Andrew Ziperski – The Stanford Daily https://stanforddaily.com Breaking news from the Farm since 1892 Fri, 30 Nov 2018 05:42:49 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.4.3 https://stanforddaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/cropped-DailyIcon-CardinalRed.png?w=32 Andrew Ziperski – The Stanford Daily https://stanforddaily.com 32 32 204779320 Ziperski: Team owners matter https://stanforddaily.com/2018/11/30/ziperski-team-owners-matter/ https://stanforddaily.com/2018/11/30/ziperski-team-owners-matter/#respond Fri, 30 Nov 2018 09:00:43 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1147425 When fans try to pinpoint the reasons behind a team’s success or failure, they most often look to players or coaches. The New England Patriots have been dominant for nearly two decades because of Tom Brady and Bill Belichick. The Los Angeles Rams and Kansas City Chiefs have soared to the top of the league because of Sean McVay’s play-calling brilliance and Patrick Mahomes’ phenomenal play. Conversely, a team like the Raiders has struggled for so long because they’ve lacked star power both on the field and on the sideline (yes, even Jon Gruden).

The post Ziperski: Team owners matter appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
When fans try to pinpoint the reasons behind a team’s success or failure, they most often look to players or coaches. The New England Patriots have been dominant for nearly two decades because of Tom Brady and Bill Belichick. The Los Angeles Rams and Kansas City Chiefs have soared to the top of the league because of Sean McVay’s play-calling brilliance and Patrick Mahomes’ phenomenal play. Conversely, a team like the Raiders has struggled for so long because they’ve lacked star power both on the field and on the sideline (yes, even Jon Gruden).

That’s the conventional wisdom. People who believe these things are not wrong, of course. Having talented players and a good coach is probably the best predictor of success for an NFL team. But people generally fail to consider an incredibly important aspect of a team that has huge ramifications the field: a team’s organizational structure, particularly at the ownership level.

Whether it’s an individual, a group, or the public, who owns a team matters a lot. Good owners – those who know their limits and surround themselves with good football minds – can take a struggling team and turn it around. Bad owners – those who let their egos get in the way or who can’t properly manage a diverse organization – can take promising teams and drive them into the ground. Decisions flow downwards, not just within football teams but organizations in general, so many of the problems that fans identify on the field really emanate from the top.

Over the last decade, three teams – the Cleveland Browns, Dallas Cowboys and Green Bay Packers – have underperformed their potential in large part because their owners (or ownership structures) have stood in the way of success rather than bringing it about.

The Browns have been so bad for so long that nearly all football fans outside of Baltimore, Pittsburgh and Cincinnati root for them week in, week out. Every year has felt like a perpetual rebuild, and it finally seems like there’s light at the end of the tunnel with Baker Mayfield & Co. in charge. It didn’t need to take this long, however. When owner Jimmy Haslam took over in 2012, he could have brought stability to a franchise that desperately needed it. Bad hires at the head coach position like Rob Chudzinski and Hue Jackson have set the team back. Despite having a top pick in the draft every year, the Browns have mostly whiffed. The team’s failures certainly aren’t all Haslam’s fault, but he hasn’t put the organization in a position to succeed. It seems like the Browns are finally inching closer to being competitive, but this in spite of Haslam’s leadership, not because of it.

The Cowboys suffer a similar fate. Jerry Jones is the perfect example of what can happen when an owner lets his ego get in the way. Rather than hiring a general manager, Jones runs football operations himself, despite being wholly unqualified to do so. He sees himself – not franchise quarterback Dak Prescott or star running back Ezekiel Elliot – as the face of the franchise. And because of him, the Cowboys have dramatically underperformed for years. Jason Garrett should’ve been replaced long ago, but Jones likes him and has kept him around. Players don’t want to come to Dallas in free agency because Jones is notoriously difficult to work for. The team, so close to becoming a serious contender at several points in recent history, has never quite made it over the hump. And as long as Jerry Jones remains owner, the Cowboys probably never will.

Green Bay, unlike the other two teams, has the opposite problem. The team is owned by the public, but shareholders have insignificant voting power, so nobody is really in charge. It is not quite clear who president Mark Murphy reports to, and he may as well have a lifetime appointment because there’s nobody to say otherwise. This organization has made decision-making incredibly difficult; it took far too long to move on from general manager Ted Thompson, just as it has taken far too long to get rid of the incompetent Mike McCarthy. Green Bay doesn’t lack talent. But the organization has no leadership from the top, and the changes the team needs to progress to the next level simply haven’t occurred as a result. Sure, the team has been able to avoid navigating egotistical ownership. But sometimes, having no owner presents just as many problems.

Head coaches can be replaced. Star players can be signed in free agency. But a football team literally belongs to its owner, and when an owner is the main thing holding a team back, overcoming that hurdle can be downright possible. Jimmy Haslam isn’t giving up anytime soon, and Jerry Jones shows no signs of doing so either. Green Bay will likely never be sold to an individual or ownership group. Does this mean that these teams won’t have success? Surely not. But it makes reaching the next level that much harder.

 

Contact Andrew Ziperski at ajzip ‘at’ stanford.edu.

The post Ziperski: Team owners matter appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2018/11/30/ziperski-team-owners-matter/feed/ 0 1147425
Ziperski: What to make of Coach K’s legacy https://stanforddaily.com/2018/11/09/ziperski-what-to-make-of-coach-ks-legacy/ https://stanforddaily.com/2018/11/09/ziperski-what-to-make-of-coach-ks-legacy/#respond Fri, 09 Nov 2018 09:38:52 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1146555 It’s finally college basketball season, something that might not excite many here in the Bay Area but which certainly sends people in my home state of North Carolina into a frenzy. Raleigh, where I’m from, is ACC country: Duke, UNC, and NC State are all within forty minutes of each other, with Wake Forest less than two hours away. Growing up, my family never quite understood the bitter rivalry between the Blue Devils and the Tar Heels (Wolfpack athletics were mostly irrelevant).

The post Ziperski: What to make of Coach K’s legacy appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
It’s finally college basketball season, something that might not excite many here in the Bay Area but which certainly sends people in my home state of North Carolina into a frenzy. Raleigh, where I’m from, is ACC country: Duke, UNC and NC State are all within 40 minutes of each other, with Wake Forest less than two hours away. Growing up, my family never quite understood the bitter rivalry between the Blue Devils and the Tar Heels (Wolfpack athletics were mostly irrelevant).

We weren’t native to North Carolina, and neither of my parents attended either school, so we generally rooted for both and maybe picked a side when they played head to head. People thought we were crazy for not demonstrating unconditional loyalty to one program, and I’ll admit that we certainly were outliers. One of my best friends’ mom grew up a Duke fan, and despite attending UNC and marrying a fellow Tar Heel, still remains a Duke fan to this day. Passions run very deep.

One point of pride for both programs are their head coaches, Mike Krzyzewski at Duke and Roy Williams at Carolina. For many North Carolinians, these men might as well be Jesus Christ himself. Carolina fans adore Williams, and Duke fans shudder at the thought that Coach K might one day hang it up and retire as one of the greatest coaches in NCAA history.

Coach K has certainly had an extraordinary run at Duke since he took over as head coach in 1980. He’s won five NCAA titles, most recently in 2015; made it to the Final Four 12 times; won the ACC tournament 14 times; and been named the Naismith College Coach of the Year three times. He’s done it all, and he will likely go down as the second greatest ever to coach the game, behind only legendary UCLA coach John Wooden.

And more important than his achievements is the way he has come about them; he’s led the Duke team with impeccable character, never getting involved in the sorts of recruiting or pay-to-play scandals that have plagued some of the sport’s biggest names around the country.  

For much of his career, something else stood out about the way Coach K won: He did so with very few one-and-done players. Duke legends like the infamous Christian Laettner, Grant Hill and Johnny Dawkins all stayed four years at the program. For decades, Coach K built his career on the backs of players like these, winning national acclaim not only for his successes, but also for the way he went about achieving them.

Things have changed, now, and it’s worth considering whether the shift towards the one-and-done model will impact Coach K’s legacy. Other than Corey Maggette and Luol Deng two decades ago, the trend for Duke really started with Kyrie Irving in 2011, followed by Austin Rivers the next year and Jabari Parker two years after that.

Things certainly changed in 2015, when Duke won the national championship and lost its three top players – all freshmen – to the NBA Draft. Then came Brandon Ingram in 2016. The next year saw the departure of three freshmen. This year saw the departure of four. Next spring, it is widely expected that at least three will join those who came before them.

There is no doubt that Coach K’s career has been incredibly impressive, one of the best ever. The shift towards one-and-dones will not change that. But the shift will perhaps alter the way that he is remembered. Will he be viewed as the man who led Duke to multiple titles without the most dominant, physically players? As the man who was able to pull off a win with guys like Nolan Smith, Kyle Singler, Jon Scheyer and Brian Zoubek? Or will people remember him as the coach who stacked his team with five-star recruits and led a revolving-door roster year after year?

It’s an interesting question to consider. The answer is that it will likely be a bit of both. Coach K had too much success over the first 30 years of his career to let this new era of college basketball take away from his legacy too much. Still, it’ll be hard to people to ignore what has happened over the last few years, especially since 2015. As someone who admires Coach K both as a man and as a basketball coach, I’m curious to see how things will play out in the years to come.

 

Contact Andrew Ziperski at ajzip ‘at’ stanford.edu.

The post Ziperski: What to make of Coach K’s legacy appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2018/11/09/ziperski-what-to-make-of-coach-ks-legacy/feed/ 0 1146555
Ziperski: I feel bad for Aaron Rodgers https://stanforddaily.com/2018/11/02/ziperski-i-feel-bad-for-aaron-rodgers/ https://stanforddaily.com/2018/11/02/ziperski-i-feel-bad-for-aaron-rodgers/#respond Fri, 02 Nov 2018 09:05:39 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1146143 The Green Bay Packers have dominated the NFL news cycle these past few days following their close defeat to the undefeated Los Angeles Rams, a loss for which much of the blame lies at the feet of Stanford alum Ty Montgomery. Zach Naidu wrote a good column yesterday here in The Daily discussing the outrage amongst the sports pundits directed at Montgomery: I’d suggest giving it a read if you hadn’t already.

The post Ziperski: I feel bad for Aaron Rodgers appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
The Green Bay Packers have dominated the NFL news cycle these past few days following their close defeat to the undefeated Los Angeles Rams, a loss for which much of the blame lies at the feet of Stanford alum Ty Montgomery. Zach Naidu wrote a good column yesterday here in The Daily discussing the outrage amongst the sports pundits directed at Montgomery: I’d suggest giving it a read if you hadn’t already.

My take on Montgomery is different, probably because I’m a lifelong Green Bay fan at my wit’s end with the team’s repeated failures. My frustration extends far beyond just Ty Montgomery, who’s just the latest example of someone in the Green Bay organization who has cost the team a winnable game, and more importantly, who has cost Aaron Rodgers the chance to take this team deep into the playoffs and compete for another championship.

With Green Bay set to face New England on Sunday Night Football this coming weekend, there’s been much debate around whether Rodgers or Brady is the greatest quarterback of all time. It’s pretty easy: Brady is unquestionably the greatest, having won five rings to Rodgers’ one. But Rodgers is clearly the better quarterback, a more talented player; he’s the most statistically prolific quarterback ever to play the game, and if you’ve watched him at all over the last decade, you understand his knack for making literally unbelievable plays when the Packers need it most.

Which makes it all the more frustrating that he’s only played in one Super Bowl (a victory, at least) over the course of his career. As a diehard fan, it’s been heartbreaking to see Rodgers do everything he can to lead his team to victory, only to have a teammate or coach mess up spectacularly and throw the game to the other team. Sometimes it’s individual defensive players committing crucial drive-extending penalties. Often times it’s Mike McCarthy making boneheaded clock-management or play-calling decisions. And even when the defense has been good and McCarthy has called a good game on offense, other guys – like Montgomery this weekend, or Brandon Bostick in the 2015 NFC Championship game – find a way to muck it up.

Rodgers isn’t perfect, of course. Sometimes (though rarely) he throws interceptions, and I do fault him for not asserting himself more with McCarthy and the front office to fix the team’s clearly-flawed offensive schemes. By and large, however, Rodgers has carried the team time and time again. It’s not like the team around Rodgers has been bad, either; for the most part, his teammates have done their part in making Green Bay one of the most stable and successful teams over the last 10 years. But too often, when critical regular season and playoff games have been close, someone around Rodgers has let him (and the entire team, of course) down.

Ty Montgomery’s stunt this weekend was frustrating but entirely predictable. It’s not the first time something like this has happened, and it won’t be the last. At the very least, this incident seems to have struck a nerve, and the national sports media are finally, finally talking about how Rodgers has been robbed time and time again by people on his own side; my hope is that at last, the organization will do take the steps to prevent it from happening so often in the future. Does that mean firing Mike McCarthy? Probably, and that decision couldn’t come soon enough. Does it mean putting together a defense that can consistently generate stops so the offense isn’t constantly playing from behind? That would be great, too.

I don’t know what will happen in the coming weeks, and I certainly can’t predict what will go down this offseason. I can only hope that Green Bay’s front office gets its act together and makes the necessary changes to give Rodgers the team he deserves before it’s too late.

 

Contact Andrew Ziperski at ajzip ‘at’ stanford.edu.

The post Ziperski: I feel bad for Aaron Rodgers appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2018/11/02/ziperski-i-feel-bad-for-aaron-rodgers/feed/ 0 1146143
Ziperski: Jon Gruden is the wrong choice for Oakland https://stanforddaily.com/2018/10/26/ziperski-jon-gruden-is-the-wrong-choice-for-oakland/ https://stanforddaily.com/2018/10/26/ziperski-jon-gruden-is-the-wrong-choice-for-oakland/#respond Fri, 26 Oct 2018 09:14:35 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1145646 The days when Derek Carr was considered a dark horse MVP candidate and the Oakland Raiders a viable Super Bowl contender are now a distant memory, with Oakland having returned to the bottom of the league, a place where they’ve spent much of the last two decades. The team is in total disarray, and given that Khalil Mack and Amari Cooper are gone (perhaps to be joined by Derek Carr), it’s become clear that management has committed to a full rebuild.

The post Ziperski: Jon Gruden is the wrong choice for Oakland appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
The days when Derek Carr was considered a dark horse MVP candidate and the Oakland Raiders a viable Super Bowl contender are now a distant memory, with Oakland having returned to the bottom of the league, a place where they’ve spent much of the last two decades. The team is in total disarray, and given that Khalil Mack and Amari Cooper are gone (perhaps to be joined by Derek Carr), it’s become clear that management has committed to a full rebuild.

It didn’t need to be this way. Less than two years ago, this team finished 12-4 and looked dominant at times. Prior to the 2017 season, many believed they could win a Super Bowl. That didn’t happen, of course, and the last year or so has brought a series of mistakes that will likely result in this team being a bottom-feeder for years to come.

It started when they dramatically overpaid Carr, handing him one of the richest quarterback contracts ever, despite his being a fringe top-10 talent at best. Then they turned around and refused to pay Mack, trading him away and, in doing so, losing one of the league’s best pass-rushers at a time when they’re more valuable than ever before. These choices strike me as incredibly poor salary cap management, and had the front office handled things differently, the Raiders could very well have stayed relevant rather than finding themselves where they are today.

The choice that makes no sense to me, however, is the hiring of Jon Gruden. If this were 2002, maybe it would make sense. But Gruden has been out of the game for years, and his most recent stint in Tampa Bay is quite uninspiring; agreeing to pay the man $100 million over the next 10 years seems like wishful thinking at best and downright lunacy at worst.

Wishful thinking at best because even if the Raiders had tried to make do with their roster and keep their top players, Jon Gruden couldn’t have led this team to contention in the AFC, let alone the AFC East alone. The conference is simply too talented. Downright lunacy at worst because Gruden is totally and completely ill-equipped to lead a team through a multi-year rebuild in 2018.

Gruden hasn’t had much success as a coach in well over a decade, and the game has simply passed him by. Growing up, my dad and I would watch Monday Night Football games and chuckle as he called games from the booth, occasionally offering incisive commentary like “I really like this guy.” It was always a bit odd to hear Mike Tirico, a career color commentator and Gruden’s Monday Night Football co-host, provide far more credible insight than a former Super Bowl-winning head coach. Gruden struck me as a funny guy best suited for the booth at this stage in his career, not one who should be coaching a modern NFL team, and certainly not one who should be leading a talentless, rebuilding squad like the Raiders.

Will Jon Gruden succeed in Oakland? I certainly hope so; it was cool to see them rise to prominence a few seasons ago, and I would love to watch Gruden lead them back into contention. But I’m not counting on it.

 

Contact Andrew Ziperski at ajzip ‘at’ stanford.edu.

The post Ziperski: Jon Gruden is the wrong choice for Oakland appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2018/10/26/ziperski-jon-gruden-is-the-wrong-choice-for-oakland/feed/ 0 1145646
Ziperski: Moving on in New York https://stanforddaily.com/2018/10/12/ziperski-moving-on-in-new-york/ https://stanforddaily.com/2018/10/12/ziperski-moving-on-in-new-york/#respond Fri, 12 Oct 2018 09:26:12 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1144751 Moving on from aging franchise quarterbacks can be tough. Green Bay struggled with the decision to let Brett Favre walk in favor of Aaron Rodgers back in 2008. Denver had to let Brock Osweiler take over for Peyton Manning at times en route to the Super Bowl back in 2015. I anticipate that fairly soon, New England will be forced to finally make a change at the quarterback position when Tom Brady hangs it up.

The post Ziperski: Moving on in New York appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
Moving on from aging franchise quarterbacks can be tough. Green Bay struggled with the decision to let Brett Favre walk in favor of Aaron Rodgers back in 2008. Denver had to let Brock Osweiler take over for Peyton Manning at times en route to the Super Bowl back in 2015. I anticipate that fairly soon, New England will be forced to finally make a change at the quarterback position when Tom Brady hangs it up.

Whether Giants fans like it or not, the time has come for their team to move on from Eli Manning. He’s provided them so much over his career – two thrilling Super Bowl victories, both against the Patriots – so of course it won’t be easy to let him go. But the reality is that he no longer gives them a chance to compete. The Giants are 1-4 this year despite playing in one of the weakest divisions in the league. Even with top-tier talent at the running back, wide receiver and tight end positions, the offense is anemic. Only a third of the way through the season, the playoffs seem out of reach: 2018 will be another wasted season, just like last year and so many others this decade. If the Giants are going to turn things around next year and make a push to become relevant down the road, they need to make a change.

I’ve watched Eli play a couple times this season, and it’s obvious that he lacks the athleticism or arm strength to be a competent quarterback in today’s league. He constantly checks the ball down to his running backs or tight ends, settling for paltry gains that put the offense in third-and-long situations. When he does try to throw the ball deep, he almost never puts his receivers in a position to make a play. And he displays almost no mobility, completely unable to avoid the pass rush and get outside of the pocket to extend plays. I’ve noticed that Eli almost never gets hit hard; whenever defenders close in, he simply falls to the ground, content to give up on the possession and punt the ball away.

Perhaps worst of all, keeping Eli around will only waste the immense talent that the Giants have at other skill positions on offense. Defenses don’t respect his ability to throw over top of them, so they crowd the box, leaving few holes for explosive rookie running back Saquon Barkley. Odell Beckham, certainly the team’s best player, has now made it clear that he thinks Eli’s lack of arm strength is hindering his ability to make big plays down the field. Eli isn’t just hurting the team today; his lack of skill is preventing key players from developing around him, and the Giants will be worse for it down the road.

Maybe then it’s time for the Giants organization to move on from the man who’s led the team for the better part of the last two decades. It won’t be easy; moving on from players who brought your city multiple world championships never is. Still, football is a business, and at the end of the day, loyalty to a player’s career only lasts for so long. Given how poor Eli has looked this year, I’d bet that we’ll see someone else under center for the Giants in September of next year.

 

Contact Andrew Ziperski at ajzip ‘at’ stanford.edu.

The post Ziperski: Moving on in New York appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2018/10/12/ziperski-moving-on-in-new-york/feed/ 0 1144751
Ziperski: Writing about sports is fun, even when you’re dead wrong! https://stanforddaily.com/2018/10/05/ziperski-writing-about-sports-is-fun-even-when-youre-dead-wrong/ https://stanforddaily.com/2018/10/05/ziperski-writing-about-sports-is-fun-even-when-youre-dead-wrong/#respond Fri, 05 Oct 2018 10:17:12 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1144347 I joined the Daily in the fall of 2016 as a freshman, originally slated to write a bi-weekly column for the Opinions section. Given the political environment at the time, I thought I’d steer clear of election commentary and focus on what I loved talking about most: sports. It seemed a natural choice for me; growing up, my friends and I spent many more hours than we could ever possibly count debating the ins and outs of the various sports leagues, bouncing hot takes off of each other and waiting to see which silly predictions might come true. And upon coming to college, I figured it was time to take the opportunity to actually publish some of my thoughts.

The post Ziperski: Writing about sports is fun, even when you’re dead wrong! appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
I joined The Daily in the fall of 2016 as a freshman, originally slated to write a bi-weekly column for the Opinions section. Given the political environment at the time, I thought I’d steer clear of election commentary and focus on what I loved talking about most: sports. It seemed a natural choice for me; growing up, my friends and I spent many more hours than we could ever possibly count debating the ins and outs of the various sports leagues, bouncing hot takes off of each other and waiting to see which silly predictions might come true. And upon coming to college, I figured it was time to take the opportunity to actually publish some of my thoughts.

My time at The Daily has kept me involved in the world of sports at a time when playing competitively is no longer a viable option. My dreams of playing in the NBA were dashed in eighth grade when my own homeroom teacher cut me from the middle school basketball team, and my soccer career ended shortly after that. I ran cross country for a few years in high school … well, “ran” isn’t really the right word. I was technically on the roster. I was actually a pretty good tennis player, though nowhere good enough to play at the collegiate level. Thus, here I am, staying involved with sports by writing my weekly column for you all on the Stanford campus and in the surrounding area.

Putting my ideas out in the public sphere each week has been an incredibly rewarding experience, and it’s also been a lot of fun. I love getting to share my thoughts on the sports world, and I enjoy having people on campus whom I’ve never met approach me to discuss a column I’ve written; The Daily has connected me to my fellow students here at Stanford in a way I never expected. As I begin my junior year, I’ve been reflecting on how fortunate I am to have had this opportunity in the past and to have it going forward.

This past week, I took a look at some of my commentary over the past year and realized how hilariously, unbelievably wrong some of my takes have been. I began 2018 by predicting that the Chiefs would retain Alex Smith in lieu of turning to the unproven Patrick Mahomes and followed it up by declaring that the Steelers’ coach Mike Tomlin would be fired. If you’ve been paying attention, you’d know that Alex Smith is in Washington, Patrick Mahomes is lighting up the NFL and Mike Tomlin is still very much the coach up in Pittsburgh.

Over the past year, I declared that Jim Harbaugh would leave Michigan to reunite with Andrew Luck and coach the Indianapolis Colts. That failed to happen. I wrote about how Bill Belichick would regret trading Jimmy Garoppolo to the 49ers; Garoppolo currently sits on injured reserve with a torn ACL and didn’t look particularly good to start the year when healthy. I defended Eli Manning. This could very well be Eli’s last year given how putrid the Giants’ offense has been. And I argued that the Cleveland Cavaliers’ front office had made the right roster moves to retain Lebron James. We all saw how that turned out.

None of that is to say that I didn’t come to the right conclusions given the information I had at the time. On top of that, the volatile nature of sports is such that anyone who makes predictions is bound to be wrong sometimes. I was on the money with certain things, but I happened to be wrong … a lot.

Despite all that, writing for The Daily – for all of you – has been a ton of fun. Over the next three quarters, I’ll bring my voice and my thoughts to campus each and every week. Sometimes I’ll be right, and clearly, sometimes I’ll be wrong. Either way, I’m looking forward to a great year.

 

Contact Andrew Ziperski at ajzip’at’stanford.edu.

The post Ziperski: Writing about sports is fun, even when you’re dead wrong! appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2018/10/05/ziperski-writing-about-sports-is-fun-even-when-youre-dead-wrong/feed/ 0 1144347
Ziperski: LeBron’s greatest achievement https://stanforddaily.com/2018/05/31/ziperski-lebrons-greatest-achievement/ https://stanforddaily.com/2018/05/31/ziperski-lebrons-greatest-achievement/#respond Thu, 31 May 2018 09:59:28 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1141791 Prior to this season, LeBron James had won three NBA titles, three Finals MVP awards, four season MVP awards and two Olympic gold medals. He’s a fourteen-time All-Star and has been named to the All-NBA first team twelve times. Considered by many to be the greatest player of all time, he has accomplished truly unbelievable things over the course of fifteen-year career.

The post Ziperski: LeBron’s greatest achievement appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
Prior to this season, LeBron James had won three NBA titles, three Finals MVP awards, four season MVP awards and two Olympic gold medals. He’s a fourteen-time All-Star and has been named to the All-NBA first team 12 times. Considered by many to be the greatest player of all time, he has accomplished truly unbelievable things over the course of a 15-year career.

Yet what LeBron has done in this NBA Finals has been more impressive than any of that. More impressive than the titles, than the MVP awards or the other accolades. Just getting to the NBA Finals — even if the Cavaliers eventually fall to the Warriors — is the biggest accomplishment of LeBron’s career to date.

Winning four MVP awards and being named to the All-Star team 14 times are both impressive, but for a player with LeBron’s talent, such things are almost to be expected. The championships in Miami were certainly a big deal, but LeBron did it surrounded by Dwayne Wade and Chris Bosh, both of whom were elite players at the top of their game during their four-year stint together in South Beach. And we can’t forget how LeBron willed the Cavaliers to a title in 2016, fighting back from a 3-1 deficit to shock the Warriors, who had just put together one of the greatest regular seasons in NBA history. Still, LeBron shared this momentous victory with Kyrie Irving and Kevin Love — two of the league’s best point guards and power forwards, respectively — as well as Tristan Thompson, who put together a really good series to help propel the Cavaliers.

2018 is an entirely different story. LeBron still has Kevin Love, though the former Timberwolves star does not possess the same elite talent that he once did. Tristan Thompson is a shell of his former self. JR Smith has lost his touch. Kyrie Irving is gone. When you boil it down, the guys who surrounded LeBron during his first three seasons back in Cleveland have either left the team or have lost a step or two. Today, the Cavaliers roster can best be summed up as LeBron James, a less effective Kevin Love and a whole bunch of rather ineffective role players.

But LeBron has made up for it all. He put the team on his back in the first round, the sheer force of his will propelling them to a victory over the Pacers in seven games. He absolutely dominated the Raptors in the second round, outperforming Kyle Lowry and DeMar DeRozan combined in the box score. And finally, we just witnessed perhaps his most impressive display of all: defeating the Celtics in yet another seven-game series, despite being a road underdog and missing Kevin Love for the final two games. Coming in as the four seed, very few people expected the Cavaliers to perform the way they have. For the first time in many, many years, LeBron’s team was not the favorite to win the Eastern Conference. Against all odds, LeBron did it anyways.

So yes, these playoffs represent LeBron’s best work. Better than the championships in Miami, better than when he brought Cleveland its first-ever title. Those achievements were impressive, that is for sure. But LeBron at least had some support. In 2018, he’s been fighting on his own. And he’s done a damn good job.

 

Contact Andrew Ziperski at ajzip ‘at’ stanford.edu.

The post Ziperski: LeBron’s greatest achievement appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2018/05/31/ziperski-lebrons-greatest-achievement/feed/ 0 1141791
Ziperski: NFL’s Oprah moment https://stanforddaily.com/2018/05/24/ziperski-nfls-oprah-moment/ https://stanforddaily.com/2018/05/24/ziperski-nfls-oprah-moment/#respond Thu, 24 May 2018 11:07:24 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1141492 During this NFL offseason, we’ve witnessed some massive new contracts for quarterbacks, first with Kirk Cousins’ deal in Minnesota and then Matt Ryan’s record-breaking, $94.5 million extension with the Atlanta Falcons. Following these deals, ESPN published an article predicting which players around the league might top Ryan’s contract over the next five years.

The post Ziperski: NFL’s Oprah moment appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
During this NFL offseason, we’ve witnessed some massive new contracts for quarterbacks, first with Kirk Cousins’ deal in Minnesota and then with Matt Ryan’s record-breaking, $94.5 million extension with the Atlanta Falcons. Following these deals, ESPN published an article predicting which players around the league might top Ryan’s contract over the next five years.

The fact that we’re talking about which players (emphasis on the plural) might sign deals north of $30 million annually demonstrates how crazy the league has gotten. ESPN names four players—Aaron Rodgers, Carson Wentz, Deshaun Watson and Jimmy Garoppolo—they predict will sign such deals.

Only Aaron Rodgers is remotely deserving of that kind of money. He’s the best quarterback in the league and still young enough to play at a high level through a long-term contract. This isn’t to say that the other guys aren’t talented; Wentz (mostly) led his team to a Super Bowl this past season, and Watson and Garoppolo both showed real promise. But only promise: the two of them have combined to play only about a single season’s worth of games, and though they were impressive, the sample size is too small.

Players like Watson, Wentz, and Garoppolo have gotten away (or, over the next few years, will get away) with demanding insane contracts because they know front offices are willing to do anything to avoid watching their players jump ship and sign with competitors. These contracts aren’t entirely about talent; scarcity and risk-aversion certainly play important roles. But it seems like we’ve gotten caught up in our own Oprah “you get a car moment,” tossing out massive deals to anyone who’s displayed any kind of promise. Guys like Kirk Cousins and Matt Ryan have been solid, dependable guys throughout their entire careers, perhaps flashing elite potential at times. Are they worthy of being handed salaries that make them the highest-paid players in the league? Not really, certainly not on talent alone.

The problem is that this phenomenon isn’t going to stop. Aaron Rodgers will sign his extension—which he will certainly deserve—at some point soon. And, inevitably, less-talented, non-elite players will follow suit, signing larger deals. In just a few years, Rodgers will yet again be in the middle of the pack on an annual basis. For the madness to end, one owner or general manager would have to take a stand in negotiations, refuse to budge, and likely watch another team overpay their player in free agency. Unfortunately, the chances of that happening are slim to none. At the end of the day, general managers are unwilling to risk ending their front office careers.

So the cycle will probably continue. ESPN is probably right about which young players are due to pass Ryan in the next couple years. It seems crazy, at least to me, and I wish it would end. I’d like for players’ salaries to be commensurate with their worth on the field, for front offices to finally say enough is enough and stop handing out these ridiculous deals. It’s unlikely, for sure. But only time will tell.

 

Contact Andrew Ziperski at ajzip ‘at’ stanford.edu.

The post Ziperski: NFL’s Oprah moment appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2018/05/24/ziperski-nfls-oprah-moment/feed/ 0 1141492
Ziperski: Simmons for ROY https://stanforddaily.com/2018/05/18/ziperski-simmons-for-roy/ https://stanforddaily.com/2018/05/18/ziperski-simmons-for-roy/#respond Fri, 18 May 2018 16:09:07 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1142470 The debate around who deserves to win NBA Rookie of the Year is hotter than it has been in many years, with Utah Jazz guard Donovan Mitchell and Philadelphia 76ers forward Ben Simmons in a dead heat for the honor. Both had outstanding seasons, not only leading their teams to the postseason but also propelling them into the second round. After Mitchell’s incredible performance in the first round to help lift the Jazz over the Thunder in six games, many fans called for him to win rookie of the year.

The post Ziperski: Simmons for ROY appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
The debate around who deserves to win NBA Rookie of the Year is hotter than it has been in many years, with Utah Jazz guard Donovan Mitchell and Philadelphia 76ers forward Ben Simmons in a dead heat for the honor. Both had outstanding seasons, not only leading their teams to the postseason but also propelling them into the second round. After Mitchell’s incredible performance in the first round to help lift the Jazz over the Thunder in six games, many fans called for him to win rookie of the year. Still, the award is supposed to be based on regular season performance, and given everything Simmons did for the 76ers on both offense and defense for the first 82 games, I think he has a slight edge and deserves to win the award.

Mitchell has not so subtlety made the case that Simmons is not a true rookie since he was a member of the 2016 draft class. Still, because Simmons couldn’t play in the 2016-2017 season due to injury, this is indeed his “rookie” year. Mitchell can wear as many snarky shirts as he wants; the best case against Simmons for ROY is not based on a technicality.

One could argue that Mitchell is more deserving because of his offensive prowess: He led his team in scoring on their way to the playoffs, a rare feat for a rookie. But Simmons wasn’t far behind in the scoring column, averaging 15.8 points per game to Mitchell’s 20.5. Additionally, Simmons was a key distributor for the 76ers offense. His 8.2 assists per game made him fifth in the league in that category, while Mitchell languished far behind. There’s more to good offense than the ability to put up a lot of points, and Simmons demonstrated that as an all-around teammate, he was the better player on that end of the floor.

On defense, Simmons’ versatility is virtually unmatched. When he plays point guard, his size and strength outmatch every other guard in the league. And when he played his more natural power forward position, he was still a force when it came to rebounds and blocks. Mitchell, a great defender in his own right, just can’t claim that kind of versatility. He’s a good option if you need to shut down smaller guards. Unlike Simmons, however, he can’t reliably switch onto larger offensive players. That doesn’t necessarily make him a liability. It just shows how valuable a player with Simmons’ size, strength and skill is on the defensive end.

Mitchell isn’t undeserving of the award; he had a remarkable rookie year, and it’s not unreasonable to say that he would be drafted inside the top couple picks if we did a 2017 re-draft. Simmons is just on a different level, displaying the kind of raw talent that made him such an enticing prospect coming out of LSU and evoked the young Lebron comparisons. It’s a shame that these two are in the same rookie class because on their own I think each would run away with the ROY award. Alas, that’s not the case. One player has to win. And for me, that player is Ben Simmons.

The post Ziperski: Simmons for ROY appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2018/05/18/ziperski-simmons-for-roy/feed/ 0 1142470
Ziperski: Starting over in Toronto? https://stanforddaily.com/2018/05/10/ziperski-starting-over-in-toronto/ https://stanforddaily.com/2018/05/10/ziperski-starting-over-in-toronto/#respond Thu, 10 May 2018 08:49:38 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1140776 The Toronto Raptors’ season came to an unfortunate end Monday night with a loss to the Cleveland Cavaliers, a disappointing finish after the team dominated the Eastern Conference and came into the playoffs as the top seed in the conference.

The post Ziperski: Starting over in Toronto? appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
The Toronto Raptors’ season came to an unfortunate end Monday night with a loss to the Cleveland Cavaliers, a disappointing finish after the team dominated the Eastern Conference and came into the playoffs as the top seed in the conference.

It’s a familiar refrain: regular-season success followed by playoff disappointment. This season’s finish stings more than usual, because many believed this was the year that the Raptors would finally take down the Cavs and make an appearance in the Finals. Alas, they didn’t even put up a fight in the second round despite having home court advantage, ultimately being swept at the hands of Lebron James; Lebron’s stat-line over the short four-game series was better than the combined performance of the Raptors’ two stars, DeMar DeRozan and Kyle Lowry.

The sweep marks a new low for the Raptors. This was their year… until it wasn’t; they played awesome basketball for the first 82 games and carried it into the first round of the playoffs. But, just like they always do, they caked their pants when Lebron James came along. And following Monday’s loss, for the first time, we’ve heard loud calls from fans and pundits for the front office to bust up the whole roster and start over.

Why not? This team has proven that it can’t do anything special. Regular season success is fun, but legends are made in the postseason. These Raptors don’t have a hope of making any real playoff progress, not with Lebron in the East and surging teams in Philadelphia and Boston. Maybe it makes sense to blow things up and try to build a better team.

Calling for that now feels good, especially after yet another frustrating end, after another lost season. But it doesn’t make much sense.

This Raptors team is fun to watch. And they’re good! It can be hard to realize that when their most recent games were less than stellar. But there’s a reason the Raptors raced out to a great start to the season and kept it going all the way into April. Kyle Lowry and DeMar DeRozan are a fierce backcourt combo and Serge Ibaka and Jonas Valanciunas are both great talents inside. There aren’t a ton of teams in the league with that kind of talent. Let that talent go elsewhere and start anew just because the team couldn’t overcome the greatest player of all time is short-sighted.

Where would the Raptors go from there? Unless they traded away or released all the aforementioned players, they’d have too much talent to totally tank and would probably end up in the playoff mix in the Eastern Conference. They’d be too good to land a decent draft pick but not good enough to make a postseason run. And actually tanking—going full Sam Hinkie on the league with some long-term vision—would be unpalatable to a fanbase that has become accustomed to watching their team secure one of the top seeds.

Either way, it doesn’t make sense for the Raptors to bust up their roster, even if that’s what angry fans want in the moment. Just watch: if management actually decides to blow things up, the fans demanding radical change now will be the same ones complaining about how crappy their team is in six months time. I’m confident that the folks running Toronto’s front office are level-headed enough to resist the emotional calls for action being thrown around right now. Come October, when the 2018 season kicks off, you’ll see a Raptors team that looks remarkably similar to the one that took the floor on Game 4 Monday night.

 

Contact Andrew Ziperski at ajzip ‘at’ stanford.edu

The post Ziperski: Starting over in Toronto? appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2018/05/10/ziperski-starting-over-in-toronto/feed/ 0 1140776
Ziperski: Kawhi Leonard should be on the trade block https://stanforddaily.com/2018/05/03/ziperski-kawhi-leonard-should-be-on-the-trade-block/ https://stanforddaily.com/2018/05/03/ziperski-kawhi-leonard-should-be-on-the-trade-block/#respond Thu, 03 May 2018 10:06:10 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1140427 Now that the Spurs’ season is finally over—uncharacteristically early, of course, after their recent first round exit at the hands of the Warriors—conversations around the team will now center around their offseason plans and what they should do with Kawhi Leonard.

The post Ziperski: Kawhi Leonard should be on the trade block appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
Now that the Spurs’ season is finally over — uncharacteristically early, of course, after their recent first round exit at the hands of the Warriors — conversations around the team will now center around their offseason plans and what they should do with Kawhi Leonard.

It was a weird season for Leonard. He played in only nine games before the team shut him down for the season due to some sort of leg injury; the actual nature and extent of the injury wasn’t quite clear, and the team’s doctors felt very differently about his rehabilitation plan than Leonard’s camp did. Ultimately, that rift led to Leonard watching his teammates finish out the year not on the bench, but from New York. It was a truly bizarre signal from a franchise player who has claimed that he wants to stay in San Antonio, and it might be a sign that Leonard would like to move on.

Leonard leaving after next season is not something the Spurs can afford. Though they made the playoffs this season, they slipped to the seventh spot in the Western Conference, and they’re on the verge of needing to rebuild. Tim Duncan is gone. Tony Parker and Manu Ginobli are at the end of their careers. Lamarcus Aldridge has not proven to be the dominant power forward they thought he would be when they signed him in 2015, and his style is increasingly unsuited for the modern NBA. Should the Spurs let Leonard bolt without getting anything in return, the franchise’s glory days would officially be over.

The Spurs do have the advantage of being able to offer Leonard a supermax deal, but unless they can get a long-term commitment from him over the next few months, they need to start shopping him in the trade market. Of course, giving up on a player with his talent is really hard. But doing nothing, letting him play one more year with lackluster effort and then watching him sign with a potential competitor would be unforgiveable. Losing Leonard would hurt, but his value is such that any trade would net the Spurs a significant windfall.

And there are certainly teams out there that would be willing to trade for the Spurs star. Leonard’s hometown Los Angeles Lakers are in the market for a franchise player to add alongside their young core of Lonzo Ball, Kentavious Caldwell-Pope and Julius Randall. In return, the Lakers would likely have to part ways with Brandon Ingram. They’d certainly rather not do this: he was a top draft pick in 2016 and has shown that he could one day be a great player in the league. But getting Leonard would have to come at a steep price. All told, this is a trade that would certainly benefit both teams: the Lakers get a proven star who can help them compete for a spot at the top of the Western Conference, and the Spurs get a young, talented wing whom they can build around.

The Sixers might be another option as well; something like a Markelle Fultz/Dario Saric swap for Leonard might work. A Philadelphia team with Leonard, Ben Simmons and Joel Embiid would be truly terrifying in the Eastern Conference. And just like they would in a trade with the Lakers, the Spurs would get two young, talented players at positions of need for the team.

The last year has seen some explosive trades with high-profile players, so a deal involving Leonard would not be totally out of the question. I understand why the Spurs might be hesitant to give away one of the league’s young stars, a player who propelled them to a championship in 2014. But the signs that Leonard has been sending are not good, and it’s becoming increasingly likely that he walks after the 2018 season. That’s a risk that the Spurs simply can’t afford to take. If they can’t get a firm commitment from him that he will stay, they need to consider trading him away and salvaging something in return.

 

Contact Andrew Ziperski at ajzip ‘at’ stanford.edu.

The post Ziperski: Kawhi Leonard should be on the trade block appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2018/05/03/ziperski-kawhi-leonard-should-be-on-the-trade-block/feed/ 0 1140427
Ziperski: Philly, the best sports city in America https://stanforddaily.com/2018/04/26/ziperski-philly-the-best-sports-city-in-america/ https://stanforddaily.com/2018/04/26/ziperski-philly-the-best-sports-city-in-america/#respond Fri, 27 Apr 2018 06:18:59 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1140117 For over a century now, American sports have, for the most part, brought people from different races, classes, genders, and political affiliations together. In today’s polarized environment, the simple act of following or rooting for the same team can bring two very different people together, allowing them to bridge partisan or racial or ethnic divides that might otherwise keep them apart.

The post Ziperski: Philly, the best sports city in America appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
For over a century now, American sports have, for the most part, brought people from different races, classes, genders and political affiliations together. In today’s polarized environment, the simple act of following or rooting for the same team can bring two very different people together, allowing them to bridge partisan or racial or ethnic divides that might otherwise keep them apart.

Sports, then, are something special: They unite people in an otherwise divided society. And for those lucky enough to live in cities with dominant sports teams, this phenomenon is especially true. Four years ago, the city of Cleveland rallied around Lebron James when he returned from South Beach to northern Ohio. His homecoming revitalized the city. The same thing is happening today in 2018, in Philadelphia: The success of its sports teams have given the city life, and it’s not a stretch to say that it is the best sports city in America.

When considering the four major sports leagues — the NFL, NBA, MLB and NHL — as well as college basketball, Philadelphia’s hockey team is probably the worst of the bunch, and the Flyers still made the playoffs this year, losing to the Pittsburgh Penguins in six games. Things are obviously looking pretty good for a city when its worst sports team took two games off the defending champions in the playoffs. And though the city’s baseball team, the Phillies, got off to a slow start, they’ve turned it around and are now ranked third in the National League Standings.

Of course, despite the successes of the Flyers and Phillies, most Philadelphia fans are right now focused on the 76ers and their recent victory over the Miami Heat in the first round of the NBA playoffs.

“The Process” is finally working: Years of tanking have finally paved the way for the team to take the league by storm. Former first-overall picks Ben Simmons and Markelle Fultz have looked good, and Joel Embiid is shaping up to be one of the best centers in the league. After dispatching the Heat in five games, the 76ers will face either the Celtics or the Bucks; both are beatable, and an Eastern Conference Finals berth is not out of the question.

No matter what happens in the second round, for those who stuck around long enough during the losing seasons while trusting the process, it’s a great time to be a basketball fan in Philadelphia.

There’s not much to be said for the Eagles and Villanova Wildcats. Winning the Super Bowl is always a surreal feeling for football fans, and anybody who watched Jason Kelce’s heartfelt speech during the Eagles’ Super Bowl parade couldn’t help but root for him and the rest of his teammates. Football fans in Philadelphia are on top of the world, and with a top-five defense and a franchise quarterback in the fold, the Eagles should be competitive for many years to come.

If you’re living in Philly and a fan of the four major professional sports, things look pretty good: Every team is competitive. But a successful college basketball team puts things over the top. Villanova won the national championship earlier this month, its second title in three years. And with Jay Wright at the helm, they’re primed to keep making big runs during March.

Today, at this very moment, there’s no better city to be in than Philadelphia when it comes to sports. The Flyers made the playoffs and gave the Penguins a good run, the Phillies are surging, the 76ers are on a roll and the Eagles and Wildcats just won on the biggest stage in their respective sports. No other city has come even close to that kind of success over the last year: not New York, or Los Angeles, or Boston or any of the usual suspects. No, Philadelphia is far and away the best place to be. And the best part? The success looks like it will continue, and the rest of the country ought to watch out.

 

Contact Andrew Ziperski at ajzip ‘at’ stanford.edu

The post Ziperski: Philly, the best sports city in America appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2018/04/26/ziperski-philly-the-best-sports-city-in-america/feed/ 0 1140117
Ziperski: No trust in this process https://stanforddaily.com/2018/04/19/ziperski-no-trust-in-this-process/ https://stanforddaily.com/2018/04/19/ziperski-no-trust-in-this-process/#respond Thu, 19 Apr 2018 10:08:34 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1139637 On the first day of the Green Bay Packers’ offseason workout program earlier this week, quarterback Aaron Rodgers channeled his inner Sam Hinkie and told reporters that “you’ve got to trust the process” when asked about some of the team’s controversial decisions.

The post Ziperski: No trust in this process appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
On the first day of the Green Bay Packers’ offseason workout program earlier this week, quarterback Aaron Rodgers channeled his inner Sam Hinkie and told reporters that “you’ve got to trust the process” when asked about some of the team’s controversial decisions.

Namely, reporters wanted to know how Rodgers felt about the team’s decisions not to renew the contract of Alex Van Pelt, the quarterback coach who oversaw his 2014 MVP season, and to release wide receiver Jordy Nelson, arguably Rodgers’ favorite target in the passing game. These moves were done without Rodgers’ consultation, arguably a slap in the face to the man who is the only reason the Packers contend for a Super Bowl each and every year rather than being relegated to the bottom of the league.

When Rodgers went down with a collarbone injury in October of the 2017 season, Green Bay’s chances of winning a championship evaporated overnight. Without him, the offense looked listless for the remainder of the season; backup Brett Hundley was unable to generate anything on that side of the football. With every game — every frustrating outing — that passed, it became clear that without Rodgers, the Packers were nothing.

I don’t know whether Rodgers fully trusts his coach Mike McCarthy (he shouldn’t) or new general manager Brian Gutekunst (the jury is still out on him). Perhaps his statements to the press reflect a desire to remain professional rather than his true feelings. Still, the team’s behavior towards its star player is deeply troubling; going behind his back to do what they’ve done this offseason signals has clearly hurt Rodgers, and the relationship between him and the team needs to be repaired.

Rodgers, as a player, doesn’t deserve to have control over personnel decisions affecting the team, and he acknowledged as much in his press conference. And the personnel decisions that the team made without his consent may indeed be good ones; Nelson’s stagnant production made him too expensive to keep around, and perhaps a new quarterback coach will take the offense in an even better direction. What matters, however, is not the outcome of these decisions, but the process by which they were made. The team could have at the very least reached out to Rodgers for his advice, and in the case of Van Pelt, even let him decide who his own quarterback coach would be. But management did nothing of the sort, instead keeping Rodgers in the dark. Given how important he is to the team, Gutekunst and McCarthy’s actions were downright disrespectful.

Rodgers can’t and doesn’t expect that the team will delegate personnel decisions to him. But he’s a franchise player, Super Bowl champion, future Hall of Famer and the best player to ever suit up in green and gold: he deserves at least a chance to make his voice heard in the organization, particularly when it involves his close friend and position coach. The decision to keep Rodgers in the dark is a failure on the team’s part. No matter how much sense the decisions might have made from a football or financial sense, no matter how great their other free agent signings might be, the Green Bay Packers have failed this offseason: they damaged the relationship with the one player on the team whom they cannot afford to alienate. And moving forward, the team’s first priority must be to repair that relationship.

 

Contact Andrew Ziperski at ajzip ‘at’ stanford.edu.

The post Ziperski: No trust in this process appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2018/04/19/ziperski-no-trust-in-this-process/feed/ 0 1139637
Ziperski: The great state of golf in America https://stanforddaily.com/2018/04/11/ziperski-the-great-state-of-golf-in-america/ https://stanforddaily.com/2018/04/11/ziperski-the-great-state-of-golf-in-america/#respond Thu, 12 Apr 2018 06:59:46 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1139274 Last week’s The Masters at Augusta National — arguably the greatest weekend in sports each and every year — came and went too quickly, but in a short four days, it crowned a first-time major champion in Patrick Reed and proved that American golf is absolutely fantastic right now. For one, Tiger is back.

The post Ziperski: The great state of golf in America appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
Last week’s The Masters at Augusta National — arguably the greatest weekend in sports each and every year — came and went too quickly, but in a short four days, it crowned a first-time major champion in Patrick Reed and proved that American golf is absolutely fantastic right now.

For one, Tiger is back. Though he was never really in contention, it was nice to see him competing once again, especially for those of us who grew up watching Tiger dominate the rest of the field through the 2000s. His very presence at the tournament boosted TV ratings, and even his practice round Monday attracted a throng of spectators. Whether you love him or hate him, Tiger’s personal scandals and health issues seem to be behind him, and his resurgence is terrific for the game: Nobody else in the sport attracts the kind of attention that he does.

This year’s installment also marked the fourth straight major won by a young American. Brooks Koepka won the 2017 US Open, marking his first major victory. Jordan Spieth won at the Open Championship a month later, his third major victory and one that put him a step closer to the career grand slam. And Justin Thomas finished 2017 by winning his first career major at the PGA Championship. Including Patrick Reed, each of these golfers is under the age of thirty, and they have at least a decade of good golf ahead of them.

Though Thomas has only won a single major, he’s played well at several others over the last year, and his successes have powered him to the number two ranking worldwide; if he continues to play at the high level he demonstrated in 2017 and through the early stages of 2018, he will likely add more major championships to his total. And Spieth, who is actually a childhood friend of Thomas, showed again last weekend why he’s one of the best golfers in the world when he carded an 8-under in the final round, nearly mounting an incredible comeback victory. He always has a shot to win any tournament he enters, and at only 24 years old, he has plenty of time to pick up the last major victory he needs— the PGA Championship — and complete the elusive career grand slam.

While the dominance of those four guys might be enough to say that American golfers are indeed the best in the world, I’d be remiss not to mention Dustin Johnson and Rickie Fowler, two other young Americans inside the top ten of the World Golf Rankings. Johnson, who has held the number one spot for over a year now and won the US Open in 2016, is one of the longest drivers on tour and incredibly fun to watch. Fowler, at number seven, constantly hangs around in the final round and, though he’s never won a major, seems closer than ever to finally finishing a weekend on top.

Americans keep winning tournaments, and because they’re so young, the success will likely continue for at least a decade. The Thomas-Spieth friendship/rivalry will continue to play out. Tiger is back, and though he’s hardly young anymore, he’s sparked greater interest in and passion for the game. All told, American golf is in a really great place right now, and it will be incredibly fun to watch in the years to come.

 

Contact Andrew Ziperski at ajzip ‘at’ stanford.edu

The post Ziperski: The great state of golf in America appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2018/04/11/ziperski-the-great-state-of-golf-in-america/feed/ 0 1139274
Ziperski: The NFL needs franchise tag reform https://stanforddaily.com/2018/03/07/ziperski-the-nfl-needs-franchise-tag-reform/ https://stanforddaily.com/2018/03/07/ziperski-the-nfl-needs-franchise-tag-reform/#respond Thu, 08 Mar 2018 06:16:59 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1137955 Nobody ever intended for teams to tag the same player year after year in lieu of coming to an agreement on a long-term contract.

The post Ziperski: The NFL needs franchise tag reform appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
Back in January, Steelers star running back Le’Veon Bell claimed that if the Steelers forced him to play under the franchise tag for a second consecutive season (they tagged him for 2017), he would contemplate retirement. And after the Steelers announced this week that they would tag Bell again in 2018, he said that retirement is indeed an option on the table.

Now, I don’t believe for a second that Bell would actually walk away from the game forever. He’s young, healthy and one of the best players in the league; even if he doesn’t sign a long-term deal at exactly the annual average he seeks, he’s still got the potential to earn a boatload of money over the rest of his career. Retirement is simply not a credible threat, and the Steelers know it. Still, they will probably compromise at some point and negotiate something that works out for both sides.

I hope they do, at least. I don’t know what kind of contract Bell is demanding in his private conversations, but if it’s at all reasonable given his age and ability, the Steelers should find a way to get a deal done. In my view, the way they’ve handled his contract situation the past two seasons is incredibly unfair.

The franchise tag was designed to give teams flexibility in negotiating long-term deals with their star players, to provide a short-term solution when neither side could come to an agreement. Teams enjoy getting to keep top talent for at least another year, and players enjoy receiving one of the top salaries at their position. When used correctly, the franchise tag is something that can benefit both sides and buy them time while they try to figure out multi-year plans.

But the Bell case proves that reform is necessary. Nobody ever intended for teams to tag the same player year after year in lieu of coming to an agreement on a long-term contract. I understand that it is desirable to set up a system in which teams have the advantage in retaining their own players; the NBA accomplishes this through Bird Rights and the ability for teams to exceed the salary cap when re-signing their own players, and the NFL’s salary cap helps accomplish that same end. Still, barring some of these built-in advantages, we want free agency to be as close to a market system as possible; at the end of the day, players ought to play where they want to play and be paid what they’re worth to the market.

What the Steelers are doing, then, is profoundly unfair. Although they’re behaving within the rules by tagging Bell in consecutive years, they’re violating the spirit of the law. The NFL should institute some sort of reform such that teams cannot tag the same player multiple years in a row. Otherwise, we run the risk of teams copying what the Steelers have done: reaping all of the reward by retaining stars at below-market prices without taking on any of the risk associated with committing to them for multiple years.

In Bell’s case, he’ll have to tough it out another year and hope he doesn’t get hurt. Hopefully his predicament spurs the NFL to do something about the current rules. If not, it’s not hard to imagine the Steelers tagging Bell yet again a year from now. Unfortunate, yes. But not terribly unlikely. As long as the rules remain the same, teams will take advantage of them and do what’s economical from their own perspective. And there’s nothing the players can do to stop them.

 

Contact Andrew Ziperski at ajzip ‘at’ stanford.edu

 

The post Ziperski: The NFL needs franchise tag reform appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2018/03/07/ziperski-the-nfl-needs-franchise-tag-reform/feed/ 0 1137955
Ziperski: Abolish NBA age rule https://stanforddaily.com/2018/03/01/ziperski-abolish-nba-age-rule/ https://stanforddaily.com/2018/03/01/ziperski-abolish-nba-age-rule/#respond Thu, 01 Mar 2018 10:17:01 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1137543 Last week’s bombshell news that several top college basketball programs are the target of an FBI corruption investigation has renewed the debate around the NBA’s age rule and the practicality of the “one-and-done” phenomenon that has plagued the NCAA in recent years.

The post Ziperski: Abolish NBA age rule appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
Last week’s bombshell news that several top college basketball programs are the target of an FBI corruption investigation has renewed the debate around the NBA’s age rule and the practicality of the “one-and-done” phenomenon that has plagued the NCAA in recent years.

Powerhouse programs Duke, UNC, Michigan State, Arizona, Kentucky and Kansas have all been implicated in some way. Arizona’s head coach, Sean Miller, is in especially hot water; an unconfirmed ESPN report alleges that he was caught on an FBI wiretap discussing a $100k payment to recruit DeAndre Ayton. If true, it is very likely that he has coached his final game. And it wouldn’t surprise many to see more high-profile names come under fire moving forward as the investigation progresses.

Lonzo Ball, a former standout at UCLA, has claimed that everybody’s getting paid under the table. Lebron came out and called the NCAA corrupt. His sentiment is shared by many across the country.

The relationship between the NCAA as a governing body, the individual schools and the athletes themselves is far too complicated to address in such a short space, so it’s hard to say whether the NCAA is indeed corrupt. Still, it’s obvious to most that something isn’t working, particularly as it pertains to basketball. Players feel like they deserve to be compensated for the service they provide their schools, but schools (and the NCAA) want to preserve the players’ status as amateurs. Eventually, something will have to give. I’d suggest a solution: the NBA ought to strongly consider allowing students to declare for the draft directly from high school rather than forcing them to spend a year in college or abroad.

From the players’ standpoint, this would be fantastic. Those talented enough to jump to the NBA right out of high school could go pro immediately and get their coveted payday. And players who need time to develop physically and mentally—or perhaps those who want a degree as a backup option in case their NBA dreams don’t pan out—could attend college and play there.

Many object to the idea of high schoolers bypassing college and going straight to the NBA. Some will say “they’re not mature enough” or “they need a degree so they can get a job if the NBA doesn’t work out.” Sure, maybe some players aren’t emotionally ready to go pro out of high school and would benefit from an extra year to mature. But it’s not my job, or your job, or the NBA’s job to develop arbitrary rules that dictate people’s career choices to them. We live in a free society, and if people decide they’d rather forego college and get paid today, that’s their decision to make.

As for the second point, I’m actually sympathetic to the idea that even the most talented recruits should get an education—sports are risky, injuries are common and careers can crash and burn before they ever really begin (just ask Greg Oden). Still, that’s not my call to make. And to pretend that star players really learn anything their freshman year is silly; the vast majority of those planning to go “one-and-done” only do the bare minimum to stay eligible, (rightfully) spending most of their time practicing and training. What’s the point in forcing young players to spend only one year in college if they don’t have the time or energy to take advantage of the classes and resources available?

I don’t see one, especially not today. I understand some of the intuition behind the NBA’s age rule, but in 2018, everyone would be better off if the league abolished it. Players could get paid, schools could avoid having to pay their players and the NCAA could avoid the sorts of scandals that have rocked the organization over the last week. The benefits are clear, the costs minimal—it’s only a matter of time before we start seeing 18-year-olds being drafted to the NBA only weeks after graduating high school.

 

Contact Andrew Ziperski at ajzip ‘at’ stanford.edu.

The post Ziperski: Abolish NBA age rule appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2018/03/01/ziperski-abolish-nba-age-rule/feed/ 0 1137543
Ziperski: Kirk’s crazy deal https://stanforddaily.com/2018/02/23/ziperski-kirks-crazy-deal/ https://stanforddaily.com/2018/02/23/ziperski-kirks-crazy-deal/#respond Fri, 23 Feb 2018 08:35:18 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1137227 It was reported recently that the New York Jets were contemplating making Kirk Cousins an offer than included $60 million in guarantees in the first year alone.

No, not $60 million over the life of the contract. Cousins would make it all in year one before getting paid a more modest $20 million or so each year after that.

The post Ziperski: Kirk’s crazy deal appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
It was reported recently that the New York Jets were contemplating making Kirk Cousins an offer than included $60 million in guarantees in the first year alone.

No, not $60 million over the life of the contract. Cousins would make it all in year one before getting paid a more modest $20 million or so each year after that.

Reckless? Ill-conceived? Just another example of how absolutely nuts contracts have gotten in the last few years in the NFL and NBA? Well, maybe that last part. But from both Cousins’ and the Jets’ perspectives, it makes a lot of sense, and I’m rooting for both sides to get it done.

Cousins, like most other professional athletes, wants to win and get paid, and going to the Jets on this unusual deal would accomplish both ends. Despite being in the bottom half of the league last year, the Jets beat nearly everyone’s expectations and aren’t actually that far away from contention in the AFC. If Cousins takes over the starting role under center, they’ll certainly add to their five wins from last year. And with Brady aging and the Patriots’ front office apparently in turmoil, the AFC East will likely be up for grabs soon enough; it’s not crazy to imagine the Jets making the playoffs a few years down the road.

Cousins could instead opt to go to Minnesota, but there he’d be playing in the same division as Aaron Rodgers, Matt Stafford and Mitchell Trubisky, who looks primed for growth heading into his second season. If Cousins goes to Jacksonville, he’ll be forced to compete with Andrew Luck, Deshaun Watson and Marcus Mariota. Arizona doesn’t make much sense either; the NFC West is stacked with young talent in Russell Wilson, Jimmy Garoppolo and Jared Goff. As for Cleveland? It’s a barren wasteland where NFL dreams go to die (I’d hate to offend Browns fans, but I think most of them have accepted this to be true by now).

If Cousins wants to win, New York isn’t a bad option: once Brady retires, Cousins will likely be the best quarterback in a weak division, and the playoffs would be attainable each and every year.

Financially, it’s the best option as well. Nobody on the planet would turn down a guaranteed $60 million with real potential for tens of millions more down the road. Given that the Jets are a good fit on the field, Cousins would have to be insane to decline that kind of money. If New York makes an offer, he will take it.

Which brings me to my next point: despite the gargantuan amount of money they’d have to pay Cousins in the first year of the deal, it makes a lot of sense for New York to pursue this route. They’re expected to have around $100 million in cap space in 2018, and they desperately need a quarterback. Paying Cousins $60 million next season entices him to come without sacrificing financial flexibility; they’ll still have more than enough money to chase other free agents, and with the sixth pick in the draft they’ll be able to add high-quality talent at a cheap cost.

And it’s not like they’ll be paying him $60 million every year: Moving forward, his salary would come down to much more reasonable levels. Still, paying that kind of massive money up front gets him in the door, which is all the Jets need. They’ve got a crazy amount of money to spend this offseason, and they’d have to be stupid not to use it to attract talent at the quarterback position, even if it means making an unconventional offer.

Cousins is a good quarterback, and after the way Washington has treated him over the last year, it’d be nice to see him get a fat payday from a team who appreciates what he can bring to the table. It’s an unusual proposition, that’s for sure. But it’s a good one for both sides. Whether you’re a fan of Kirk, the Jets or just a casual observer, let’s all root for them to get it done.

 

Contact Andrew Ziperski at ajzip ‘at’ stanford.edu.

The post Ziperski: Kirk’s crazy deal appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2018/02/23/ziperski-kirks-crazy-deal/feed/ 0 1137227
Ziperski: Cavs did enough to keep LeBron https://stanforddaily.com/2018/02/15/ziperski-cavs-did-enough-to-keep-lebron/ https://stanforddaily.com/2018/02/15/ziperski-cavs-did-enough-to-keep-lebron/#respond Thu, 15 Feb 2018 11:11:43 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1136803 Last Thursday’s trade deadline was one of the most memorable in recent history, headlined by the Cleveland Cavaliers completely overhauling their roster and several other teams making important roster moves.

The post Ziperski: Cavs did enough to keep LeBron appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
Ziperski: Cavs did enough to keep LeBron
Andrew Ziperski (THE STANFORD DAILY)

Last Thursday’s trade deadline was one of the most memorable in recent history, headlined by the Cleveland Cavaliers completely overhauling their roster and several other teams making important roster moves.

If you cut through all the noise—the Isaiah Thomas drama, Dwayne Wade going home to Miami and so on—these moves all boil down to one thing: A desperate attempt by the Cavaliers and their rookie general manager Koby Altman to prevent LeBron James from bolting to greener pastures.

We won’t know for sure whether things worked out until free agency opens up this July, but I’d predict that Cleveland’s management did enough last week to convince LeBron to stay. Come October, when the 2018 season officially kicks off, LeBron will yet again don his hometown wine and gold.

At this point in his career, LeBron cares about one thing and one thing only: winning championships and chasing Michael Jordan’s six rings. He long ago proved his physical dominance, his leadership skills and his ability to single-handedly carry a team to a title. Having already demonstrated that he’s the most skilled to ever play the game—perhaps the best to ever play—he now seeks to cement his status as the greatest of all time. Talent and greatness, though certainly linked, are two different things; LeBron knows this, and it’s why he cares most about team success and titles rather than his own individual performance.

With that in mind, LeBron wants the best team around him. And Thursday’s moves have given him a much better supporting cast than the one that he played with for the first half of the season. The Isaiah Thomas experiment wasn’t working out: he posted career-worst offensive numbers, was having one of the worst statistical seasons on the defensive end in NBA history and there were rumors that he wasn’t jelling well with LeBron or Kevin Love. Jae Crowder, despite his reputation as a solid three-and-D player and having one of the friendliest contracts in the league, just wasn’t playing well and wasn’t a good fit for head coach Tyronn Lue’s scheme. Dwyane Wade didn’t really belong and was only there because of his close friendship with LeBron.

In return, the Cavaliers picked up Lakers guard Jordan Clarkson, an adept scorer who’s far younger, cheaper and better defensively than Isaiah Thomas. They snagged Rodney Hood from Utah, an underrated player who can slide right into the lineup and start at the two-guard position. Larry Nance, another pickup from Los Angeles, will provide support inside and veteran George Hill fits the Crowder three-and-D mold, albeit at the guard, rather than at the forward position.

The Cavaliers are younger, faster and more equipped to win a title than they were a week ago. That matters, because to convince LeBron to stay, the team must demonstrate that it can realistically compete each season to represent the Eastern Conference in the NBA Finals. LeBron isn’t an idiot; he knows moving to the West—as many people have said he will—means that he’ll have to butt heads with the loaded Warriors, Rockets, Timberwolves and Thunder year after year after year. Making it to the Finals is far tougher in the West than it is in the East, so Eastern Conference teams are already more appealing to him.

If LeBron is predisposed to remaining in the East, then all the Cavaliers must do is show that they surround him with enough talent to make it to the Finals. A week ago, it didn’t look like their roster was up to snuff; the Celtics seemed the superior team. But following the trade deadline and Sunday’s beatdown of Boston, Cleveland is in the driver’s seat in the East. That’s all LeBron can reasonably ask for.

The Cavaliers management gave LeBron exactly what he needs. Whether it leads to a title this season, their willingness to make radical changes should keep him around for the long haul.

 

Contact Andrew Ziperski at ajzip ‘at’ stanford.edu.

The post Ziperski: Cavs did enough to keep LeBron appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2018/02/15/ziperski-cavs-did-enough-to-keep-lebron/feed/ 0 1136803
Ziperski: Foles can’t cash in just yet https://stanforddaily.com/2018/02/08/ziperski-foles-cant-cash-in-just-yet/ https://stanforddaily.com/2018/02/08/ziperski-foles-cant-cash-in-just-yet/#respond Thu, 08 Feb 2018 09:29:20 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1136318 Prior to Sunday’s game, few NFL fans and bettors expected the Philadelphia Eagles to spoil Tom Brady’s quest for a sixth Super Bowl title. If you go back even further, most people didn’t even expect the Eagles to make the championship game in a stacked NFC conference after franchise quarterback Carson Wentz went down with a season-ending ACL tear in the midst of an MVP-level campaign. After struggling with journeyman backup Nick Foles in the final three games of 2017, things didn’t look bright.

The post Ziperski: Foles can’t cash in just yet appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
Prior to Sunday’s game, few NFL fans and bettors expected the Philadelphia Eagles to spoil Tom Brady’s quest for a sixth Super Bowl title. If you go back even further, most people didn’t even expect the Eagles to make the championship game in a stacked NFC conference, after franchise quarterback Carson Wentz went down with a season-ending ACL tear in the midst of an MVP-level campaign. After struggling with journeyman backup Nick Foles in the final three games of 2017, things didn’t look bright.

Then Foles turned it up to another level. After eking out a close win over the Atlanta Falcons in the divisional round, the Eagles punished the Vikings in the NFC Championship Game behind a career game from Foles, who threw for over 350 yards and three touchdowns. And then on Sunday, Foles dueled with Tom Brady in one of the greatest offensive showdowns in NFL history, turning in another stellar performance with nearly 400 yards and another three touchdowns against the greatest quarterback of all time.

Nobody saw this level of play coming from Foles, who has been rather unremarkable over his entire NFL career save for an extremely efficient year in 2013 during which he actually racked up the third-highest passer rating ever for a single season.

Philadelphia wouldn’t be celebrating its first title without Foles stepping up to the plate, that’s for certain. He deserves the everlasting adoration of Eagles fans and a place in the history books. I have no doubt that Eagles head coach Doug Pederson, owner Jeffrey Lurie and his fellow teammates are immensely grateful for the way he carried himself and dealt with the pressure while facing Tom Brady in the Super Bowl.

At the same time, though, Eagles management has one job: to best position the franchise to defend its title in 2018. And unfortunately, what is best for the team might not be best for Foles’ career and vice-versa.

I understand the temptation to show their gratitude and reward Foles by making him the starter. Foles does not want to return to the bench after winning a Super Bowl, no matter what he might say publicly in the coming weeks and months. But does it make sense for the Eagles to hand him the reins and relegate Wentz to the backup slot? From the team’s perspective, not really: Wentz is several years younger, more talented and has demonstrated proficiency in Pederson’s RPO-heavy offensive scheme over a longer period of time.

Maybe, then, it makes sense to trade Foles away and let him start at quarterback for another team. Unfortunately, while that might be something Foles would agree to, it’s not in the best interests of the team. Because Foles has only one year left and the free agent crop will be especially strong this offseason, the market for Foles could be weak, and the Eagles might not get much in return. On top of that, Wentz injured himself in Week 14, and, although he had surgery only a few days later, that leaves him only nine months to recover before the 2018 season kicks off. Even if his knee fully heals by that time—which is a stretch, to say the least—he’ll have missed OTAs and much of training camp.

It’s not hard to imagine the Eagles opening up the 2018 season with Wentz on the sideline as he recovers. The team needs a proven backup who can win games, and it probably doesn’t make sense to sign someone. Teddy Bridgewater? I see the Vikings keeping him. Case Keenum? After his career year this past season with Minnesota, he’ll be too expensive and will likely sign with a team as the starter. Sam Bradford? Been there, done that, no thanks. Foles might not like it, but he’s the best option for the Eagles as the short-term starter while Wentz gets back to full strength.

Of course, this isn’t ideal for him. But the NFL is a business, and the front office in Philadelphia needs to put the team first, even if it means hampering the career prospects of their newest hero.

In all likelihood, it looks like the Eagles will retain Foles this offseason and that he’ll have to wait another year to cash in on his extraordinary Super Bowl run.

 

Contact Andrew Ziperski at ajzip ‘at’ stanford.edu.

The post Ziperski: Foles can’t cash in just yet appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2018/02/08/ziperski-foles-cant-cash-in-just-yet/feed/ 0 1136318
Ziperski: Stan Van Gundy thinks it’s 2011 https://stanforddaily.com/2018/02/01/ziperski-stan-van-gundy-thinks-its-2011/ https://stanforddaily.com/2018/02/01/ziperski-stan-van-gundy-thinks-its-2011/#respond Fri, 02 Feb 2018 06:27:03 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1135895 NBA fans were in for a big surprise Monday afternoon when it was announced that Los Angeles Clippers star power forward Blake Griffin (along with two minor role players) had been traded to the Detroit Pistons in exchange for Tobias Harris, Avery Bradley, Boban Marjanovic and two draft picks, one of which is a first-round selection.

The post Ziperski: Stan Van Gundy thinks it’s 2011 appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
NBA fans were in for a big surprise Monday afternoon when it was announced that Los Angeles Clippers star power forward Blake Griffin (along with two minor role-players) had been traded to the Detroit Pistons in exchange for Tobias Harris, Avery Bradley, Boban Marjanovic and two draft picks, one of which is a first-round selection.

As is the case with many blockbuster deals, we won’t know for some time who won and who lost. Still, it can be worthwhile to analyze the results and predict which team will come out on top, no matter how soon.

My take? Despite getting the best player in the deal, the Pistons are on the losing side of this one.

It’s obvious that Griffin is head-and-shoulders above the other players involved, but the Pistons are taking on an enormous amount of risk with very little upside. He has a long injury history, and there’s no guarantee that he will stay healthy in the coming years. On top of that, he’s not the same player who dunked over a Kia Optima in the 2011 Dunk Contest; once among the league’s most explosive athletes, his abilities have waned over time.

In addition to his loss of athletic ability, Griffin’s bruising, low-post style of play hasn’t caught up with the modern NBA – he’s added a mediocre three-point shot to his repertoire only very recently – and he’s certainly not a good fit next to Pistons center Andre Drummond, one of the worst shooters in the league. With Detroit having traded Bradley and Harris to acquire him, the lineup is very thin and completely devoid of shooters.

The worst part of trading for Griffin is that they’re stuck with him through the 2020 season. His contract is enormous, and unless he somehow shakes off his injury woes, reverses the deleterious effects that age has brought and returns to superstar form, nobody will take his deal off the Pistons’ hands.

The contract, the risk that he doesn’t produce at a high level, the hemorrhaging of other talent … this trade may have made sense six or seven years ago, but it doesn’t really make much sense today. If things go perfectly, the upside is pretty limited: I don’t see how it does anything but maybe make the Pistons marginally better over the next few seasons and allow them to compete for a playoff spot in the Eastern Conference.

Things are looking better for the Clippers. It certainly hurts to lose Griffin; nobody’s expecting stretch-three Tobias Harris or gigantic center Boban Marjanovic to match his production. But Harris is a quality player, a good three-point shooter and somebody who could certainly re-sign with the team when his contract expires after next year. And Bradley, despite having a down year from a statistical perspective, is a fierce defender who matches up well with fellow Western Conference guards like Chris Paul and Steph Curry.

Unloading the contract also frees up space in the salary cap to sign talent down the road as they go through a semi-rebuild, and the two draft picks – one of which could fall in the lottery in this year’s draft – definitely helps.

I’m not a fan of the way the Clippers handled Griffin’s situation. When they wanted to re-sign him this past summer, they told him that he’d be a Clipper for life, that he could continue to build his legacy as the best player in franchise history. Trading him away – less than a year later and to a struggling team in a lesser conference – is a bit of a slap in the face. But everyone knows that the NBA, even more so than other sports leagues, is a business. The Clippers did what was best for the franchise, both today and moving forward.

I might be wrong, of course. Griffin could regain his explosiveness, and he and Drummond could wreak havoc in the East. Avery Bradley could leave this summer, followed by Tobias Harris next year, and the Clippers could be left with nothing. Outcomes like these are certainly in the realm of possibility.

But if I had to make the call today, I’m rolling with the Clippers on this one.

 

Contact Andrew Ziperski at ajzip ‘at’ stanford.edu.

The post Ziperski: Stan Van Gundy thinks it’s 2011 appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2018/02/01/ziperski-stan-van-gundy-thinks-its-2011/feed/ 0 1135895
Ziperski: John Calipari, King of Salt https://stanforddaily.com/2018/01/25/ziperski-john-calipari-king-of-salt/ https://stanforddaily.com/2018/01/25/ziperski-john-calipari-king-of-salt/#respond Thu, 25 Jan 2018 18:53:44 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1135552 This past Saturday, five-star recruit Zion Williamson stunned many when he verbally committed to continue his academic and basketball career at Duke University rather than sticking with his hometown Clemson Tigers, whom many had thought was the favorite to land him. Also in the mix were North Carolina, South Carolina, Kansas and Kentucky.

The post Ziperski: John Calipari, King of Salt appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
This past Saturday, five-star recruit Zion Williamson stunned many when he verbally committed to continuing his academic and basketball career at Duke University rather than sticking with his hometown Clemson Tigers, whom many had thought was the favorite to land him. Also in the mix were North Carolina, South Carolina, Kansas and Kentucky.

John Calipari, Kentucky’s head coach, exhibited his frustration with losing out to Duke once again — Williamson is just the latest recruit to spurn the Wildcats for a different shade of blue, following stars likes Brandon Ingram, Jason Tatum and Marvin Bagley. At a press conference on Monday, he accused Duke of following unfair recruiting practices.

His complaint is that whereas Kentucky’s recruiting pitch focuses solely on the program’s ability to prepare players for NBA success, Duke woos high schoolers by claiming that the university and its fans will “take care of [them] for the rest of [their] lives.” Calipari even went on to compare Duke’s treatment of players to socialism.

Calipari might be a great basketball coach, but he’s certainly no economist; he’d do well to crack open one of his player’s never-used economics textbooks and brush up on the definition of socialism. Is there anything socialist about Duke promising players that the university will show gratitude for their service to the basketball program? Is it wrong to promise that fans of the basketball program will adore them long after they’ve finished their time in Durham? Of course not. After all, those things are part of what makes being a stud athlete at a dominant program so great. And in Duke’s case, these are not empty promises. As a North Carolina native who’s closely followed the Duke program for over a decade, I know just how intensely loyal and grateful the fanbase can be, and just how well the university takes care of its former players.

Since Calipari seems intent on making economics a central theme of his complaints — he also remarked at his press conference that Kentucky players have gone on to earn more than a billion dollars — we ought to consider that Duke might have the upper hand over Kentucky due to the value of its degree. Like Stanford, Duke is one of the best schools in the world, with strong academic programs across the board. If you’re lucky enough to get in and work hard once you’re there, you will likely graduate with a degree respected around the world. That’s not a knock against Kentucky, which is a solid school in its own right, but there’s a discernible difference between the academic quality between the two schools.

Concerns like these might not be at the forefront of Zion Williamson’s mind because, barring catastrophic injury or terrible luck, he’ll likely be a top pick in the 2019 NBA Draft. Still, most college athletes understand that they will “go pro in something other than sports,” and many make their college decisions with this fact in mind, often choosing academic quality over athletic strength.

I think most people would conclude that if the basketball programs are close to a wash (as one could argue Duke and Kentucky are), it makes economic sense to attend Duke over Kentucky if given a full athletic scholarship to both. Young players leveraging their skills to maximize their future earning potential? Doesn’t sound like socialism to me. Calipari, in addition to sounding petty and childish, is just dead wrong. If I were him, I’d spend less time worrying about Coach K’s recruiting tactics down in Durham and more time figuring out how to turn around his team’s recently abysmal play.

 

Contact Andrew Ziperski at ajzip ‘at’ stanford.edu.

The post Ziperski: John Calipari, King of Salt appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2018/01/25/ziperski-john-calipari-king-of-salt/feed/ 0 1135552
Ziperski: Mike Tomlin’s time is up https://stanforddaily.com/2018/01/18/ziperski-mike-tomlins-time-is-up/ https://stanforddaily.com/2018/01/18/ziperski-mike-tomlins-time-is-up/#respond Thu, 18 Jan 2018 19:19:33 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1135206 The Pittsburgh Steelers just wrapped up a 13-win season in which they won the AFC North and secured a first-round bye in the playoffs. Over the last four seasons, they’ve been a perennial contender, racking up 45 wins. In the last decade, they’ve won a Super Bowl and been the runner-up in another. Future Hall of Fame quarterback Ben Roethlisberger continues to play at a high level, and they’ve drafted incredibly well: the successes of Antonio Brown and Le’Veon Bell, two of the most dominant position players in the league, are a testament to that fact.

The post Ziperski: Mike Tomlin’s time is up appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
The Pittsburgh Steelers just wrapped up a 13-win season in which they won the AFC North and secured a first-round bye in the playoffs. Over the last four seasons, they’ve been a perennial contender, racking up 45 wins. In the last decade, they’ve won a Super Bowl and been the runner-up in another. Future Hall of Fame quarterback Ben Roethlisberger continues to play at a high level, and they’ve drafted incredibly well: the successes of Antonio Brown and Le’Veon Bell, two of the most dominant position players in the league, are a testament to that fact.

Having said all that, despite the successes, the ownership needs to pull the trigger and fire head coach Mike Tomlin.

To many, that would seem insane. As the old adage goes, if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. And things don’t necessarily seem broken right now. Still, just because things are good today doesn’t mean that they will be tomorrow or that there isn’t room for growth. The Steelers have enough talent to win a Super Bowl. Yet they’ve come up short every year since 2009, and since their runner-up finish to Green Bay in 2011, they’ve been 3-5 in the playoffs. Of course, Tomlin isn’t entirely to blame. The players must ultimately execute on the field. But in the wake of the Steelers’ loss to the Jaguars this past weekend — a game in which Tomlin was certainly outcoached — it’s worth questioning whether his time in Steel City ought to be over.

If the lack of deep playoff runs over the last few seasons wasn’t enough to engender calls for a change at the head coach position, Tomlin’s bone-headed coaching in the final minutes of Sunday’s loss to Jacksonville should be. I won’t rehash the entire thing here, but in short, Tomlin made an inexplicable onside-kick decision and then channeled his inner Mike McCarthy by butchering the late-game clock management situation. I won’t say that he cost the Steelers the game — things were already pretty dire prior to his brain fart — but he certainly made sure they had no shot at a comeback. With the Steelers playing at home in the divisional round of the playoffs, it was an unacceptable mistake: a mistake that Tomlin needs to pay for.

I wrote last week about why Kansas City ought to drown out fans’ demands for radical change and instead stay the course. For the Steelers, the opposite is true. Big Ben only has a few years left, if that. Bell has threatened to retire if the Steelers hit him with the franchise tag again, so he might bolt. The defense isn’t the dominant force that it used to be. They have no succession plan in place; backup quarterback Landry Jones is a competent second-stringer, but he can’t lead anybody to the playoffs as a starter. The window for a championship is rapidly closing. If the Steelers are to win another ring, they need to do it now. With Mike Tomlin at the helm, that’s not going to happen.

 

Contact Andrew Ziperski at ajzip ‘at’ stanford.edu.

The post Ziperski: Mike Tomlin’s time is up appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2018/01/18/ziperski-mike-tomlins-time-is-up/feed/ 0 1135206
Ziperski: Alex Smith isn’t going anywhere https://stanforddaily.com/2018/01/11/ziperski-alex-smith-isnt-going-anywhere/ https://stanforddaily.com/2018/01/11/ziperski-alex-smith-isnt-going-anywhere/#respond Fri, 12 Jan 2018 02:39:42 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1134912 When the Chiefs selected Texas Tech quarterback Patrick Mahomes in the first round of last year’s NFL draft, many assumed that the 2017 season would be Alex Smith’s final one as the starter in Kansas City. After all, the Chiefs had traded up to trade Mahomes, sending their own 2017 first-rounder, a third-round pick, and their 2018 first-round selection to Buffalo. Given the steep price they paid, it seemed inevitable that Mahomes would soon take over the reins as the starting quarterback in 2018, if not sooner.

The post Ziperski: Alex Smith isn’t going anywhere appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
When the Chiefs selected Texas Tech quarterback Patrick Mahomes in the first round of last year’s NFL draft, many assumed that the 2017 season would be Alex Smith’s final one as the starter in Kansas City. After all, the Chiefs had traded up to trade Mahomes, sending their own 2017 first-rounder, a third-round pick, and their 2018 first-round selection to Buffalo. Given the steep price they paid, it seemed inevitable that Mahomes would soon take over the reins as the starting quarterback in 2018, if not sooner.

Then Alex Smith had a career year. The Chiefs opened the season by beating the defending Super Bowl Champion Patriots in Foxborough and raced to a league-best 5-0 start. Smith’s name dominated the early-season MVP discussions. Though Kansas City cooled off, losing five of their next six, they ultimately secured a playoff berth and another AFC West title. Smith, for his part, threw for over 4,000 yards, had a terrific 26-5 touchdown-to-interception ratio and sat atop the league with a 104.7 passer rating. The hype around Mahomes quieted significantly. Yet in the wake of the Chiefs’ disappointing Wild Card loss to the Tennessee Titans, many pundits have surmised that the Smith era in Kansas City is over.

I find that hard to believe. Sure, I’m confident that Mahomes is in Kansas City’s long-term plans and that they view him as a potential franchise quarterback. Smith will be 34 when the 2018 season kicks off in September, and he isn’t getting any younger. In addition to age-related issues, it’s highly likely that he will revert to the mean: he’s an athletic game-manager who won’t turn the ball over but also won’t win many games on his own. His best days are probably behind him.

Still, is turning over control to a raw Patrick Mahomes really a better option for the Chiefs than maintaining the status quo for at least another year? Mahomes showed potential as the starter in Week 17, and we know he’s got one of the strongest arms in the league (there’s a video of him throwing a ball 65 yards on his knees). But he could benefit from another year as the backup, learning how to read NFL defenses and hone his decision-making abilities. The Chiefs have a great running game, explosive special teams and a competent defense. Alex Smith is a safe pair of hands who will manage the offense competently and let those other aspects shine through: there’s too much risk involved with letting him walk and hoping that Mahomes is ready to step up.

It’s especially risky if you take into account the fact that Smith could very well end up playing for an AFC rival if they trade or release him. The Broncos desperately need a quarterback and would be more than happy to take Smith off the Chiefs’ hands. After finishing 5-11, a lot of fans have forgotten about them. But Denver’s defense is still superb, and with a signal caller like Smith at the helm, they could very well overtake the Chiefs in the West. In addition to the Broncos, the Jets, Browns and Jaguars could be in the market for a new quarterback. Any of these teams would certainly take a good look at Smith if the Chiefs were to let him walk.

The best thing for the Chiefs to do, then, is nothing. Stay the course. Keep Smith, even if it means restructuring his contract. The Mahomes hype will have to wait another year. If the Chiefs value stability and making the playoffs, Alex Smith isn’t going anywhere.

 

Contact Andrew Ziperski at ajzip ‘at’ stanford.edu.

The post Ziperski: Alex Smith isn’t going anywhere appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2018/01/11/ziperski-alex-smith-isnt-going-anywhere/feed/ 0 1134912
Ziperski: Eli didn’t deserve this https://stanforddaily.com/2017/11/30/ziperski-eli-didnt-deserve-this/ https://stanforddaily.com/2017/11/30/ziperski-eli-didnt-deserve-this/#respond Thu, 30 Nov 2017 09:00:03 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1134136 Eli didn’t deserve this. The Giants’ season, though certainly disappointing, isn’t his fault—he has no line to protect him, no weapons to throw to. Eli hasn’t played great, that’s for sure. But pinning this season’s woes on him, and doing so in such embarrassing, heart-wrenching fashion, is a weak, sad move by a head coach desperate to save his own job.

The post Ziperski: Eli didn’t deserve this appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
Two-time Super Bowl champion and MVP. Seventh on the all-time passing yards list. The greatest quarterback in Giants history.

Now, benched for Geno Smith.

Eli didn’t deserve this. The Giants’ season, though certainly disappointing, isn’t his fault — he has no line to protect him, no weapons to throw to. Eli hasn’t played great, that’s for sure. But pinning this season’s woes on him, and doing so in such embarrassing, heart-wrenching fashion, is a weak, sad move by a head coach desperate to save his own job.

It would be one thing if the Giants were letting Eli ride out the rest of this lost season so that they could see what kind of talent they had in their young backups. That’s not the case here; Geno Smith is no young, untested rookie. A five year veteran, he played two seasons worth of games for the New York Jets in the AFC East, one of the least competitive divisions in football over the last two decades. We’ve watched him struggle to make plays, and by now, it’s clear what he’s capable of: not much. He’s got a sub-60 percent completion percentage and a ghastly 28-36 career touchdown ratio. Does he deserve a place in the NFL? Sure, maybe as a backup. But the idea that Ben McAdoo is using these next five games as a tryout, that the Giants would seriously consider him as their starter moving forward, is absurd.

Perhaps McAdoo thinks Smith truly gives them the best chance to win to close out the season? If so, he’s crazy. No matter how you look at it, there’s no “football” rationale for benching Eli. What the Giants have done is reprehensible. Eli is a consummate professional. He doesn’t whine or complain. He doesn’t blame his receivers for dropping balls, or his linemen for missing blocks. Year in, year out, he’s been a class act.

Archie Manning, Eli’s father, told reporters Wednesday that Eli is heartbroken. He should be. After 13 steady years at the helm, after two world championships, Eli deserves more than a public shaming at the hands of a failing coach. I understand his pain. And I hope he gets a chance to continue his career with his head held high, whether that’s with the Giants or somewhere else that shows him the appreciation he’s entitled to.

 

Contact Andrew Ziperski at ajzip ‘at’ stanford.edu.

The post Ziperski: Eli didn’t deserve this appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2017/11/30/ziperski-eli-didnt-deserve-this/feed/ 0 1134136
Ziperski: Jerry Jones needs to stand down https://stanforddaily.com/2017/11/16/ziperski-jerry-jones-needs-to-stand-down/ https://stanforddaily.com/2017/11/16/ziperski-jerry-jones-needs-to-stand-down/#respond Thu, 16 Nov 2017 21:37:32 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1133568 Over the course of the NFL’s Ezekiel Elliot domestic violence saga, which finally wrapped up last week when Elliot’s appeal for an injunction was denied (again), another controversy has unfolded in parallel: Cowboys owner Jerry Jones’ war against Roger Goodell. The contempt that Jones holds for the commissioner is no secret, though I and many others were still shocked when we learned that Jones has been gunning to have Goodell removed from power. Exactly what’s going on is still unclear, but it appears Jones is fighting his fellow owners over Goodell’s proposed contract extension. Unpopular as Goodell is with many fans and players alike, his job security is pretty safe; Jones’ war is not one he will win, and if he knows best, he’ll quit before he gets himself—and his team—into serious trouble.

The post Ziperski: Jerry Jones needs to stand down appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
Over the course of the NFL’s Ezekiel Elliot domestic violence saga, which finally wrapped up last week when Elliot’s appeal for an injunction was denied (again), another controversy has unfolded in parallel: Cowboys owner Jerry Jones’ war against Roger Goodell. The contempt that Jones holds for the commissioner is no secret, though I and many others were still shocked when we learned that Jones has been gunning to have Goodell removed from power. Exactly what’s going on is still unclear, but it appears Jones is fighting his fellow owners over Goodell’s proposed contract extension. Unpopular as Goodell is with many fans and players alike, his job security is pretty safe; Jones’ war is not one he will win, and if he knows best, he’ll quit before he gets himself – and his team – into serious trouble.

I understand Jones’ frustration over the way the league handled his star running back’s domestic violence case. With most of the incriminating testimony against Elliot having been recanted, it seems pretty unfair that he’s serving a six-game suspension. When you add to that the constant legal back and forth that finally got resolved eight weeks into the season, the whole situation looks like a big mess. But the league has an image problem, and suspending Elliot makes sense from a public relations perspective; at the very least, Jones should appreciate the message the league is sending. He should also appreciate that, given just how miserably the league has botched such cases in the past, many people aren’t going to be receptive to the his and Cowboys’ fans complaints. Blasting Goodell and fighting the other teams’ owners over his job security because the league cracked down on alleged domestic assault isn’t going to win Jones any support. In fact, it’s done the opposite: It has not only created a distraction for a very average Cowboys team chasing the division-leading Philadelphia Eagles, but it has also led to speculation that Jones himself might be forced out.

Jones, being the egomaniac that he is, has never been good at staying out of the spotlight and delegating power to people who know best; I believe it’s a big part of the reason the Cowboys were so mediocre for so long during his tenure. Heading into Week 11 of the season, the Cowboys don’t have time for the media distractions that the Jones story has created. Just one game above .500, they should be completely focused on winning games. Instead, the dominant headlines have been about the loud-mouthed owner and his lone-man fight against Roger Goodell. That’s not good. And while I know asking Jerry Jones to stop running his mouth is like asking Brock Osweiler to go a whole game without throwing an interception, it needs to happen.

Because if it doesn’t – if Jones continues on this mission, which will surely end in vain – he may end up losing his team. Now, I think the likelihood that Jones actually gets forced out over his fight with Goodell is really low. But the fact we even have to talk about it isn’t a good sign. Jones is powerful, sure. But so are the other owners, and they stand behind Goodell. If Jones keeps it up, and things get really ugly, I’m not so sure the other owners will save him.

 

Contact Andrew Ziperski at ajzip ‘at’ stanford.edu.

The post Ziperski: Jerry Jones needs to stand down appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2017/11/16/ziperski-jerry-jones-needs-to-stand-down/feed/ 0 1133568
Ziperski: Belichick finally makes mistake https://stanforddaily.com/2017/11/09/ziperski-belichick-finally-makes-mistake/ https://stanforddaily.com/2017/11/09/ziperski-belichick-finally-makes-mistake/#respond Thu, 09 Nov 2017 09:00:25 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1133028 Bill Belichick has enjoyed one of the most successful tenures ever as a head football coach, having succeeded year-after-year in crafting a contender with top-notch talent on offense, defense and special teams. I have no doubt that he will go down as one of the greatest of all time, and deservedly so. Last week, however, he finally slipped up: the Jimmy Garoppolo trade to San Francisco is one, I believe, that he will come to regret.

The post Ziperski: Belichick finally makes mistake appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
Bill Belichick has enjoyed one of the most successful tenures ever as a head football coach, having succeeded year after year in crafting a contender with top-notch talent on offense, defense and special teams. I have no doubt that he will go down as one of the greatest of all time, and deservedly so. Last week, however, he finally slipped up: The Jimmy Garoppolo trade to San Francisco is one that, I believe, he will come to regret.

The second-round pick that New England received, on its face, looks like a great haul in exchange for only a backup quarterback. Draft picks are incredibly valuable in the NFL, with first and second-round selections notoriously hard to come by. In any other scenario, I’d argue that giving up an unproven signal-caller with only 63 career passing attempts in exchange for a high second-round pick is a masterstroke. But the trade left New England’s depth chart bare, save for Tom Brady. And though it has since been filled with journeyman Brian Hoyer (who, ironically, was cut by the 49ers to create space for Garoppolo), the Patriots are now betting that 40-year-old Tom Brady will last long enough for the team to draft and groom his eventual successor.

It would have been smarter to stick with Garoppolo. We know almost nothing about him, but he looked impressive in his two starts in 2016, and it doesn’t hurt that he’s spent four seasons behind the GOAT. Drafting and developing good quarterback talent is really difficult. For every Andrew Luck or Carson Wentz – guys taken at the top of the draft who have developed nicely – you’ve got a Brandon Weeden or Blaine Gabbert or Carson Palmer or Johnny Manziel or RG3 … you get the point. I understand that keeping Garoppolo would have been expensive, and I get that Tom Brady has looked fantastic even as he’s entered his 40s. But quarterbacks decline quickly: Peyton Manning had a career year in 2013, but by 2015, he was a shell of his former self. In trading away Garoppolo, Belichick has signaled that he not only believes Tom Brady has several years left, but also has confidence that he can draft and develop someone to take his place.

That’s a huge risk. And for a team as well-built as the Patriots on both sides of the ball, it seems like an unacceptable one. Garoppolo knew the playbook and was talented enough to eventually take over and continue the Patriots’ tradition of success. New England will be too good for the foreseeable future to draft high enough to take one of the top college passers. Will the guy they eventually get be as good – or better – than Garoppolo? Maybe, but maybe not. Either way, it feels like Belichick didn’t think this one through, and down the line, he may pay for it.

 

Contact Andrew Ziperski at ajzip ‘at’ stanford.edu.

The post Ziperski: Belichick finally makes mistake appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2017/11/09/ziperski-belichick-finally-makes-mistake/feed/ 0 1133028
Ziperski: Stanford reunion in Indianapolis https://stanforddaily.com/2017/11/03/ziperski-stanford-reunion-in-indianapolis/ https://stanforddaily.com/2017/11/03/ziperski-stanford-reunion-in-indianapolis/#respond Fri, 03 Nov 2017 13:07:08 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1132417 At the beginning of the 2017 college football season, a few media outlets—Fox Sports in particular—published pieces suggesting that Michigan Wolverines head coach Jim Harbaugh might leave Ann Arbor and head to Indianapolis to replace the Colts’ Chuck Pagano. Skeptical at first, I’ve become more optimistic as the Colts have struggled. Though Pagano’s battle against cancer several years ago inspired many, he hasn’t performed as a head coach since, and it seems almost certain that he’ll be gone after the 2017 season. Once he’s gone, the Colts will need somebody who’s proven that they can step in and turn teams around. Josh McDaniels of the Patriots has been floated as one possibility, and although he’s a capable play-caller and offensive coordinator, his one stint as a head coach in Denver was a disappointment. Beyond McDaniels, there’s unlikely to be a whole lot of available coaching talent at the professional level. Maybe it’s time to dip into the ranks of the NCAA.

The post Ziperski: Stanford reunion in Indianapolis appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
At the beginning of the 2017 college football season, a few media outlets — Fox Sports in particular — published pieces suggesting that Michigan Wolverines head coach Jim Harbaugh might leave Ann Arbor and head to Indianapolis to replace the Colts’ Chuck Pagano. Skeptical at first, I’ve become more optimistic as the Colts have struggled. Though Pagano’s battle against cancer several years ago inspired many, he hasn’t performed as a head coach since, and it seems almost certain that he’ll be gone after the 2017 season. Once he’s gone, the Colts will need somebody who has proven that they can step in and turn teams around. Josh McDaniels of the Patriots has been floated as one possibility, and although he’s a capable play-caller and offensive coordinator, his one stint as a head coach in Denver was a disappointment. Beyond McDaniels, there’s unlikely to be a whole lot of available coaching talent at the professional level. Maybe it’s time to dip into the ranks of the NCAA.

If Harbaugh is willing to listen to offers, it’d certainly be worthwhile to pursue him. He has proven that he can turn organizations around: he took over an abysmal Stanford program in December 2006 following a 1-11 season and molded them into a national contender, led the 49ers to a Super Bowl and is now in the midst of restoring Michigan’s program to national prominence. The Colts, just a few years removed from the AFC Championship game, desperately need help. Their offensive line is in shambles, the defense is bad again and they’re without star quarterback Andrew Luck, whom they might decide to shut down for the rest of the season. They clearly need help, and if (and it’s a big if) Harbaugh demonstrates any sign that he’d be open to leaving Ann Arbor, the Colts ought to give him a call.

Ever since they drafted Andrew Luck in 2012, the Colts have surrounded him with people familiar with his game. They took Stanford tight end Coby Fleener in the second round of that same draft, then signed wide receiver Griff Whalen as an undrafted free agent. A year later, following Luck’s rookie season, the Colts signed Pep Hamilton — Stanford’s offensive coordinator — to the same position. With fellow Cardinal around him, Luck thrived. And though Fleener, Whalen and Hamilton are all gone now, the Colts should consider reverting to the strategy that brought them so much success: surrounding their star quarterback with people who have succeeded with him in the past.

And thus, perhaps it’s time we got another Stanford reunion in Indianapolis. It’s a stretch, for sure. It would take a lot to convince Harbaugh to leave his alma mater, especially for a struggling franchise. But he’s done it before, and if they throw enough money his way, the prospect of coaching his former protégé Andrew Luck just might be enough.

 

Contact Andrew Ziperski at ajzip ‘at’ stanford.edu.

The post Ziperski: Stanford reunion in Indianapolis appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2017/11/03/ziperski-stanford-reunion-in-indianapolis/feed/ 0 1132417
Ziperski: Why I’m rooting for my team to lose https://stanforddaily.com/2017/10/26/final-cf-ziperski-why-im-rooting-for-my-team-to-lose/ https://stanforddaily.com/2017/10/26/final-cf-ziperski-why-im-rooting-for-my-team-to-lose/#respond Thu, 26 Oct 2017 08:38:07 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1131836 It’s hard to root for your team to lose. Especially when they have a winning record half-way through the season. And particularly when they’re not in rebuilding mode. But starting this week, I’ll be rooting against my favorite team—the Green Bay Packers—to lose.

The post Ziperski: Why I’m rooting for my team to lose appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
It’s hard to root for your team to lose, especially when they have a winning record halfway through the season – and particularly when they’re not in rebuilding mode. But starting this week, I’ll be rooting against my favorite team – the Green Bay Packers – to lose.

Call me a terrible fan, go ahead. But with Aaron Rodgers out for the rest of the season, this team isn’t going anywhere. After spending over two seasons on the bench, backup quarterback Brett Hundley clearly has some potential … he’s just not ready to consistently lead his teammates to victory. We’ve got nine games left, and I’m sure we could win a few, but it’s highly unlikely we make the playoffs with Hundley under center, and even if we did, there’s no way we advance. A legitimate Super Bowl contender just two weeks ago, we’re probably on our way to our first losing season since 2008.  

Losing today could mean a more promising future tomorrow – just ask Philadelphia 76ers fans who stuck through seasons after season of misery, “trusting the process,” so the team could acquire promising assets like Joel Embiid and Markelle Fultz. Lose now, and Green Bay earns a high draft pick in 2018. Keep winning, and we’re left where we’ve been for most of the Mike McCarthy era: Good, but never quite as good as we really should be.

So yes, I’d like to see us tank. Let’s draft someone who can contribute right away, get healthy along the offensive line and start anew in 2018 ready to contend for a title with Rodgers at the helm. More importantly than that – particularly in the long term – it’s about time the Packers faced some adversity and Mike McCarthy got exposed for who he is: A middling coach whose success in the NFL is almost entirely due to the HOF-level play at the quarterback position.

I don’t think Mike McCarthy will be fired following this season. Without an owner, management in Green Bay is agonizingly slow to enact changes, and people like General Manager Ted Thompson and President Mark Murphy will blame a poor record on Rodgers’ injury. That’s understandable. But fans and coaches and team executives must start talking about a change at the head coaching position. Our offensive scheme lacks creativity and innovation. Constant clock management blunders have cost us wins, often in crucial situations (like the 2015 NFC Championship meltdown in Seattle). We’ve underperformed, year after year after year. Winning only one Super Bowl with one of the greatest passers of all time is unforgivable.

Yet somehow, McCarthy is heralded around the league as an elite head coach. I’ll concede that he’s got a knack for developing quarterbacks. But as the guy, he’s simply not that good; his glaring shortcomings have been masked only by Rodgers’ greatness. If there’s anything good that comes out of what’s bound to be a lost season in 2017, it’s that the league will finally wake up and realize that McCarthy’s days in Green Bay ought to be numbered.

I get it. It sounds crazy to call for the dismissal of a Super Bowl-winning head coach who hasn’t sniffed a losing season in a decade. But simply making the playoffs and bowing with Aaron Rodgers as your quarterback isn’t good enough. Not even close. As a Packer fan, I want Super Bowl victories. Not NFC North Championships followed up with a loss in the divisional round and the inevitable “well, we’ll get it next year.” That’s what Mike McCarthy is good for. We deserve better.

It’s hard to root for your team to tank when you’ve become accustomed to winning seasons year in and year out. But time is ticking, Aaron Rodgers isn’t getting any younger, and if we’re going to take the next step, losing now could mean big gains in the future.

 

Contact Andrew Ziperski at ajzip ‘at’ stanford.edu.

The post Ziperski: Why I’m rooting for my team to lose appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2017/10/26/final-cf-ziperski-why-im-rooting-for-my-team-to-lose/feed/ 0 1131836
Ziperski: Could we see the end of Lob City? https://stanforddaily.com/2017/05/02/ziperski-could-we-see-the-end-of-lob-city/ https://stanforddaily.com/2017/05/02/ziperski-could-we-see-the-end-of-lob-city/#respond Tue, 02 May 2017 08:36:38 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1126900 The players have gotten frustrated with the lack of playoff success, and with both Chris Paul and Blake Griffin up for new contracts this offseason, it’s certainly plausible that one or both could leave the franchise to chase a title elsewhere.

The post Ziperski: Could we see the end of Lob City? appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
This column reflects the opinion of the writer and does not in any way reflect the views of The Stanford Daily.

 

The Los Angeles Clippers’ acquisition of Chris Paul in December 2011 marked a turning point for the franchise, launching them into relevancy in the loaded Western Conference. For over five seasons since, the Clippers have been a perennial playoff contender, never the conference’s best team but consistently one capable of putting up at least 50 wins; Paul, Blake Griffin and DeAndre Jordan combined to form the “Lob City” that has terrorized opposing defenses. The last half decade of success that this trio brought to Los Angeles has represented the best stretch for an organization that has been labeled by some as one of the worst franchises in the history of not just basketball, but all of professional sports. But yet another early playoff exit could finally mean the end of it all.

Despite all their regular season successes, the Clippers have underperformed in the postseason, managing to somehow never make the conference finals even with one of the best point guards in the league. Their best chance came in 2015, when they held a 3-1 lead over the Houston Rockets in the semifinals, eventually blowing that series in seven games. This season was especially difficult, as they fell to the Utah Jazz in the first round this past weekend, another early exit. The players have gotten frustrated with the lack of playoff success, and with both Chris Paul and Blake Griffin up for new contracts this offseason, it’s certainly plausible that one or both could leave the franchise to chase a title elsewhere.

Chris Paul will probably stay. The Clippers can offer him the most money, and at almost 32 years old, Paul will probably never have another chance to command that kind of contract. Although he will almost certainly never win a title in Los Angeles — especially when having to compete with the Warriors, Spurs and Rockets, all of which are better equipped to win — he can finish his career with an organization that respects him and in a city that he loves.

Griffin, on the other hand, could certainly leave. He’s suffered through several injuries over the last couple of years, including this one: He exited the first-round series against the Jazz with a toe injury. In addition, he’s struggled with temperament and maturity issues, putting him at odds with some in the front office. Though the Clippers can offer him a maximum contract, which they probably would, Griffin might seek a change of scenery anyways. He’s 28, in his prime, and may decide that he’d rather spend the second half of his career someplace new. Heading to the less competitive Eastern Conference is one possibility, as is heading to his hometown Oklahoma City Thunder. The latter option may prove more difficult, as the Thunder would likely need to move Enes Kanter or Steven Adams to clear cap space.

Doc Rivers, the Clippers’ coach, may also decide that he’s had enough. After winning a championship in Boston, he had high expectations for the Clippers. Though he coached the team to a franchise-best 57 wins in his first season, he’s also become frustrated with the lack of playoff success, leading many to speculate that he might leave the organization. Though Rivers has denied that he intends to leave, it certainly remains a possibility.

The Clippers have enjoyed great regular-season success over the last half-decade. But with two All-Stars in Chris Paul and Blake Griffin, a monster defender in DeAndre Jordan, and one of the league’s best coaches in Doc Rivers, they should have experienced far more playoff success — at the very least, they should have advanced to the point where they could compete to represent the Western Conference in the NBA Finals. Of course, Los Angeles is nowhere from entering rebuilding mode. Nevertheless, Lob City may be coming to an end. All it takes is one of Paul, Griffin and Rivers to choose to continue his career elsewhere.

I’ve enjoyed watching highlight-reel ally-oops from Chris Paul to Blake Griffin or DeAndre Jordan for quite some time. But I’m prepared to see at least one of those players in a new uniform in the near future.

 

Contact Andrew Ziperski at ajzip ‘at’ stanford.edu.

The post Ziperski: Could we see the end of Lob City? appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2017/05/02/ziperski-could-we-see-the-end-of-lob-city/feed/ 0 1126900
In Syria, we have no good options https://stanforddaily.com/2017/04/21/in-syria-we-have-no-good-options/ https://stanforddaily.com/2017/04/21/in-syria-we-have-no-good-options/#respond Fri, 21 Apr 2017 07:23:23 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1126266 Two weeks removed, the dust has settled, the media have quieted down, and we’re now left to soberly examine the Trump administration’s actions and its options going forward.

The post In Syria, we have no good options appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
President Trump’s missile strike against a Syrian airfield achieved something that no other action from the young administration has done so far: it received widespread support from not only the general public, but also from both sides of the political aisle. The horrible news out of Khan Sheikhoun, a town in north-west Syria where dozens had been murdered and hundreds more injured by a sarin gas attack, prompted a dramatic reversal from a president who ran on an “America First” policy of non-intervention in the Middle East. Still, politicians on both the left and right — including Mr. Trump’s 2016 foe, Hillary Clinton — praised the strike as a show of intolerance of and strength against a regime that would use chemical weapons against its own people.

Two weeks removed, the dust has settled, the media have quieted down, and we’re left to soberly examine the Trump administration’s actions and its options going forward.

Like many Americans, I don’t disagree with Mr. Trump’s decision, and I’ll admit that when I heard the news that two destroyers in the Mediterranean had launched fifty-nine Tomahawk cruise missiles against a Syrian airfield, I was satisfied — obviously disheartened that we have gotten to this point, but satisfied nonetheless. Assad is a brutal dictator who has wielded the power of the Syrian military to oppress the Syrian people, who has resorted to violence to maintain control and who, frankly, has forfeited his right to lead. Though the United States cannot be the world’s policeman and intervene whenever injustices occur, as the most powerful country in the world, it has a responsibility to combat these injustices when they grow grave enough. When it abdicates that responsibility, terrible consequences can result: look no further than the Rwandan genocide for proof of what happens when America leads from behind. The ongoing situation in Syria is so horrific that even Donald Trump, a man only a few months removed from criticizing his Democratic rival’s propensity for foreign intervention, now understands that the United States must take an active role in preventing further atrocities from occurring.

Yet Mr. Trump is faced with a paradox. Assad must go, that much is clear. But the last decade has made evident that regime change often comes with nasty side effects. As terrible as they may be, dictators often fight the same radical terror groups as the United States, and when they lose power, those groups seize control. Complicating matters in the Syrian situation is the close relationship between Assad and the Kremlin; aside from potentially worsening the terror situation in the Middle East, ousting Assad could significantly damage our relationship with Russia.

Assad’s treatment of the Syrian people mirrors the injustices that Saddam Hussein and Muammar al-Qaddafi perpetrated against the Iraqi and Libyan people, respectively. In both situations, the United States took military action to remove both leaders (there is a much larger and more controversial debate surrounding President Bush’s invasion of Iraq, but I won’t get into that here). And in both situations, the United States was successful in toppling both leaders. Ridding the world of these brutal dictators certainly signaled victories against oppression and dictatorship, but the aftermath in these countries has proven that our interventions were far from successful.

The Bush administration could not create stable democratic institutions in Iraq, and with Obama’s precipitous withdrawal of American forces from the region, the country fell into mass chaos, with different insurgency groups vying for control. The situation became an utter disaster in 2014 when ISIS, a relatively new terror group at the time, seized large swaths of Iraqi territory, including the important city of Mosul, as it expanded its caliphate. Three years later, though progress has been made, ISIS is still a dominant force in Iraq. Sure, the United States ousted Hussein and ended the atrocities that he was perpetrating. In doing so, however, it created an environment in which a radical terrorist group established control and terrorized the same people the United States had tried to protect.

The results were similar in Libya. President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton led the fight to remove Qaddafi from power with the admirable goal of ending his oppression of the Libyan people. The United States and its Western allies, using significant air power, successfully supported rebel forces in overthrowing and executing Qaddafi. In ending one nightmare, however, the Obama administration created another. Today, Libya is a hotbed of terrorism and anti-American sentiment, with various rebel constituencies, militias and ISIS all fighting for control. Once again, humanitarian relief and regime change have come at a high cost.

The situation in Syria sports all the warning signs. Rebels have been fighting the Assad regime for years. ISIS remains a force in the region, waiting to leverage its military might to take control if Assad falls. If President Trump decides to eliminate Assad, he will likely succeed in doing so, but will almost certainly strengthen ISIS, the same group that he has repeatedly vowed to destroy. In either case, the situation is ugly: Mr. Trump can end the humanitarian atrocities that Assad perpetrates (an honorable goal, of course), but must accept that doing so will have long-term consequences for the country and the Middle East as a whole.

Unlike the previous interventions in Iraq and Libya, a potential large-scale intervention in Syria would risk alienating Russia at a time when the Trump administration has expressed a desire for better relations. Putin has consistently supported the Assad regime, likely due to Russia’s economic and military interests in Syria, as well as a desire to fight Islamism, a goal to which Assad has also committed. Following President Trump’s missile strike against the Syrian military’s airfields, Russian Prime Minister Dmitri Medvedev suggested on Facebook that the United States had unlawfully attacked the legitimate Syrian government and that a military clash with Russia may be in the foreseeable future. Furthermore, any large-scale intervention would require approval from the United Nations Security Council; as one of the five permanent members of the UNSC, Russia can veto any resolution, which it will almost certainly do with any resolution pertaining to Syrian matters. Unfortunately, this ensures that United States military action in Syria would necessarily escalate tensions with Russia and would ultimately violate international law.

Is ousting a brutal leader like Assad worth alienating Russia, violating international law and creating a volatile situation that could allow ISIS to seize control? Perhaps. No matter what the administration decides, there is simply no good option. History has judged harshly those nations that could have intervened to prevent atrocities but chose inaction instead. Yet history has also shown time and time again that intervention often creates more problems than it solves. Less than 100 days into his term, Mr. Trump faces an impossible task. No matter our politics, no matter which party we support or for whom we voted in November, we ought to wish him luck.

 

Contact Andrew Ziperski at ajzip ‘at’ stanford.edu.

The post In Syria, we have no good options appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2017/04/21/in-syria-we-have-no-good-options/feed/ 0 1126266
Ziperski: Why Christian McCaffrey could win a Super Bowl as a rookie https://stanforddaily.com/2017/03/15/why-christian-mccaffrey-could-win-a-super-bowl-as-a-rookie/ https://stanforddaily.com/2017/03/15/why-christian-mccaffrey-could-win-a-super-bowl-as-a-rookie/#respond Wed, 15 Mar 2017 07:50:22 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1124911 This column reflects the opinion of the writer and does not in any way reflect the views of The Stanford Daily.   A 4.48 time in the 40-yard dash, a 37.5-inch vertical leap and a 6.57 time in the three-cone drill, the second fastest score in the event in the last fourteen years. Christian McCaffrey […]

The post Ziperski: Why Christian McCaffrey could win a Super Bowl as a rookie appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
This column reflects the opinion of the writer and does not in any way reflect the views of The Stanford Daily.

 

A 4.48 time in the 40-yard dash, a 37.5-inch vertical leap and a 6.57 time in the three-cone drill, the second fastest score in the event in the last fourteen years. Christian McCaffrey absolutely dominated the NFL Combine.

After his performance in Indianapolis, many scouts believe that he’s edged his way into the first round of next month’s NFL Draft. If they’re right, and McCaffrey does indeed get picked in the later stages of the first round, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to think he could win a ring in his first year in the league.

Why? Given the way the NFL draft is structured — where the worst teams from the previous season pick first in each round and the best teams pick last — if McCaffrey is still available at the end of the first round, he could find himself suiting up for one of the NFL’s powerhouses next season.

I personally think that McCaffrey’s rare combination of explosiveness, versatility and leadership make him hard to pass up even in the middle stages of the first round, but I’m certainly biased in favor of a fellow Cardinal. He will likely get picked in the mid-to-high 20s of the first round, where teams like the Packers and Seahawks await; both are elite teams that, with the addition of McCaffrey, could potentially win Super Bowl LII.

Let’s start with Green Bay. After releasing longtime fan favorites James Starks and Eddie Lacy, the front office may be looking for a rookie running back to pair with former Stanford standout Ty Montgomery. Though many think that General Manager Ted Thompson will select a defensive player to bolster a unit that failed Aaron Rodgers and the offense down the stretch last year, he may take a chance on McCaffrey.

His explosiveness out of the backfield would certainly improve the team’s oft-lacking running game and screen schemes, and he would certainly be a boost on special teams as well. Just one game away from a Super Bowl berth in 2016 and with one of the league’s best signal callers in Aaron Rodgers, the Packers are on the cusp of reaching the next level. It’s not crazy to think that Christian McCaffrey could put them over the top.

Then, of course, there are the Seattle Seahawks, a perennial contender in the NFC. After Marshawn Lynch departed in the 2016 offseason, the Seahawks running game, which had for several seasons been one of the league’s best, wasn’t quite the same. Though Thomas Rawls showed bursts of potential, he was slowed by injuries, and the once-promising Christine Michael never panned out.

The Seahawks still have an excellent defense, and Russell Wilson is one of the game’s most dynamic quarterbacks — one solid playmaker in the backfield might be all the team needs to seriously contend for a championship next year. Christian McCaffrey, who could fill the roles of both a Lynch-esque power back and an agile receiving back, could certainly make Seattle’s backfield elite again. The Seahawks won a Super Bowl only three years ago. Could they win another in 2018?

With the draft less than two months away, most people expect McCaffrey to be available in the later stages of the first round, meaning he’s likely to play for one of the better teams from this past season. I wouldn’t say it’s likely that he will find himself a rookie Super Bowl champion next February, given that we don’t know where he will end up. But if he somehow suits up for one of the league’s elite teams — like the Packers or Seahawks —and proves to be a good fit, it’s certainly not out of the question.

 

Contact Andrew Ziperski at ajzip ‘at’ stanford.edu. 

The post Ziperski: Why Christian McCaffrey could win a Super Bowl as a rookie appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2017/03/15/why-christian-mccaffrey-could-win-a-super-bowl-as-a-rookie/feed/ 0 1124911
Ziperski: The case for an eight-team College Football Playoff https://stanforddaily.com/2017/01/12/ziperski-the-case-for-an-eight-team-college-football-playoff/ https://stanforddaily.com/2017/01/12/ziperski-the-case-for-an-eight-team-college-football-playoff/#respond Fri, 13 Jan 2017 06:46:11 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1121371 Still, there’s work to be done. I’d propose an easy change: expanding the bracket to include four more times, eight in total.

The post Ziperski: The case for an eight-team College Football Playoff appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
This column reflects the opinion of the writer and does not in any way reflect the views of The Stanford Daily.

 

With the 2017 College Football Playoff in the books, it’s time to look back on the last three seasons of college football – the Playoff era – and consider where we are. The Playoff system is undoubtedly an improvement over the old system, as it’s opened up an opportunity for more teams to compete for a title. Limiting championship opportunities to only two teams, based on some subjective measures, reduced fan engagement and generated too much controversy in the football world. I know I’m not alone when I say that the Playoff system has made college football a better, more exciting product.

Still, there’s work to be done. I’d propose an easy change: expanding the bracket to include four more times, eight in total.

With five powerful conferences – the ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, SEC and Pac-12 – competing for only four spots, someone inevitably gets left out. Every “Power Five” conference includes teams that could legitimately compete for a championship, and it’s a shame that all corners of the country can’t be represented. With an eight-team playoff, every Power Five conference would be almost guaranteed representation.

Furthermore, the “Group of Five” conferences – the AAC, MW, C-USA, MAC and Sun Belt – would potentially have an opportunity to compete for a title. Under the current system, there’s virtually no chance for a non-power team to make the playoff, leaving perennial contenders like Houston, Western Michigan and Boise State constantly on the outside looking in. I don’t think it would be wise to allow an automatic playoff berth for the highest-ranked Group of Five team, but I do think that they should have the chance to be included in the championship hunt if they’re ranked inside the top eight.

For the first two years of its existence, the Playoff committee made it very clear that conference championships mattered a great deal, and that conferences like the Big 12 were putting their teams at a disadvantage in the Playoff sweepstakes because they lacked a conference championship game. It is true that conference championships should matter, and switching to an eight-team playoff would ensure that they do, because the committee’s actions this year told a different story.

The Big Ten’s representative in 2017 was Ohio State, a one-loss program and undoubtedly one of the best teams in the country. But Ohio State wasn’t the Big Ten champion; indeed, the Buckeyes hadn’t even played in the championship game. No, the Big Ten champion was Penn State, which had prevailed over Wisconsin. The Playoff committee has stated in the past that non-champions can leapfrog champions in the Playoff rankings if the non-champion has demonstrated that it is clearly the better team. Had Ohio State demonstrated that it was obviously a more deserving program than Penn State? Of course not: The Nittany Lions beat the Buckeyes back in October.

Penn State fans were justifiably angry that their team had been left out of the Playoff. They’d been told that conference championships matter. Clearly, they didn’t matter enough. They’d been told that a non-champion would only take a champion’s spot if that team had proved itself to be clearly superior. Clearly, Ohio State hadn’t done that. We can debate endlessly whether the committee made the right decision to omit Penn State. But I would argue that such a debate is entirely unnecessary: Let’s expand the Playoff to include eight teams, so that the committee doesn’t find itself making the difficult choice between two stellar programs like Ohio State and Penn State.

I can’t imagine it would be too difficult to enact such a change. The semifinals could retain their place in the schedule – traditionally on New Year’s Eve – and the quarterfinals could be played a week earlier.

Fans would be on board: We’re looking for more excitement. The schools themselves and their athletic programs definitely want a chance to compete for a national title. And I’m sure the NCAA wouldn’t oppose the move; after all, replacing four irrelevant bowl games with four high-profile playoff contests would inevitably lead to more revenue for the organization.

The last three years of Playoff football have been great. And the coming years can be even greater. Let’s make it happen.

 

Contact Andrew Ziperski at ajzip’at’stanford.edu to welcome him to the sports section of The Stanford Daily (and reinforce that the Sports section tops Opinions any day). 

The post Ziperski: The case for an eight-team College Football Playoff appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2017/01/12/ziperski-the-case-for-an-eight-team-college-football-playoff/feed/ 0 1121371
Ziperski: It’s time to kill the super-team https://stanforddaily.com/2016/11/28/ziperski-its-time-to-kill-the-super-team/ https://stanforddaily.com/2016/11/28/ziperski-its-time-to-kill-the-super-team/#respond Tue, 29 Nov 2016 04:13:51 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1120446 Almost all basketball fans remember the LeBron James “Decision” saga during the summer of 2010, when he left his hometown Cleveland Cavaliers and joined forces with Dwyane Wade and Chris Bosh in Miami to form “The Big Three,” the NBA’s most fearsome trio of stars. And we all remember what happened this past July, when […]

The post Ziperski: It’s time to kill the super-team appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
Almost all basketball fans remember the LeBron James “Decision” saga during the summer of 2010, when he left his hometown Cleveland Cavaliers and joined forces with Dwyane Wade and Chris Bosh in Miami to form “The Big Three,” the NBA’s most fearsome trio of stars.

And we all remember what happened this past July, when Kevin Durant shocked the sports world and left the Oklahoma City Thunder — the only franchise he had ever known — to play in Oakland with two-time reigning MVP Stephen Curry, sharpshooter and lockdown defender Klay Thompson, as well as others like Draymond Green and Andre Iguodala.

The post-2010 NBA has been the era of the “super-team:” teams whose rosters are loaded with two, three or even four of the biggest stars in the league. First it was the Miami Heat. Then came the Cleveland Cavaliers, after LeBron returned from his stint in Miami. And now it’s the Golden State Warriors. In four of the six NBA Finals series since “The Decision,” one of these three teams has won it all.

Many fans enjoy watching these super-teams walk all over the other teams in the league. But the stunning lack of parity makes the sport far less exciting, especially when compared to the NFL. For example, over the last four years, perennial contenders like the San Francisco 49ers and Chicago Bears have been reduced to little more than laughingstocks, while traditional bottom-feeders like the Oakland Raiders and Seattle Seahawks have risen to prominence.

The NFL — despite the plethora of problems it faces — generates far more excitement than the NBA. Every year, excited fans tune in, unsure of what the playoff picture will look like. In the NBA, however, the playoff situation is a foregone conclusion, save for a few fliers here or there that sneak into the last few spots.

The 82-game season makes each individual game almost meaningless; the season’s length itself is a disincentive for fans to care. The NBA cannot let a lack of parity make the situation even worse.

I’d like to propose a solution: Eliminate the arbitrary, league-mandated maximum salaries for individual players.

Of course, the league cannot eliminate the team salary cap altogether; that would be catastrophic for parity. But it can eliminate the arbitrary caps on individual player salaries, which limit the salaries to a pre-determined percentage of the salary cap based on some combination of a player’s experience and accolades.

Essentially, I’m proposing that the NBA work more like a free market, of sorts. Working within the salary cap, players could freely negotiate with front offices around the league and receive compensation commensurate with their worth. Stars would not have their salaries arbitrarily depressed, and likewise, middling-role players would no longer benefit from arbitrary salary inflation.

Imagine how free agency may have played out over the last few years. James, Wade and Bosh would never have teamed up — no team could have paid all three salaries even remotely close to their true worth. LeBron may have still returned to Cleveland, but you can bet that one of Kyrie Irving or Kevin Love would not have joined him. And Kevin Durant would never have left Oklahoma City, because Golden State simply could not have afforded the yearly salary his skill set commands with so many other stars already on the payroll.

We prevent workers from being paid what they’re worth in very few industries. When excellent surgeons save their patients’ lives, we compensate them handsomely. When charismatic salespeople market their products effectively, we reward them with commissions. And when inspiring teachers help kids reach their full potential, we make sure they receive generous bonuses (or at least we should, but that’s another article entirely).

As a society, we generally recognize that those at the very top of their profession should earn far more than their average counterparts, and we generally allow the free market to determine what they’re worth. So why should we toss those ideas aside when it comes to basketball?

Unfortunately, the likelihood of such a change coming to fruition is remarkably low. The dozens of role players with inflated salaries would fight hard to ensure that individual salary caps remained in place. Without them, their compensation would be slashed dramatically. The handful of players who would personally benefit would be heavily outnumbered.

Yet I still believe the league should consider making a change. Super-teams just aren’t good for the league. It may be fun to watch them beat up on their hapless opponents, but it gets old, fast. For parity’s sake — for the league’s sake — it’s time we take the steps to kill them.

Contact Andrew Ziperski at ajzip ‘at’ stanford.edu.

The post Ziperski: It’s time to kill the super-team appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2016/11/28/ziperski-its-time-to-kill-the-super-team/feed/ 0 1120446
The perils of the daily game https://stanforddaily.com/2016/11/08/the-perils-of-the-daily-game/ https://stanforddaily.com/2016/11/08/the-perils-of-the-daily-game/#respond Tue, 08 Nov 2016 08:37:38 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1119428 Fans on daily fantasy sites may be far better served picking players for their lineups based on whether they liked the color of the players’ uniforms. The people who use FanDuel and DraftKings religiously are bettors. They’re gamblers. They’re not investors.

The post The perils of the daily game appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
In the last decade, fantasy football has transformed from an uncommon pastime into a huge industry. Millions of Americans now participate and many belong to more than one league. No longer do people play only for fun in year-long leagues with their close friends and family; today, fans often bet money weekly on sites like FanDuel or DraftKings.

Those who play fantasy football have no control over the games on which they bet: They can’t control whether a player suffers an injury or whether a coach benches a player due to an early fumble. Sure, there is some strategy involved — certain fans are better than others at keeping up on injury news, analyzing matches, and setting lineups. But to call the money spent on these sites an “investment” is laughable. Football is far too variable from week to week, and there are simply too many unknowns. Fans on daily fantasy sites may be far better served picking players for their lineups based on whether they liked the color of the players’ uniforms. The people who use FanDuel and DraftKings religiously are bettors. They’re gamblers. They’re not investors.

The nature of the daily fantasy game has given many observers pause. Monetized, weekly fantasy games have proved troubling for many; instead of adding valuable “fun” to people’s lives and perhaps giving fans reason to tune into more games, the game has become a source of anxiety for too many fans. Many fans have given up on year-long leagues altogether and have directed their attention and resources to the daily scene. No longer do these people derive joy or excitement from the prospect of beating their good friend, neighbor, or co-worker in a friendly contest. Now, they watch the games worried about the impact of the result on their financial situation for the week.

There’s no problem with betting money on sports, as long as it’s in moderation. Like millions of Americans, I enjoy throwing a couple bucks in a March Madness pool every year; it makes the games more exciting and gives me a reason to tune in. But many fans spend far too much on daily fantasy football, and unlike March Madness, the football season lasts seventeen consecutive weeks, excluding the playoffs. Even worse, many of these fans are overzealous teens with little room for financial error, or parents who waste away their paychecks with little regard for their families. Monetizing the game has created a class of diehard fans who stress over every single game, simply because they care too much not to pay attention. Unfortunately, due to its highly regressive nature, the game has punished these fans, many of whom can least afford it.

The growth of daily fantasy football has created some undesirable consequences, but even more concerning has been its impact on our discourse surrounding sports. Matthew Berry, a longtime fantasy football expert at ESPN, publishes his weekly “Love Hate” column every Thursday afternoon in which he recommends certain players whom he believes are likely to play exceptionally well and cautions against players likely to disappoint. His recommendations are grounded in common sense and empirical analysis of each weekly matchup; Berry does the best he can with the information available to him. When he nails the predictions, fans hail him as a genius. But when he gets it wrong, the discussion turns ugly. Fans around the country berate Berry and direct bitter attacks towards his Twitter account.

I fear that much of the hateful rhetoric I observe is linked to the rise of monetized fantasy football. When fans play for fun, there’s little reason to attack somebody for their misguided advice. But when the financial stakes are high, people are prone to lash out and blame those around them. Unfortunately, Berry is an easy scapegoat.

We should also examine the ways fantasy football players respond to player injuries. When news breaks on Twitter of an injury to a star player that forces him out of the game, too often the discussion focuses on the impact of that injury on people’s fantasy teams. Instead of wishing the player and his family well, and hoping that the injury does not jeopardize his career in the future, people scream, shout, and assign blame.

I love fantasy football. I’ve played for the past five years, and I enjoy doing research so I can make my own projections prior to each season. But I’m worried about its future. We can’t let the game become a source of financial anxiety. I’m not asking that we shut down FanDuel and DraftKings, or that we stop betting entirely. Instead, I’d encourage people to participate in free leagues and keep their daily fantasy betting to a minimum. Let’s keep things in perspective and make sure fantasy football remains primarily what it always has been: a fun, exciting pastime.

Contact Andrew Ziperski at ajzip ‘at’ stanford.edu.

The post The perils of the daily game appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2016/11/08/the-perils-of-the-daily-game/feed/ 0 1119428
Enough is enough — it’s time for a new NFL commissioner https://stanforddaily.com/2016/10/25/enough-is-enough-its-time-for-a-new-nfl-commissioner/ https://stanforddaily.com/2016/10/25/enough-is-enough-its-time-for-a-new-nfl-commissioner/#respond Tue, 25 Oct 2016 07:35:03 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1118522 No matter how much Goodell dismisses it, he must accept an increasingly evident reality: it is his hypocrisy and failures as a leader that have caused the drop in NFL ratings. It’s time that he step aside.

The post Enough is enough — it’s time for a new NFL commissioner appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
When NFL commissioner Roger Goodell commented early on this season that the NFL was experiencing a ratings drop, many saw it as a fluke; inevitably, they believed, the drop would correct, ratings would revert to the mean, and business would continue as usual. Nearly halfway through the season, however, the problem has persisted, and it cannot be ignored; week in, week out, fewer fans are tuning in. Goodell spoke to the media following the league’s fall meetings and claimed that viewership was down ten percent from last season. That’s a huge drop, and no matter how much Goodell dismisses it, he must accept an increasingly evident reality: it is his hypocrisy and failures as a leader that have caused the drop in ratings. It’s time that he step aside.

Goodell made it his mission this season to eradicate excessive touchdown celebrations and post-play taunting — in a vacuum, this is a noble pursuit. The harsh penalties the league has instituted this year have certainly cracked down on the outrageous behavior some players have expressed in the past, and I doubt many fans would argue that this in and of itself is bad for the league. Goodell is absolutely correct when he says that the “players are role models, and others look at that at the youth level.” The NFL is immensely popular, and many young players look to their favorite professional players as role models; it’s not helpful when those players act like petulant children on the field.

Yet Goodell has absolutely no moral authority on this issue, and the idea that Goodell can speak credibly about positive role-modeling for American children is risible. Throughout his tenure as commissioner, he has abdicated his responsibility as a leader; every time he has been faced with an opportunity to do what is right, particularly regarding domestic or sexual assault, he has instead done what is convenient.

It started with the Ray Rice domestic abuse incident in 2014. When footage released showing the Baltimore Ravens running back dragging his unconscious fiancée out of an elevator, Goodell stepped in and suspended him for a laughable two games. Fans were justifiably furious. How is it, they asked, that players face longer suspensions for smoking pot than they do for physically assaulting women? Eventually, Goodell responded to the public outrage and suspended Rice for the rest of the season. Yet the damage was done. Goodell had shown the country that the image of his league was far more important than taking a stand against violence.

Now, Goodell has once again mismanaged another high-profile assault case. After it came to light prior to the season that Giants kicker Josh Brown had abused his ex-wife, the NFL suspended him a paltry one game. Only when it surfaced that Brown himself admitted he had emotionally and physically abused his ex-wife did Goodell step in and take a stand. That’s generally how Goodell chooses to handle cases like these: He gives his players a slap on the wrist, hopes the issue gets buried, and only takes any decisive action when damning evidence comes to light. Goodell calls it being cautious. I call it terrible leadership.

With great power comes great responsibility. As the leader of the multibillion-dollar enterprise that is the NFL, Goodell has the power to do great good. And yet time and time again, he has failed. His latest posturing regarding excessive touchdown celebrations and the way they affect America’s youth is hypocrisy at its finest. He has butchered his handling of sexual assault cases so miserably that at this point, he has no authority — none at all — to take any moral high ground. Too often, he has so often prioritized the NFL’s image over doing what is moral, over doing what is fundamentally right. Given his status and his salary, that’s unforgivable.

The players deserve better. The coaches deserve better. And the fans deserve better. Roger Goodell has had his chance, and he’s blown it. It’s time for somebody else to lead.

 

Contact Andrew Ziperski at ajzip ‘at’ stanford.edu. 

The post Enough is enough — it’s time for a new NFL commissioner appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2016/10/25/enough-is-enough-its-time-for-a-new-nfl-commissioner/feed/ 0 1118522