they earn the support of their school communities, athletes are also accountable to them and must answer for their actions on and off the field, Whatever happened, Witt and others knew there was a problem before the Rhodes decision and before the Harvard-Yale game, and should have clarified all the factors going into his decision. I would never suggest that any information be revealed to compromise the alleged victim’s anonymity, but that a disciplinary issue was under investigation could have been good to know. Similarly, when former head football coach Tom Williams’s supposed Rhodes candidacy was brought up in conjunction with Witt’s, he should have corrected misconceptions immediately.

    At Yale, issues of on-field accountability are rarely problematic. And off-the-field issues here rarely garner the major attention that they do at higher profile sports schools, if only because of a lack of national interest and resulting lack of media attention. But regardless of whether incidents gain exposure or not, I’ve always thought it takes more strength and character to admit when you’re wrong than to try to cover up or minimize the mistake. That’s the attitude college athletes and their administrators, here and elsewhere, must start adopting in this hyper-critical media age.

    Our ancient motto says it all: it is by shedding light on the truth that we best preserve the integrity of our athletic department and university. Creating a climate of transparency makes controversies such as the one surrounding Witt easier to resolve, but it requires commitment from all members of the community to both telling the truth and respecting those situations where anonymity must be honored. Even the most active and knowledgeable of athletic administrators (and Tom Beckett fits that description) can’t know everything going on with coaches and players in a college atmosphere. Nor do coaches always have the full picture of what their players are doing. Players may face the gravest challenge of all — knowing when to blow the whistle on teammates or even coaches when things aren’t right. No good teammate would “rat out” another, but players and coaches must understand when action is merited. It’s a grey area that comes into focus better if transparency is the norm, rather than the exception. Idealistic? Maybe. But when a problem is big enough to affect the reputation of a team or the athletic department as a whole — or the safety of any of its members — the onus is on every single member of the athletic community to be forthcoming. There is no doubt that sensitive situations require discretion, but whenever possible without violating alleged victims’ rights, administrators, coaches and players must lean to the side of revelation. The Yale athletic department is far from scandal-ridden. But we’ve tasted the bitterness that can surround controversy, and we must learn from our mistakes. We can’t shy away from talking about problems, and in failing to acknowledge our shortcomings, we exacerbate them.

    It’s not easy to commit to accountability when so much rides on college sports. But there’s neither “lux” nor “veritas” in the way we and other college programs are often afraid to openly address these issues in our community, and the cycle must be broken. It’s not attacking our own to discuss off-field mistakes, personnel changes or on-field concerns: it is, rather, a display of faith. Faith in those who make mistakes to rectify them, faith in coaches and administrators to deal with them fairly and faith in the athletic community to judge its members intelligently. It’s like any other team: Yale athletics and college athletic departments in general (see Penn State…) are only as strong as their weakest link. And in the case of the controversy surrounding Pat Witt, it’s clear that many links broke down. Had anyone ­— Witt himself, an athletic department official or even an investigating member of the Rhodes committee — brought the fact that there were disciplinary issues to light during the media frenzy surrounding his decision, this would have played out very differently. The controversy would likely not be as heated, and the facts would be clearer. This all could have been done while being sensitive to all parties involved by protecting the anonymity of the alleged victim. That kind of transparency with discretion is the solution to a college sports environment struggling to balance integrity and loyalty to student-athletes and university employees. Separately, light and truth are powerful. Together, and with a dash of the sensitivity situations such as Witt’s require, they can extinguish the kind of explosive controversies plaguing college athletics.

  3. ETTINGER: New CBA will spell misery for small market teams

    Leave a Comment

    With labor peace comes structural change. It was true when the NFL and NBA ended their much-ballyhooed lockouts of 130 and 149 days, respectively. It was also true last Tuesday when MLB quietly signed the most impactful collective bargaining agreement in league history. Unfortunately for fans, players and most teams, the new agreement will dramatically change the game for the worse.

    Commissioner Bud Selig claims that the new collective bargaining agreement was designed to foster competitive balance between large and small market teams. Perhaps Mr. Selig is giving a political appraisal of a CBA clearly designed to slash costs for teams. Perhaps he simply fails to grasp the impacts of the agreement he just signed. Either way, the new deal has faced intense criticism from baseball analysts. Even a cursory glance reveals that its most substantial changes will be crushing to small market teams. Indeed, the new CBA may be the largest impediment to competitive balance in MLB history.

    The biggest impacts will be through the amateur draft. In the past, teams have been free to spend unlimited sums of money on draft picks by doling out generous signing bonuses. One might think this would benefit the deep-pocketed, large market teams, but this freedom has actually been critical to the talent acquisition strategy of small market teams. Teams such as the Pittsburgh Pirates, who don’t have the payroll capacity to realistically compete in free agency, have invested heavily in draft picks to gain competitive advantage. Large market teams, in contrast, have impatient fan bases and are thus unwilling to divert resources from free agency toward drafting and player development.

    The mechanics of the process are simple. Teams know in advance which players will require the most money to sign. Players may require added financial incentive to lure them from college or another sport, or they may simply be represented by Scott Boras. Either way, large market teams less invested in the draft will pass up talented players with expensive reputations. Small market teams, in turn, will overpay these players in order to gain a talent advantage. The Pirates, to use a classic example, offered Josh Bell an unthinkable $5 million bonus in the second round of last year’s draft to lure him from a college commitment after every team had already passed on him once. Thus, because of unlimited spending, small market teams take advantage of the fact that the draft is not “efficient” — players are not selected in order of their talent because of signability concerns.

    The new CBA imposes strict spending limits that stick a dagger in this small market talent strategy. Under the new agreement, teams will face strict ceilings on bonuses paid in the first 10 rounds. These ceilings will range from $4.5 million to $11 million, depending on a team’s position in the draft order. For reference, the top overall draft choices from the last three years have taken home bonuses of $8 million, $7.5 million and $6.5 million. Teams that exceed their ceiling by up to five percent will pay a 75 percent tax on that overage. Teams that overpay by five to 10 will pay 75 percent and lose their first round pick in the subsequent draft. The penalties, both in taxes and draft pick forfeiture, get even steeper after that.

    These new penalties will place enormous downward pressure on draftee salaries. More importantly, they will make the draft order “efficient” and prevent small market teams from exploiting their old strategies. These impacts won’t be small potatoes. In 2011, seven teams spent more than the new $11 million limit in draft bonuses. Those seven teams included the four clubs with the lowest payrolls in the league. Only one of those seven teams (the Cubs) had a payroll higher than the 22nd team in baseball.

    Similar new spending limits will apply to the market for international free agents. Under the old rules, teams could spend without limit to import players from Latin America and Japan for development. This has been a major source of talent acquisition, particularly for small market teams. Once again, small market teams have taken advantage of the fact that large market teams have less appetite for the lengthy and uncertain player development process. Thus, small market teams have diverted capital toward young international free agents in the hopes of gaining the competitive advantage they cannot find through free agency.

    The new CBA will put an end to this strategy. This year, teams will be restricted to a $2.9 million ceiling on international free agent signing bonuses. In subsequent years, this ceiling will range from $1.8 million to $5 million depending on a team’s winning percentage from the previous year. For reference, Miguel Cabrera’s signing bonus (from the small market Florida Marlins) was $1.9 million — 11 years ago! The new high-water marks are the $4.25 million bonus shelled out to Michael Ynoa by the Oakland “Moneyball” Athletics and the $5 million bonus paid to Nomar Mazara by the Texas Rangers. Under the new deal, teams that exceed the ceiling by up to 5 percent will pay a 75 percent tax on the overage. For a violation of 5–10 percent, teams will pay 75 percent and be allowed only one player with a bonus over $500K. For a violation of over 15 percent, teams will pay a 100 percent tax and be allowed no players with bonuses over $250K. Once again, small market teams will lose out on a major competitive advantage.

    The numbers show just how damaging these two spending limits will be to small market teams. In 2011, the 10 teams with the smallest payrolls spent an average of $20 million on draft and international bonuses combined. In comparison, their 20 richer counterparts spent an average of only $15 million. That $5 million difference is substantial on the margin. Under the new deal, teams will face a combined spending limit that ranges from $6.3 million to $16.5 million. The nine teams that spent more than this $16.5 million limit in 2011 were largely members of the small market club. These nine teams averaged only $70 million in player salaries, and four of the nine were in the bottom five in payroll.

    In fairness, the new CBA also incorporates a few smaller changes that should actually help competitive balance. There will, for example, be an annual “competitive balance lottery,” in which the teams with the smallest markets and lowest payrolls will be eligible to win extra draft picks after the first and second rounds. There are also new rules for revenue sharing under which teams receiving funds will be required to put up payrolls at least 25 percent higher than the sum they receive from the league. This should encourage competitive balance from the bottom. Finally (and most saliently), one extra wild card team will be added to each league. This means more teams will make the playoffs and have a shot at the title.

    That said, the new spending limits will have overwhelming effects. Fans of small market teams can appreciate just how important the draft and international signing period are for talent acquisition among low-payroll clubs. The competitive advantages they once exploited will largely disappear under the new rules. Instead, these teams will be forced to divert resources back to free agency, where they will find themselves unable to compete with their large market counterparts. At the end of the day, these changes were made for the sole purpose of depressing the rapidly-inflating bonuses given to draftees and international free agents in an effort to cut costs for the league. Mr. Selig’s claim that the new deal fosters competitive balance is ignorant at best. Stay tuned.

  4. ANDERSON: Football brings Yale’s history to light

    Leave a Comment

    In my seminar Yale and America with Jay Gitlin ’71 MUS ’74 GRD ’02, we have recently been talking about the important role that football played in transforming the college into something more than a local Connecticut school, turning it into a national “brand.” Yale football was king of kings — Walter Camp invented the sport as we recognize it today; youth across the nation hung Yale banners in their bedrooms; our overall record by the year 1920 was something along the lines of 324 wins, 14 losses and 17 ties! Although it may seem hard to believe today, thousands of fans filled the Yale Bowl each week in the early 1900s to watch Yale take on the likes of Princeton and Harvard.

    Football was an essential part of what Yale was. Yale football was a battle of bragging rights, a game that represented much more than a game.

    To go to the Yale Bowl these days just isn’t the same. Obviously, I wasn’t there during the Elis’ heyday — but one need look no further than old headlines and newspaper stories to understand a bit of the fervor that used to surround Yale football.

    As part of Yale and America, Professor Gitlin arranged for a visit from Deputy Provost for Academic Resources Lloyd Suttle. Mr. Suttle shared with us a few pieces from his personal collection of Yale memorabilia. The fascinating collection included original china personalized to each college, a copy of the first edition of the Yale Daily News, engravings of buildings that unfortunately no longer exist, a few game-day football programs from games in the early 20th century and much more.

    Seeing the incredible attention to detail in the cover artwork of these programs, seeing photos of the Yale Bowl filled to capacity as the Bulldogs took on Harvard, seeing such an integral part of Yale’s not-so-distant past made me appreciate the role football — and athletics as a whole — played in the creation of “what it meant to be a Yale man,” as Professor Gitlin put it. In fact, it intrigued me so much that it is now the topic of the final paper I’m writing for the class.

    So as the day of the Game approaches, take a minute to think about what football used to mean to Yale. Then get on the bus, head to the Bowl and watch the Bulldogs kick the trash out of Harvard. Because in the end, that may be what matters the most.

  5. JANES: A significant weekend for Yale athletics

    570 Comments

    For everyone who spent the weekend in a panicked coma after the hockey team’s loss to Cornell (everybody breathe, it’s going to be fine), you missed a historic weekend in the world of Yale sports. Two Yale teams, women’s volleyball and field hockey, clinched Ivy League titles within just hours of each other — the first time Yale has ever held two women’s fall sports titles in the same year. In fact, Yale has only won multiple fall sports titles in the same year five times since 1956, let alone won them on the same day. While together they made Yale history, the field hockey and volleyball teams’ championship runs were historic for very different reasons: one, the long-awaited product of 31 years of patience and perseverance, and the other, the declaration of a dynasty.

    One of those fantastic five falls came in 1980, the last time field hockey won an Ivy League title. That year, a Carm Cozza-guided Yale football team featuring future Miami Dolphin Rich Diana ’82 also reigned in the Ancient Eight. That year, the “Miracle on Ice” was the game of the year, the Cold War was yet to be decided and Blondie’s “Call Me” was No. 1 on the Billboard charts. That year, there were just seven teams competing in Ivy League field hockey, which was only in its second year of official competition.

    In the next 28 years of competition, Yale finished higher than fourth just three times. But with the fall of 2008 came the class of 2012, the six players who capped record-breaking careers with a championship-clinching Senior Day Saturday. In their four seasons in New Haven, the Bulldogs have finished second or higher three times.

    It certainly wasn’t clear then that the title drought would be ending any time soon. A 2–5 conference record in 2008 left Yale in fifth, far behind champion Princeton, 7–0 in conference that year and in the midst of a run of 11 straight Ivy League titles.

    But largely due to the emergence of the class of 2012 as sophomore complementing a highly talented senior class in 2009, the Bulldogs closed the gap quickly. Yale rocketed to a second-place finish, the lone blemish on its Ancient Eight slate a loss to the vaunted Tigers. School records for wins fell, and just like that, the Bulldogs were a force to be reckoned with in the Ivy League.

    Yet when a similarly successful 2010 season also produced a second-place finish, it seemed the class of 2012 — part of a historic turnaround but hungry to complete the season with a title — might never reach that goal. A 7–0 loss to Princeton meant the Bulldogs were second yet again, with the perennial national powerhouse Tigers standing between them and their last chance at the school’s first title in over three decades.

    Then came this season, and with it, title hopes that seemed to dim with some early season losses and one of the nation’s top-10 hardest schedules. But Princeton’s first Ivy League loss since 2007 breathed life into the Bulldogs, who finally saw the chance they’d been waiting for — and seized it. Yale turned in a phenomenal season, breaking team records for goals, points and assists. Much of that was due to the play of the class of 2012, which holds the second-most wins of any class in Yale history (41). Midfielder Dinah Landshut ’12 finished as the school’s all-time assist leader (44), while captain Erin Carter’s ’12 35 career goals put her fourth in that category all-time. Mia Rosati ’12 (23 goals) is also in Yale’s top 10, while Carter (fifth) and Landshut (sixth) made the Bulldogs’ all-time points list.

    As the field hockey seniors persevered to help their team emerge as an Ivy League powerhouse, the volleyball class of 2012 solidified its program’s place as an Ancient Eight dynasty. Its championship-clinching win — also on Senior Day — marked the third title in four years for the program.

    The first of those three was also a drought-buster, the Bulldogs’ first since a four-way shared championship in 2004, and Yale’s first outright win since 1978. But an 11–3 conference record and second-place finish in 2009 was followed by a 12–2 season and another title in 2010.

    This season, with two games to play, the Bulldogs have lost just one Ivy League game and are assured of at least a share of the title — all despite a flurry of injuries to the team, the smallest in its conference with just 12 players and so seemingly the least-equipped to survive them. Last year’s Ivy League Rookie of the Year Kendall Polan ’14 played every point as the team’s only listed setter and a spectacular freshman class was forced to hit the ground running.

    But the Bulldogs, led by seniors captains Taylor Cramm ’12, Katie Cordell ’12 and Bridget Hearst ’12, battled through a season culminating — for now — in a Senior Night title-clinching win Saturday at John J. Lee Amphitheater. A fitting end to the home careers of the class of 2012, which finished its four years with an astounding 44–4 home record.

    Two teams, two titles, two very different stories and one day that, unlike the hockey team’s panic-inducing loss, will not soon be forgotten.

  6. Ettinger: NBA owners must pick battles

    Leave a Comment

    The players used to receive 57 percent. The owners wanted to slash it to 47 percent. The players countered with a 52 percent compromise. The owners refused to offer a penny more than 50 percent. Neither side is willing to compromise at 51 percent, and so here we are. The tug-of-war over the players’ share of basketball related income (BRI) has already cost the NBA an entire month of games (as well as hundreds of millions of dollars), and it threatens to wipe away the entire 2011-’12 season. There may be perfectly rational reasons for each side to prefer lockout to compromise. BRI, however, is not one of them. The NBA, and the owners in particular, are fighting the wrong battle.

    The 2 percent gap does not reflect an insignificant sum of money. Estimates value the gap at around $100 million annually until the end of the next collective bargaining agreement. This total represents about $225,000 for the average player and about $3 million for the average owner. The BRI landing spot will also be the starting point for the next round of negotiations when the new agreement eventually expires, so the gap could have serious financial consequences in the long term. But the BRI split and its financial implications are neither the problem nor the solution to the NBA’s self-reported financial woes.

    The owners have actively advertised significant cash flow losses as a focal point of their stance. The league claims to have lost nearly $400 million last year, and Commissioner David Stern reported that 22 of the 30 teams were in the red. These figures have incited widespread debate. The league claims that they reflect an urgent need to rework the finances of the NBA in order to maintain profitability. The players, as well as most financial commentators, think the numbers reflect little more than fancy accounting footwork. For one, the players have been quick to point out that the cash flow figures are incredibly sensitive to classification of various depreciation, interest and amortization measures. Further, economists have long held that the value of a professional sports franchise comes not in annual cash flows (which are often negative), but rather in capital gains realized upon the eventual sale of the team. Finally, these figures don’t account for the substantial “psychic benefits” associated with owning a team that may justify lower profitability.

    Let’s cut the 1 percent a break, however, and assume that their posturing is correct. If we accept that the NBA is bleeding money, the owners’ focus on the BRI split makes little sense. If the league is no longer fundamentally profitable, the owners should be focusing on solutions that ensure long-term financial stability. This could mean greater revenue sharing. It could mean reduced revenue sharing. It could mean contraction or perhaps even expansion. It could mean a hard salary cap, or it could mean a loosening of the soft cap. It could be new television deals or changes to the NBA schedule.

    It’s unclear what precise form these solutions would take. They would, however, be fundamental reforms that would shake up basketball in an effort to return the league to profitability. A 2 percent shift in the BRI split is not a fundamental reform. A 2 percent shift in the BRI split is a simple cash transfer that adds no new revenue to the system. A 2 percent shift in the BRI split represents little more than 25 percent of the alleged cash flow losses suffered by the owners last year.

    Am I happy the NBA is locked out? Absolutely not. As a fan, the coming and going of the scheduled start to the basketball season marked a chilling reminder that we may not see basketball until 2012. That said, I can understand the positions of both sides. The players feel as though they have already made concessions, and they are correct. The owners, meanwhile, feel entitled to profits, which seems understandable given the popularity of the sport. But if, as they claim, the league is no longer profitable, the owners should be fighting over more substantial reforms to the system. The squabble over 2 percent of BRI is not going to turn the balance sheet around. I understand battles must be fought, as tough as it is on the fans. But unless the owners are lying, the owners are picking the wrong battle to fight.

  7. NBA owners fighting wrong fight

    Leave a Comment

    The players used to receive 57 percent. The owners wanted to slash it to 47 percent. The players countered with a 52 percentcompromise. The owners refused to offer a penny more than 50 percent. Neither side is willing to compromise at 51 percent, and so here we are. The tug-of-war over the players’ share of basketball related income (BRI) has already cost the NBA an entire month of games (as well as hundreds of millions of dollars), and it threatens to wipe away the entire 2011-’12 season. There may be perfectly rational reasons for each side to prefer lockout to compromise. BRI, however, is not one of them. The NBA, and the owners in particular, are fighting the wrong battle.

    The 2 percentgap does not reflect an insignificant sum of money. Estimates value the gap at around $100 millionannually until the end of the next collective bargaining agreement. This total represents about $225,000 for the average player and about $3 millionfor the average owner. The BRI landing spot will also be the starting point for the next round of negotiations when the new agreement eventually expires, so the gap could have serious financial consequences in the long term. But the BRI split and its financial implications are neither the problem nor the solution to the NBA’s self-reported financial woes.

    The owners have actively advertised significant cash flow losses as a focal point of their stance. The league claims to have lost nearly $400 millionlast year, and Commissioner David Stern reported that 22 of the 30 teams were in the red. These figures have incited widespread debate. The league claims that they reflect an urgent need to rework the finances of the NBA in order to maintain profitability. The players, as well as most financial commentators, think the numbers reflect little more than fancy accounting footwork. For one, the players have been quick to point out that the cash flow figures are incredibly sensitive to classification of various depreciation, interest and amortization measures. Further, economists have long held that the value of a professional sports franchise comes not in annual cash flows (which are often negative), but rather in capital gains realized upon the eventual sale of the team. Finally, these figures don’t account for the substantial “psychic benefits” associated with owning a team that may justify lower profitability.

    Let’s cut the 1 percenta break, however, and assume that their posturing is correct. If we accept that the NBA is bleeding money, the owners’ focus on the BRI split makes little sense. If the league is no longer fundamentally profitable, the owners should be focusing on solutions that ensure long-term financial stability. This could mean greater revenue sharing. It could mean reduced revenue sharing. It could mean contraction or perhaps even expansion. It could mean a hard salary cap, or it could mean a loosening of the soft cap. It could be new television deals or changes to the NBA schedule.

    It’s unclear what precise form these solutions would take. They would, however, be fundamental reforms that would shake up basketball in an effort to return the league to profitability. A 2 percentshift in the BRI split is not a fundamental reform. A 2 percentshift in the BRI split is a simple cash transfer that adds no new revenue to the system. A 2 percentshift in the BRI split represents little more than 25 percentof the alleged cash flow losses suffered by the owners last year.

    Am I happy the NBA is locked out? Absolutely not. As a fan, the coming and going of the scheduled start to the basketball season marked a chilling reminder that we may nwot see basketball until 2012. That said, I can understand the positions of both sides. The players feel as though they have already made concessions, and they are correct. The owners, meanwhile, feel entitled to profits, which seems understandable given the popularity of the sport. But if, as they claim, the league is no longer profitable, the owners should be fighting over more substantial reforms to the system. The squabble over 2 percentof BRI is not going to turn the balance sheet around. I understand battles must be fought, as tough as it is on the fans. But unless the owners are lying, the owners are picking the wrong battle to fight.

  8. SIRCUS: NBA lockout woes

    Leave a Comment

    Well, much as it pains me to say, it looks like the 2011-’12 NBA season may never come to fruition.

    They say absence makes the heart grow fonder, right? I honestly don’t know — I’m in a little bit of a sports funk right now, and the beginning of the NBA season was just what I needed to get me out of the doldrums.

    See, with the Colts embarrassing themselves every Sunday, and with the Cardinals winning their second World Series title in five years, it’s hard to watch ESPN without an intense feeling of bitterness and resentment clouding my vision. The start of the NBA was supposed to restore my hope and faith in the professional sporting world. I guess I should stop being so selfish though; the lockout doesn’t pain me nearly as much as it does the now 500 unemployed professional basketball players.

    I figure that there is a way to solve both of our problems, though. I mean, these athletes have skill sets that go (even if only marginally) beyond the ability to score a basket or play lockdown defense. What if — in the spirit of Lebron’s trade from two summers ago — the players take their individual talents to another field, either still in or completely outside of the world of sports? What follows are my favorite options:

    I think Chris Bosh should move across the country to L.A., and run the Jurassic Park ride at Universal Studios. It just wasn’t fair when he left the Raptors — the resemblance was uncanny!

    Glen “Big Baby” Davis should open his own daycare center. He could even bring former teammate Rasheed Wallace into the fold to help the children learn how to control their tempers.

    John Wall can appear on the next season of “Dancing with the Stars.” He wouldn’t even need a partner. He could wear his Wizards jersey and do his pre-game warm up dance, and I guarantee that he would still win handily.

    Kyrie Irving should go back to Duke. Honestly, I sometimes feel like the sports gods are conspiring against me. The prodigy point guard plays seven games for the Blue Devils before going down for the season until the tournament. Then, he has three stellar games, when all of a sudden the team gets blown out in one of the most unexpectedly lucky Arizona Wildcats performances of all time. Irving decides to skip out on the rest of his college career, only to have his rookie season cancelled.

    Are you kidding me? There is no justice.

    It’s high time for Pau Gasol to finally go and get that medical degree. I’m not joking; Gasol is one intelligent fellow. Back in Spain, he was pursuing his M.D. before David Stern lured him into playing ball in the states. Plus, could you imagine Gasol as your doc? I think he would need a longer stethoscope.

    Dirk Nowitzki should partner up with the Disney Channel and voiceover the villain role on its newest animated series. If any of you remember the evil doctor from Kim Possible, that’s in essence what I’m fantasizing.

    Ron Artest and Shaquille O’Neal should team up to drop another rap album. With O’Neal’s Shaq Diesel and Artest’s My World both receiving such high critical acclaim, the duo’s new album would be the most highly anticipated release since Watch the Throne. (This one is a joke. All three of the aforementioned albums — including, regrettably, Watch the Throne — were complete duds).

    Joakim Noah should model. Or get a haircut. Both would make me happy.

    I want Dwight Howard to come and join my improv group. For those of you who have seen the Viola Question, can you imagine him playing in the Oracle? (I imagine the intersection of people who get both parts of that reference to be three at most).

    J.J. Barea should start a Khloe and Lamar style reality show with his wife, former Miss Universe, Zuleyka Rivera. If I can’t see her in the crowd at Mavericks games anymore, I need some other way to admire her. Honestly, the woman is beautiful.

    Lebron James should take a lifeguarding class. That way, he will know what to do the next time he chokes.

    While these are fun hypothetical to ponder and play with, all I really want at the end of the day is to watch these guys do what they do best. Here’s to at least some portion of the upcoming NBA season actually happening.

  9. JANES: An athlete’s house of horrors

    Leave a Comment

    Halloween is rapidly approaching, and at Yale, that means a terrifying mix of strangely-colored dining hall foods, unbelievably over-thought-out costumes and general chaos. But for Yale athletes, horrors like those don’t just come once a year. Life in the “House of Payne” is no walk in the park: ask any varsity, club or Jonathan Edwards CollegeIM athlete(who, as evidenced by their 30,000 point lead in the Tyng Cup standings clearly are training way too seriously for this stuff…) who has ever trained there. So in keeping with the Halloween theme, I thought I would outline some of the scariest things in a Yale athlete’s life. No matter what sport you play or at what level, these phrases strike almost as much fear into the hearts of Yale athletes as, say, the idea of parents’ weekend somehow, inexplicably, being scheduled for Halloween weekend. Oh wait…

    1. “On the line.” Ask any college athlete for the three words he or she would least like to hear, and I guarantee those are at the top of the list. Follow that fatal trio with “again,” and things get downright terrifying. For, as anyone who’s ever run a shuttle or suicide knows, heading to the line is nearly always followed by running away from it —at full speed — and then running back. Over and over again.

    2. “Sled pushes.” Close second to “on the line” in the athlete’s horror rankings. Sounds benign enough, but believe me, we’re not talking toboggans here. Unless, of course, your toboggan is made of heavy metal, has nothing on the bottom to reduce friction and is loaded down with, oh, 300pounds of pure lead. Somehow the climb back up that sledding hill near your house doesn’t seem quite as formidable anymore…

    3. “ACL” There is nothing — and I mean nothing — an athlete wants to hear less than those three letters after twisting a knee and falling to the ground. “MRI” “CAT,” or even “EKG” are all totally doable. But tell an ailing athlete it’s an “ACL” issue, and it simply can’t get worse. Unless of course they then have to limp to class in “KGL” (Kline Geology Lab) for the rest of the semester…

    4. “To the stairs.” One workout done by many Yale varsity teams involves running up and down the stairs of Payne Whitney Gymnasium. Sometimes one at a time, sometimes “every other,” sometimes hopping, sometimes with dumbbells, sometimes with a teammate on your back… And if that doesn’t sound bad enough, Payne Whitneywas built to destroy the souls of stair-running Yale athletes. The top floor? The ninth. Totally doable, right? WRONG. Because, of course, there’s 5b, 6b, 7b… etc. So “running to nine” really means running 13 floors haunted by the ghosts that live on those mysterious upper “b” floors from which few have ever returned alive.

    5. “Testing.” Now this is something everyone can relate to. In the context of Yale athletics, it’s the time — usually at the beginning of the year — where athletes return from summer and are evaluated on how well they maintained fitness while away from the (not-so) friendly confines of the weight room. Varsity baseball does the “decathlon,” an aptly-named competition made up of 10fitness events each with a point scale so that athletes and coaches can see exactly where the team members stack up. Field hockey’s “testing” is a deadly preseason combination of timed miles, 200-yard shuttles and a grueling amount of running that would make most college athletes lose sleep. Other sports are similarly tested, some in the weight room, some at the track, all with the intent to separate those who are in shape from those who aren’t —and who therefore must work extra until they are. (See scary phrase No. 1). Think scary “testing” is two midterms in one day? Try field hockey’s preseason testing and fear no more.

    So as you head into the horrors of this Halloween weekend, be inspired by the athletes around you. Whether varsity, club or overly-trained, potentiallyjuiced IM players, all face their fears day after day, week after week to compete at the highest level. That choice between a Lady Gaga and Nicki Minaj costume is simply not as scary when you consider the insanity of 6 a.m. workouts, endless sprints and, of course, sled pushes. Halloween (on a Monday night…) might be scary. Mid-terms might be scarier. But if you’ve ever heard any of the above phrases, you’ve been through much, much worse.

  10. ANDERSON: World Series keeps fans at edge of seats

    Leave a Comment

    The World Series is underway, and what a series it is! The Texas Rangers are leading the St. Louis Cardinals, 3–2, in a back-and-forth matchup that has sports fans on the edge of their seats. Recently, there isn’t much in the pro sports world that brings me to the edge of my seat — the NBA recently canceled another two weeks of its season due to labor negotiations, the excitement of the NFL playoffs and Super Bowl are still far away, and the NHL is just getting underway.

    In my opinion, the brief seven-game World Series does not accurately represent the long 162-game regular season. In addition, only eight of the league’s 30 teams make the postseason to begin with, compared with 16 of the NBA’s 32 teams, 12 of the NFL’s 32 teams and 16 of the NHL’s 30 teams. In baseball, a team might not make the playoffs even though it has a stronger record than a playoff team from a different division. In short, the nature of baseball’s 162-game structure makes it so the World Series seems to be over in a flash after you have waited all season long for it.

    Despite these problems, this year’s World Series has been electric! With the exception of game three, a 167 Cardinals win, each game has been close and contested until the end. Pitching, batting and defense on both sides have been solid. These two teams are fairly evenly matched, and the result is a World Series that does not fail to disappoint.

    After three games in Arlington, the Series heads back to St. Louis tomorrow. Game six is Wednesday at Busch Stadium. The Cardinals’ backs are against the wall — trailing 3–2, they must win this game in front of their hometown fans or the Series is over, and they will have missed their shot at an 11th World Series title. As for the Rangers, they will be playing in a hostile environment and cannot let the crowd be a factor if they wish to take home the title.

    As an impartial observer with no real connection to either team, I will be watching the game Wednesday hoping for a Rangers win — but that’s only because I want to see a game seven.

  11. ETTINGER: In defense of the MLB playoff system

    Leave a Comment

    The Yankees have been bounced from the playoffs. After pacing the American League with 97 wins, their season ended abruptly after they lost three of five games to the Detroit Tigers. The Philadelphia Phillies suffered a similar fate after leading the Major Leagues with 102 wins but failing to take care of the St. Louis Cardinals in a decisive game 5. Diamondbacks and Rays fans can also sympathize, as can fans of the 34 teams that have been knocked out in five or fewer games since the Division Series was implemented in 1995. There is something incredibly unfulfilling about surviving a 162-game marathon and being sent home after coming up short in a five-game sprint. There is a terrible feeling that the better team suffered the raw end of a five-game dice roll. In the words of Billy Beane, the king of the large sample size, “My [excrement] doesn’t work in the playoffs.”

    This logic is sound, and it’s what this somber Yankees fan chooses to reflect upon as he stares ahead at six long months without baseball. This sentiment, however, is not entirely fair. Think back to your greatest baseball memories. For me, this is Aaron Boone’s 11th-inning bomb off of Tim Wakefield to sink the Red Sox in game 7 of the 2003 ALCS. If you’re a Mets fan, it might be a dribbler through the legs of Bill Buckner in game 6 of the 1986 World Series. If you’re a Blue Jays fan, it might be when Joe Carter touched ‘em all in 1993. In most of these cases, a dramatic playoff moment sealed a series victory. None of them, however, provided incontrovertible proof that the better team had won. Did Boone’s homer prove the 2003 Yankees to be more talented than the Sox? No. All it proved is that the beleaguered third baseman knew how to hit a knuckleball that did a little too much “hanging” and not enough “dancing.” But this doesn’t make the moment any less magical. If you’re a jaded statistician, you call this a weighted roll of the dice. If you’re a romantic baseball fan, you call this October mystique. Either way, it’s what the playoffs are all about.

    All of this serves to highlight an obvious trade-off. When designing a playoff system, one has to balance the benefits of a small and large sample size. It’s easy to imagine the dangers of a playoff system that is too short or inclusive and therefore leaves too much up to chance. A one-game series, for example, wouldn’t leave the victorious team with much sense of accomplishment. It would certainly leave the losing team feeling robbed of an opportunity to prove its true merit, and would give fans little reason to invest in the grueling 162-game season. On the other end of the spectrum, it’s easy to imagine the dangers of a playoff system that is too long or exclusive and therefore doesn’t leave enough up to chance. This would produce no memorable playoff moments. There would be no mystery. It would produce predictable outcomes, as was the case when the Yankees won 10 of 16 world championships between 1947 and 1962 (back when the teams with the best records in their leagues automatically advanced to the World Series). To have a legitimate and educated conversation about baseball’s playoff system, one must acknowledge the fundamental trade-off between the benefits of long-series fairness and short-series mystique. As tempting as it is for fans of the Yankees, Phillies, Diamondbacks and Rays, making blanket statements about the invalidity of baseball’s playoffs without acknowledging this trade-off is silly.

    It’s hard to say where, exactly, the current baseball playoff system lands on this spectrum. It certainly falls between the extremes outlined above. In the past, baseball has had less appetite for short-series shenanigans, as the playoffs have slowly evolved from one round to two rounds to the current three-round format (where the winning team plays anywhere from 11 to 19 games). In the future, it appears baseball will leave more up to random chance, as Bud Selig has all but officially announced a one-game play-in series to determine the wildcard in 2012. There are far more games than in the NFL playoffs (as few as three games) and far fewer games than in the NBA playoffs (as many as 28 games), but this is confounded by the fact that these sports leave a different amount up to random chance in any given game. For reference, between 2006 and 2010, the team with the better regular-season record won its playoff series 51 percent of the time in baseball, 58 percent of the time in football and 74 percent of the time in basketball, but these numbers don’t mean all that much. In the end, it’s impossible to discuss whether baseball’s playoffs sit near the “optimal” point on this spectrum because every fan has his or her own strong preferences. I, for one, would like to see the Division Series expanded to seven games. But my motivations are probably transparent at this time of year. Were you to change the number of teams, rounds or games in the MLB playoffs, you’d be sure to make someone unhappy.

    Even though my Yankees have been bounced, I have no choice but to defend baseball’s playoff system. Is it perfect? No. But there is no perfect playoff system. At the end of the day, the MLB playoffs do occupy a happy medium. They are long enough and include few enough teams that they are not a complete roll of the dice — there is some sentiment that the “better” team is rewarded with victory. At the same time, they are short enough and include enough teams to allow for baseball’s most magical moments. It is this intersection of long-term reward for talent and short-term October mystique that make baseball’s playoffs so captivating for the devoted fan. There is something that feels so right about seven games with a cherry on top. Just ask Aaron Boone.