Zach Naidu – The Stanford Daily https://stanforddaily.com Breaking news from the Farm since 1892 Wed, 10 Jun 2020 05:20:00 +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 Zach Naidu – The Stanford Daily https://stanforddaily.com 32 32 204779320 Naidu: Parting Thoughts https://stanforddaily.com/2020/06/09/naidu-parting-thoughts/ https://stanforddaily.com/2020/06/09/naidu-parting-thoughts/#respond Wed, 10 Jun 2020 04:29:24 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1169254 This is my last column.

The post Naidu: Parting Thoughts appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
This is my last column.

As an outgoing senior, I don’t know when I’ll again have the time or platform to write a published piece. Journalism has given me so many gifts: an outlet to express myself, a medium to connect with an audience, and life-long relationships. I’m excited to share some parting thoughts with you all to enjoy those aspects for a final time.

While I am a creative person, I wouldn’t label myself an artistically talented one. As a kid, I rarely built anything functional out of LEGOs and struggled to sketch or color something interesting beyond SpongeBob SquarePants. The crowning artistic achievement of my childhood was the “bowling-ball” themed clock I crafted in 7th grade woodshop at St. Mark’s School of Texas.

But when I started writing for my school newspaper in 9th grade, there was always something decent for me to say and I was capable of telling it in an interesting way. Within journalism, sports writing has always been my strong suit.

You know this already, but I live and breathe sports. I think that’s because I owe a lot of my life’s joys to the existence of sports. My joy for Sports Illustrated instigated my journalism career, led to me assuming leadership roles in my high school newspaper, and is what kept me wanting to stay involved in journalism in college with my sports columns.

However, more than that, my greatest leisurely fulfillment comes from sports in many forms: playing pickup basketball, managing a fantasy football team, or playing NHL on Xbox.

Indeed, sports strongly bond me and my closest friends, be it that fantasy football league or rivalries among our favorite professional teams.

I enjoy all sports, but my heart belongs to basketball more than any other one. More than 10 years ago I watched former L.A. Laker Ron Artest (now named Metta Sandiford-Artest) characterize in an interview that the feeling of seeing the basketball go in the hoop is “addicting,” and no statement has resonated with me more.

Emulating my hometown Dallas Mavericks’ hero Dirk Nowitzki, I grew up shooting one-legged fadeaways in my driveway. I often pretended I was Ray Allen on the Boston Celtics shooting a game-winning three-pointer at the buzzer. I’ve attended enough Mavs games for five lifetimes already, and there’s no sport I enjoy engaging in thoughtful discussion more than basketball.

Given all of this, it is quite apropos the topic of my final column regard the two greatest players in basketball’s history: Michael Jordan and LeBron James.

While Nowitzki will always be the most important athlete of my lifetime, LeBron will always have a special place in my heart because in my personal memory of the NBA, he is the best player I have witnessed.
Until very recently I had had a life-sized Fathead of LeBron on my bedroom wall since 2009. My first non-Mavericks jersey was LeBron’s navy Cavaliers version from his first stint in Cleveland, and I bought his Miami Heat jersey shortly after he took his “talents to South Beach.” My adoration for “King James” was perhaps most exemplified when our school chaplain asked us to write down on a slip of paper in 5th grade whom are our personal heroes and I wrote “LeBron James” right below “My dad.”

So it shouldn’t come as a surprise that I have always beaten the “LeBron is the best player ever” drum. There had never been a doubt in my mind he’s the best and greatest player of all time, despite what Jordan pundits often declared. With apologies to Giannis, LeBron James is the Greek God of Basketball. I felt so strongly about all of this until I watched ESPN’s “The Last Dance” during quarantine. This was my first in-depth exposure to the career and life of Michael Jordan.

Of course, I knew he went 6-0 in NBA Finals series, won five league MVPs, and retired thrice, but I had no insight into MJ the man and leader. I knew plenty about LeBron. Especially as I have grown older, I have been able to more thoroughly examine my awe for King James, and despite my admiration of his talent, he eventually started rubbing me the wrong way with his disloyalty to franchises and always flocking to teams with elite talent, but I had still regarded him as the best ever nonetheless.

I no longer feel that way. MJ is the greatest, and probably best of all time. This is in my opinion, of course, regarding what I personally value. Perhaps it’s that I find more similarities in my life with MJ’s than LeBron’s: his singular focus on being the very best, his best friend/mentorship relationship with his father, his hyper-competitiveness in literally anything to the point of alienation.

LeBron in my eyes seems to be the more carefree of the two and I’m not saying that makes him a bad leader. With what I value, though, from a solely on-court perspective, Michael’s style resonates with me more.

I intended to delve more deeply into this discussion. But in reality, much of this commentary is moot. Despite how impassioned and stubbornly entrenched I get in my own perspective, I need to acknowledge how every fan is entitled to their own opinion and nobody is necessarily right or wrong; that’s the irony of sports debates be it the greatest player ever, the best team ever, etc. In a discipline defined by objective right and wrong, success and failure, a winner and a loser, nearly every tangential discussion about these sports are subjective without a decisive answer. Even here, who’s to say my definition of “best” and “greatest” is the same as Stephen A. Smith’s or Michael Jordan’s. This what makes the discussions so entertaining and polarizing and is why I’ll never get bored engaging in them.

On a different note, I typically reserve my “thank you” mentions as tag lines for when I share my column via Facebook, but this being my last writing, I wanted them to be a part of the column:

Ray Westbrook: Thank you for teaching me the fundamentals of journalism and giving me my first chance to pursue what has become one of my purest passions.

Coach Mihai Oprea: To pretty much the only coach I have had, although you taught them through water polo, thank you for instilling in me the values of discipline and delayed gratification that manifested so often in journalism.

Alejandro Salinas: Thank you for providing me this platform in college and helping as a trustworthy sounding board for my ideas over the past three years.

Cameron Clark: In addition to being one of my best friends, you taught me lessons while working together on The ReMarker in high school that continue to inspire and impact my writing.

Professor Foster: Thank you for giving me the opportunity to indulge in my passion for sports beyond writing. Working with you and your classes have been the highlight of my time at Stanford.

Mom, Dad, Kaitlin, Chandler, Olivia and Uncle Woo: Thank you for being the most supportive family I could’ve asked for throughout my journey.

Lastly, thank you, Stanford. You have exposed me to more people, ideas and schools of thought than I could’ve anticipated four years ago. You helped me mature in a way few other places could have done so.

I am grateful for everything I have learned as a student and am excited for the next chapter of my life, but I’ll never forget the people, places and things that have made me who I am.

Contact Zach Naidu at znaidu ‘at’ stanford.edu.

The post Naidu: Parting Thoughts appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2020/06/09/naidu-parting-thoughts/feed/ 0 1169254
Naidu: A call for morality check on NBA https://stanforddaily.com/2019/10/31/naidu-a-call-for-morality-check-on-nba/ https://stanforddaily.com/2019/10/31/naidu-a-call-for-morality-check-on-nba/#respond Thu, 31 Oct 2019 07:46:51 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1159535 Over the past decade, the NBA has championed itself as the moral standard in professional sports. While FIFA is routinely riddled with corruption and the NFL consistently bungles social issues like anthem protests and personal conduct violations, the NBA has racked up brownie points with its apt handling of player empowerment and social justice issues. The most notable PR success occurred when Commissioner Adam Silver banned former Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling from the league for life in 2014, forcing him to sell the team after racist secret audio recordings were released to the public. That makes what has transpired over the past three weeks with the Daryl Morey Twitter saga all the more perplexing.

The post Naidu: A call for morality check on NBA appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
This China thing isn’t going away, Adam Silver — it’s time to do something about it.

Over the past decade, the NBA has championed itself as the moral standard in professional sports. While FIFA is routinely riddled with corruption and the NFL consistently bungles social issues like anthem protests and personal conduct violations, the NBA has racked up brownie points with its apt handling of player empowerment and social justice issues. The most notable PR success occurred when Commissioner Adam Silver banned former Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling from the league for life in 2014, forcing him to sell the team after racist secret audio recordings were released to the public. That makes what has transpired over the past three weeks with the Daryl Morey Twitter saga all the more perplexing.

For background, on Oct. 4, Houston Rockets General Manager Daryl Morey — a consensus top five executive in the league — tweeted “Fight for Freedom, Stand with Hong Kong.” To the ire of the Chinese government, Morey publicly sided with pro-democracy protesters in Hong Kong. This column isn’t intended to recap all of the backstory and reaction, as Sporting News provided adequate information in its explanation of the controversy last week. Rather, I want to reflect on the NBA’s aforementioned label as the sports world’s “moral standard” and highlight the actions of two key figures: Adam Silver and LeBron James.

While the league did not oblige to China’s request to fire Morey, Silver initially labeled the tweet as “regrettable,” or so it seemed. Amid massive backlash, Silver later qualified his statement, referring to China’s reaction as regrettable rather than the tweet itself. If Silver had initially meant to side with Morey — a debatable possibility — then it was a rare PR blunder and miscommunication. In retaliation, China suspended much of its business with the NBA and has continued to do so. The financial toll the league continues to incur balloons by the day. However, I’m more concerned about the actions of LeBron James, the social justice athlete-pioneer of his generation. Rather than support Darryl Morey, LeBron softly criticized the Rockets executive, saying he was “misinformed.” This is where I take issue with James, as he has repeatedly championed the rights of athletes and emphatically spoken out about political and social issues that expand beyond the basketball court. Yet when it came to addressing this situation involving democracy, LeBron did not have a strong enough opinion other than criticizing the man who spoke out about it.

These initial reactions by Silver and James exemplify the NBA is a business — a business that hasn’t gone out of its way to act morally, rather it has done so because taking the moral stance aligns with its economic interest. The NFL continues to blackball Colin Kaepernick and allow long leashes for domestic violence abusers. It’s not something I personally agree with, but I also understand the league’s mission to keep the best talent on the field in order maintain viewership. LeBron James does not get a pass for prioritizing the Chinese promotion of his Space Jam 2 film over civil justice. Neither should the NBA until it does something that sends a firm message it truly values the “right thing” above all else.

I suggest the NBA sanction China by pulling all of its content and merchandise from the country. Right now, China is in control of the situation through calling for Morey’s firing and withholding broadcasts of NBA games, while NBA fans have turned to critics due to the league’s kowtowing of China. Is this extreme? Yes, absolutely. Is it the clearest solution to the league rectifying its image among its domestic fans? Also, yes. In order to draw a firm line in the sand, Silver must do what he did with Donald Sterling — something bold that sends a clear message to NBA fans that the league values its moral standard above all else, even when the bottom line suffers. The league currently has a $1.5 billion licensing contract with Chinese tech giant Tencent. The details of the contract are unknown, but one would suspect that if China has the authority to blackout NBA games due to the tweet of a general manager, the league is well within its right to retaliate similarly.

The league would exacerbate its financial hemorrhaging if it were to pull its licensing deal with China. But it would also gain unanimous support and approval from all of its fans and truly be able to claim itself as the moral authority in the sports sphere. It’s a radical thought, and one not likely to come to fruition, but it would get the job done.

Adam Silver has done a phenomenal job throughout his tenure balancing the interests of both sides of a dispute. Due to the infamous 2016 “Bathroom Bill” in North Carolina, Silver delayed the city of Charlotte’s hosting of All-Star Weekend two years until part of the law was repealed. Just like with Donald Sterling, however, Silver’s impetus for action aligned with the league’s economic incentive, as both of these measures met the approval of the league’s growing, young, diverse fanbase. Prioritizing the league’s bottom line over a fight for democracy, however, clearly presents a different case, as demonstrated by fan protests transpiring during the pre-season and opening night. Right now, the league is upsetting its fanbase and losing money. Time will tell if it can continue to walk this line of neutrality, but right now, the situation seems bleak.

As for LeBron James, he is a genuinely good person who co-founded a school and has made countless charitable donations to those in need. However, I also believe he is learning that he can’t selectively side with the moral party in today’s political climate — you’re either all in, or all out. The NBA is learning that the hard way as well and will continue to suffer until it takes a firm stand.

Contact Zach Naidu at znaidu ‘at’ stanford.edu.

The post Naidu: A call for morality check on NBA appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2019/10/31/naidu-a-call-for-morality-check-on-nba/feed/ 0 1159535
The Cautionary Tale of Andrew Luck https://stanforddaily.com/2019/08/25/the-cautionary-tale-of-andrew-luck/ https://stanforddaily.com/2019/08/25/the-cautionary-tale-of-andrew-luck/#respond Sun, 25 Aug 2019 18:45:07 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1156840 While I was doing more research for this column, I came across a clip of Luck walking off his home field shortly after the retirement news broke, booed by his own team’s fans who hadn’t even given him an opportunity to explain himself.

The post The Cautionary Tale of Andrew Luck appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
Saturday evening, news broke that Indianapolis Colts quarterback Andrew Luck is shockingly retiring from the NFL at just 29 years old. The No. 1 overall pick in the 2012 Draft, four-time Pro Bowler, 2018 NFL Comeback Player of the Year and Stanford football great has had enough after seven painful years in the league.

“Wow. Just, wow.”

That’s all I could say when I heard the drop-your-cup-mid-sip news about my favorite NFL player.

When I began writing this column, I intended to focus squarely on former Colts General Manager Ryan Grigson and Owner Jim Irsay. Collectively, those two men failed the most talented quarterback to enter the NFL since Aaron Rodgers. Continually fielding a putrid offensive line, Grigson and Irsay fed Luck to the wolves. In each of his first three seasons, Luck suffered the most quarterback knockdowns in the league, a total of 352 hits in just 48 games.

Three hundred fifty-two.

I wanted to harp on how negligent and disgusting it was for the two of them to do what they did to Luck: supplying him with a laughable protection team that couldn’t save him from the pass rush, or failing to draft more offensive weapons to ease the burden of carrying the entire team. They had been gifted the keys to a brand-new Ferrari, put a brick on the gas pedal and rammed it through the garage wall Ferris-Bueller-style.

But while I was doing more research for this column, I came across a clip of Luck walking off his home field shortly after the retirement news broke, booed by his own team’s fans who hadn’t even given him an opportunity to explain himself.

You see, Luck was supposed to announce his retirement today. However, word leaked last night of his decision during the Colts preseason game against the Chicago Bears – a game he was attending in street clothes to support the Colts on the sidelines. So when the game ended and Luck retreated to the locker room with his teammates, the home fans inexplicably booed their perennial MVP -candidate of seven years.

“I haven’t been able to live the life I want to live. It’s taken the joy out of this game,” Luck said in the post-game press conference. “The only way forward for me is to remove myself from football.”

Fighting off tears, Luck went on to say how difficult the last four injury-riddled years have been for him.

In 2015, Luck urinated blood due to a lacerated kidney he suffered playing for the Colts. He missed the entire 2017 season due to shoulder surgery rehab. As The Athletic’s Zak Keeger reported, in total Luck suffered torn cartilage in two ribs, a partially torn abdomen, a concussion and a torn labrum. He then returned last year to throw 39 touchdown passes, leading the Colts all the way back to the second round of the playoffs and winning the league’s Comeback Player of the Year Award. Unfortunately, during this offseason Luck suffered another injury, and it was just too much.

But despite everything Luck did for the Colts, there was no love lost by the team’s fans when they found out that a new nagging lower body injury had proved to be the last straw and compelled him to retire.

Unfortunately, Colts fans’ reactions merely underscore the dehumanizing reality professional athletes face, especially football players. As an avid sports fan myself, I empathize with Colts fans and their frustrations. They went from dangerous Super Bowl contender to likely NFL cellar-dweller status before they could butter their halftime popcorn last night. It sucks. But that doesn’t excuse their stubbornly insular response and callous attitude towards Luck, whom is undoubtedly undergoing a trying time in his life. As if Luck hadn’t endured enough physical pain at the hands of the Colts organization, when asked about the booing he told reporters, “I’d be lying if I said I didn’t hear the reaction., Iit hurt., I’ll be honest.”

Football is cruel. Football fans are worse. Coarse fan reactions to delicate situations like this one make me second guess my loving allegiance to professional sports teams. At the end of the day, it’s simply a bunch of grown men playing games. How would you feel if someone judged your entire character on the basis of you quitting a game of ping pong?

It’s different, but not really. Bottom line, we as sports fans need to do better. I say “sports” and not just “football” because Luck’s situation isn’t an isolated incident. Athletes across all sports have to deal with petulant and downright disrespectful fans far too often. In baseball, Boston Red Sox fans shouted racial epithets at outfielder Adam Jones in 2017 when he played for the Baltimore Orioles. Meanwhile in the NBA, Houston Rockets point guard Russell Westbrook has repeatedly dealt with similarly hostile Utah Jazz fans. The Toronto Raptors’ home crowd cheered when two-time Finals MVP and then-member of the Golden State Warriors Kevin Durant suffered a torn Achilles, sidelining him for the remainder of the championship series.

It’s hard for fans to emotionally calibrate with sports. It’s so tantalizing to fully immerse oneself in a sports team’s reality – to align part of your identity with a franchise by saying “we won” and “we’re getting better.” I know this because I do it often. To a certain degree that is okay. Hell, it’s not just okay, it’s encouraged. There’s nothing more exhilarating than your team securing a big win or claiming a title.

But we run into trouble when we lose touch with reality – when we forget that Andrew Luck is a human being who has a desire to live a fulfilled and happy life. So what gives anybody the right to disrespect him with jeers as he leaves his home field for the last time due to circumstances he’s had no control over? We all just have to be better.

No Colts fans, you are not all bad people, I’ve been guilty of hating players solely because of things they did that affected my favorite teams. But I do realize there is a line that shouldn’t be crossed. This public shaming of an all-around exemplary human shows how many fans in the sports world don’t have a concept of that line of human decency. A lot of sports fans need to take a step back and recalibrate how they perceive and treat athletes.

“I love my team” is not a valid excuse to act like an awful human being. 

Contact Zach Naidu at znaidu ‘at’ stanford.edu.

The post The Cautionary Tale of Andrew Luck appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2019/08/25/the-cautionary-tale-of-andrew-luck/feed/ 0 1156840
Naidu: Thank you, Dirk https://stanforddaily.com/2019/04/09/naidu-thank-you-dirk/ https://stanforddaily.com/2019/04/09/naidu-thank-you-dirk/#respond Tue, 09 Apr 2019 07:02:06 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1152197 Not going to lie, this sucks. Dallas Mavericks’ legend Dirk Nowitzki is likely playing his final two career games within the next 48 hours – with his home finale tonight against the Phoenix Suns. “Impending retirement” provides an insufficient phrase to describe the waning days of Dirk Werner Nowitzki’s decorated career. Dirk has meant so […]

The post Naidu: Thank you, Dirk appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
Not going to lie, this sucks.

Dallas Mavericks’ legend Dirk Nowitzki is likely playing his final two career games within the next 48 hours – with his home finale tonight against the Phoenix Suns.

“Impending retirement” provides an insufficient phrase to describe the waning days of Dirk Werner Nowitzki’s decorated career. Dirk has meant so much to me, many of my childhood friends and the entire city of Dallas for a multitude of reasons, making it rather challenging to chronicle the illustrious career of The German Wunderkind from the eyes of one of his most fervent supporters.

Writing this column is hard. It would be like if someone asked you to write no more than a few pages about the best memories of the last 15 years of your life – and gave you a deadline.

To begin, I want to touch on Dirk’s impressive statistical achievements: a necessary component to any player earning the classification as a “legend.”

In NBA history, Dirk is top 10 in the following categories: Points, seasons played, games played, All-NBA selections, All-Star game appearances, free throws made and wins. Moreover, there are only five players in NBA history who attained status as 10-time All-Stars, regular season MVP and Finals MVP: Bird, Jordan, Kobe, Magic Johnson and Dirk. In addition, Dirk is one of only seven players to eclipse 30,000 career points – sitting at number six all-time – and is the only player in NBA history to play 21 seasons with one team. While there is a slim possibility of Dirk returning for a 22nd, the highly-likely scenario involves Dirk concluding his career by the end of the week.

There are many talented NBA players every decade. But only a handful reach All-Star status and a much smaller contingent of those players are dominant enough to lead a team to a championship. But even among those players, there exists only so many who impact the game in a way that endures long after they make their last basket. Dirk’s one-legged fadeaway did just that. The most unguardable shot in the league since Kareem’s skyhook terrorized the Celtics is emulated by the likes of Kevin Durant and LeBron James today.

However, Dirk’s impressive accolades and invention of the one-legged fadeaway only scratch the surface of why he means so much to Dallas. His full value to the city is largely rooted in the origins of his tenure, and the Maverick’s franchise narrative before it acquired him in a draft-day trade with Milwaukee with the ninth overall pick.

Dirk arrived in 1998 as a lanky, raw European unknown who had stunned Americans at the 1998 Nike Hoop Summit. While the Dallas Cowboys were cementing their status as “America’s Team” in the 1990s with three Super Bowls, the Mavericks were busy riding the Ferris wheel of atrocity, missing the post season eight straight years with an astounding level of incompetence – eclipsing 28 wins just once, and posting an infamous 11-71 record in 1993.

Five years after that dismal 1993 season, Dirk’s career began quite inauspiciously in 1998 as he struggled in his rookie year – a condensed 50 game season in which he averaged less than 10 points per game. It was a season during which he questioned whether or not he belonged in the NBA. But Dallas was in no rush to see if Dirk would realize his potential. After the sub-par rookie year, he took off in year two – doubling his scoring average –achieving full-fledged All-Star status by year four.

People now often forget or aren’t even aware of the fact Dirk was more ridiculed than lauded for the majority of his career and well into his prime despite sustained success.

In 2006 the Mavericks blew a 2-0 series lead against the Miami Heat, and in 2007, despite Dirk taking home the regular season MVP award, he and the Mavericks infamously became the first number one seed to lose a best-of-seven series in the first round to the eighth-seeded Warriors. Those were two of the lowest points of my childhood.

For almost a decade now though, Dirk has cemented himself as a first-ballot hall of famer, largely driven by his ousting of the reviled Miami Heat in 2011. During that championship run, Dirk is remembered for his one-man expedition of vanquishing his playoff demons and beating a star-laden Miami Heat squad that featured LeBron James, Dwyane Wade and Chris Bosh.

A lot of time has passed since that memorable championship, which has given fans time to truly soak in Dirk’s greatness each year as the end draws closer.

When I think about Dirk’s retirement below the surface level, perhaps initially summing up the words to write about something I always knew would happen is so hard because I never really accepted it would happen. When something has been the way it is for as long as you’ve been alive, it’s pretty hard to fathom that ever changing.

Grass is green.

The sky is blue.

Dirk plays for the Mavs.

And yet there’s the beauty in Dirk’s career. For such a long time, while MVP candidates and perennial All-Stars were jumping from team to team throughout the late 2000s and into the current decade, Dirk prospered as a stalwart pillar of success and excellence for Dallas and the entire NBA.

There’s a very big part of me that wants to ramble on and on and on and on about how Dirk wasn’t appreciated for the majority of his career. A part that wants to cite the many things people had wrong about Dirk – most notably that he was just another “soft” European player who would never achieve all-time great status.

But a column with such accusatory, vindictive or — above all else — petty rhetoric would be the antithesis of the very legend I want to laud.

Dirk is humble and — above all — loyal.

Dirk, you have no idea what you have done for me and numerous other Mavericks fans.  You instilled in me an unfettered, borderline bewildering love and passion for a game I haven’t played competitively since the seventh grade.

Next to being accepted into college and graduating high school, the day you clinched the city’s first basketball championship in 2011 stands as one of the most memorable highlights of my childhood.

I sobbed, I cried, I rejoiced when you held that trophy. Not just because my team had won but because you stuck by the city that stuck by you when you had a rough going to start your career, a loyalty seldomly displayed in today’s sports realm.

I will miss seeing plays of you powering your way to the basket with your tongue sticking out. I will miss your “Euro-style” celebration of three pointers – your arms stretched straight in the air with your thumb, pointer and middle finger extended. And of course, I will miss that one-legged fadeaway.

When you lace it up for the last time, be it tonight, tomorrow or next year, I will almost assuredly cry again. Cry from joy, sadness and appreciation.

On behalf of every Mavericks fan of the past two decades, thank you, Dirk.

For everything.

Contact Zach Naidu at znaidu ‘at’ stanford.edu.

The post Naidu: Thank you, Dirk appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2019/04/09/naidu-thank-you-dirk/feed/ 0 1152197
Naidu: A(AF) bone-crushing reality https://stanforddaily.com/2019/02/15/naidu-aaf-bone-crushing-reality/ https://stanforddaily.com/2019/02/15/naidu-aaf-bone-crushing-reality/#respond Fri, 15 Feb 2019 08:06:01 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1149736 The Alliance of American Football kicked off last Saturday night to what many have called a rousing success from a ratings perspective. The league’s inaugural game between the San Antonio Commanders and San Diego Fleet attracted 2.9 million viewers. This topped the NBA’s marquee game between the Houston Rockets and Oklahoma City Thunder (2.5 million), a matchup that features the league’s two most recent MVPs.

The post Naidu: A(AF) bone-crushing reality appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
The Alliance of American Football kicked off last Saturday night to what many have called a rousing success, from a ratings perspective. The league’s inaugural game between the San Antonio Commanders and San Diego Fleet attracted 2.9 million viewers. This topped the NBA’s marquee game between the Houston Rockets and Oklahoma City Thunder (2.5 million), a matchup that features the league’s two most recent MVPs.

Football beating out basketball should come as little surprise. Despite the NBA thoroughly shellacking the NFL for polarizing PR matters like social justice and player empowerment, the NFL consistently tops its basketball counterpart in revenue, raking in $14 billion in 2017 while the NBA saw $7.4 billion.

However, the reasons for the AAF debut’s popularity are more intriguing than the popularity itself. Aside from the massive football vacuum left by the conclusion of the NFL’s season, the violent nature of the AAF was one of the more resounding developments that caught my attention. Personally, I had no intention of watching or following the AAF: Who wants to see washed running back Trent Richardson suit up for a football team in Alabama that isn’t named the Crimson Tide? Yet as I scrolled through my Instagram feed Saturday night, I was alerted of the bone crushing hit Commander linebacker Shaan Washington delivered on Fleet quarterback Mike Bercovici. It was by far the most violent legal hit I have seen in a football game in as long as I can remember. And it was awesome.

ESPN’s Will Cain shed some light on the newfound appeal of this league. “The hits … the way they allow those players to hit the quarterback shows the true nature of the game. The nature that people, for better or for worse, love.”

The AAF addresses something the NFL has become increasingly devoid of amid new safety rules: excitement for defense. The essential eradication of violent hits in the NFL has shifted the majority of the exciting action to the offensive side of the ball — as scoring even more important from an entertainment perspective. Sure, players like Khalil Mack and JJ Watt are still dominant forces, and fans enjoy watching them play. But from an entertainment perspective, even Mack’s own abilities are hindered with the new safety rules — he can’t display his full physical prowess when pursuing a quarterback, reducing the very number of highlight-reel plays he produces.

People didn’t hate the Super Bowl because only 16 points were scored. People hated the Super Bowl because in the modern NFL, low-scoring affairs are devoid of one of the loan remaining exhilarating aspects of professional football: scoring. Fewer touchdowns means fewer moments of intriguing action, given that most jaw-dropping hits draw a penalty and thus are largely discouraged.

Unfortunately, these types of plays also significantly increase the risk for injury and long-term ailments. That’s the very reason why the NFL has outlawed many plays that used to be the norm.

The jury is still out on the AAF, as week two, which commences tomorrow afternoon, will be even more telling of the league’s long-term prospects.

The AAF is not the NFL. The league sports a fraction of the teams and features inferior talent in relatively minuscule markets (Salt Lake, Birmingham, Memphis, etc.). It has zero chance of matching the storied history of America’s favorite sports league. To compensate, though, the AAF has brought back the vicious, bone-crushing hits that were once a staple of the National Football League. From the looks of opening weekend, this approach may just make the AAF the next big source of entertainment for American sports.

 

Contact Zach Naidu at znaidu ‘at’ stanford.edu.

The post Naidu: A(AF) bone-crushing reality appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2019/02/15/naidu-aaf-bone-crushing-reality/feed/ 0 1149736
Naidu: A Super Bowl preview, of sorts https://stanforddaily.com/2019/02/01/naidu-a-super-bowl-preview-of-sorts/ https://stanforddaily.com/2019/02/01/naidu-a-super-bowl-preview-of-sorts/#respond Fri, 01 Feb 2019 08:24:18 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1149016 Super Bowl Sunday is only two short days away. There are many things up for debate about Sunday’s matchup.

Can the Rams high-octane offense keep it up against scheming savant Bill Belichick? Will the Patriots offensive line be able to hold off Aaron Donald? Will Tony Romo call a single play incorrectly?

The post Naidu: A Super Bowl preview, of sorts appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
Super Bowl Sunday is only two short days away. There are many things up for debate about Sunday’s matchup.

Can the Rams’ high-octane offense keep it up against scheming savant Bill Belichick? Will the Patriots’ offensive line be able to hold off Aaron Donald? Will Tony Romo call a single play incorrectly?

There is one thing however, that should be accepted by all: Tom Brady is the greatest of all time.

Obviously, there is always some luck involved to be able to be considered in that conversation. A player like Aaron Rodgers, who arguably has more innate talent than Brady, will never enter the conversation of “greatest of all time” simply because his career arc has not followed the narrative of a player typically required to do so.

So yes, there may be a tad bit of luck involved for the history of Tom Brady. Had he been drafted by the New York Jets or Detroit Lions, it’s hard to imagine that Brady would’ve had the same number of opportunities to display his brilliance that he’s had under the sturdy leadership of Bill Belichick and Robert Kraft. Brady is not a system quarterback, but that doesn’t mean he hasn’t benefited from the system he plays in. Regardless, time after time, Brady has shown the sports world he doesn’t know how to do anything other than deliver in crunch time, when the stakes are highest. In his three Super Bowl losses, it wasn’t a matter of Tom falling flat. Against the Eagles and Giants twice, Brady matched up against formidable defenses yet still performed at a high level, only to be outdone by a miraculous catch (or two) and an intimidating defensive line.

As I often say whenever I write about elite athletes, I once again must implore you to understand the greatness of Tom Brady. Barring an utterly catastrophic showing by the nine-time Super Bowl participant, Brady’s legacy as the greatest quarterback in NFL history will remain intact — win or lose — because of his exceptional track record. Brady has rewritten the meaning of longevity in professional football. While he had his fewest touchdowns in a 16-game season since 2004, he performed when it mattered most, in the fourth quarter and overtime of the AFC Championship a couple weeks ago. Much to the chagrin of ESPN’s Max Kellerman, Brady has not fallen off a cliff, and doesn’t show any signs of doing so in the near future given his obsession with health and physical fitness and desire to sacrifice almost anything to stay on the field.  

Root for whomever you want on Super Bowl Sunday, just don’t forget to appreciate the man wearing number 12 in white, under center.

 

Contact Zach Naidu at znaidu ‘at’ stanford.edu.

The post Naidu: A Super Bowl preview, of sorts appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2019/02/01/naidu-a-super-bowl-preview-of-sorts/feed/ 0 1149016
Naidu: Fear the beard https://stanforddaily.com/2019/01/30/naidu-fear-the-beard/ https://stanforddaily.com/2019/01/30/naidu-fear-the-beard/#respond Wed, 30 Jan 2019 09:01:03 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1148914 James Harden wants you to know. He’s damn good.

Often times, once a NBA player has reached his 6th or 7th season, his reputation is fully-formed. Rotation player, starter, all-star, elite (top 10-12), and super elite (top 5). The super elite class is the hardest to break into. In recent years, LeBron James, Stephen Curry, and Kevin Durant have firmly held places in the super elite class, with Anthony Davis, Giannis Antetokounmpo, Kawhi Leonard, and Harden hovering around the final two spots. For years Harden has been categorized as an elite player, winning an MVP last year. However, multiple playoff failures despite stellar regular seasons dominate Harden’s reputation.

The post Naidu: Fear the beard appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
James Harden wants you to know — he’s damn good.

Often times, once an NBA player has reached his 6th or 7th season, his reputation is fully-formed. Rotation player, starter, all-star, elite (top 10-12) or super elite (top 5). The super elite class is the hardest to break into. In recent years, LeBron James, Stephen Curry and Kevin Durant have firmly held places in the super elite class, with Anthony Davis, Giannis Antetokounmpo, Kawhi Leonard and Harden hovering around the final two spots. For years Harden has been categorized as an elite player, winning an MVP last year. However, multiple playoff failures despite stellar regular seasons dominate Harden’s reputation.

This year though, the man with the beard has eclipsed a new level of excellence.

Fresh off scoring 61 points against the Knicks in Madison Square Garden, Harden led the Rockets to a two-point win over Eastern Conference powerhouse Toronto Raptors Friday night. The vintage performance against the Knicks capped a five-game stretch during which Harden averaged 52.2 points per game. His encore performance against Toronto delivered a victory against the owner of the second-best record in the NBA.

With injured Chris Paul and Clint Capela sidelined due to injury, this Houston Rockets roster is disgusting on paper. It has no business contending for a winning record, let alone a playoff spot. And yet this Rockets team firmly sits as the 5th seed in a loaded Western Conference.

Criticisms concerning Harden’s shooting percentages given his abnormally high usage rate cloud some of Harden’s success. But plenty of highly-touted players before Harden have received the keys to an offense and failed to come anywhere near the level of consistent production the defending-MVP has shown this season.

Through 46 games, Harden is scoring an outrageous 36.33 points per game. Over the last two months alone — a 28-game stretch that included performances with and without Chris Paul in the lineup — Harden is averaging just a shade under 40 per game at 39.98. He is well on his way to scoring the most points per game since Michael Jordan averaged 37.09 in 1986-1987, and perhaps will even top that.

James Harden is not just an elite player. James Harden is a super elite, once-in-a-generational talent. It’s time to start accepting Harden is closer to all-time great Kobe Bryant than volume scorer Carmelo Anthony. Harden hasn’t had the luxury of playing with another bona fide star to compete for a title with until Chris Paul arrived last year. With Paul, he immediately came within one game of advancing to the NBA Finals.

I’m a well documented die-hard Dallas Mavericks fan. Based on purely an inter-division rivalry, my least favorite team is the Houston Rockets. But as a basketball purist, I can’t help but appreciate the brilliance James Harden displays on a nightly basis.

The Rockets have substantially regressed from last year’s 66-win team. In addition, the return of Chris Paul will cool Harden’s numbers to mere super-star (rather than super-human) numbers. But Harden’s documented ability to carry his team and explosively score with such ease has established him as one of the greatest offensive forces to be reckoned with of all time.

Arguably the best player in the Western Conference not on the Golden State Warriors plays for Houston. So don’t be surprised if this underwhelming version of the Rockets makes some noise in the playoffs. James Harden certainly won’t be.

 

Contact Zach Naidu at znaidu ‘at’ stanford.edu

The post Naidu: Fear the beard appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2019/01/30/naidu-fear-the-beard/feed/ 0 1148914
Naidu: Time for changes, NFL https://stanforddaily.com/2019/01/23/naidu-time-for-changes-nfl/ https://stanforddaily.com/2019/01/23/naidu-time-for-changes-nfl/#respond Wed, 23 Jan 2019 09:28:46 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1148557 There is a major rule change the NFL should implement this offseason.

However, the overtime possession rules should not be one of them.

The post Naidu: Time for changes, NFL appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
There is a major rule change the NFL should implement this offseason.

However, the overtime possession rules should not be one of them.

On the season, the New England Patriots averaged 2.32 points per drive with a touchdown percentage of 26.7 percent. Meanwhile, the Chiefs, the number one scoring offense in the NFL, averaged 3.25 points per drive with a touchdown percentage of 40.5 percent. The Chiefs had one of two offenses the entire regular season that averaged three or more points per drive (the Rams being the other), meaning that of 32 teams in the NFL, only two averaged what equates to roughly a field goal every time it touched the ball.

Overtime is exactly what it should be, extra time to decide a game. It should not be treated as a new game. Former NFL player and current ESPN football analyst Ryan Clark summarized the situation best on First Take Monday morning: “The first 60 minutes … is when they’re giving each team a certain opportunity to win the game. This is the way the rules are played out. When it gets into overtime, when both teams have shown that they can’t make the plays — make the winning plays — to get this game over in regulation, now it is extenuating circumstances, and these are the rules for those circumstances… You have to play defense.” Unfortunately for Kansas City, New England won the coin toss. However, just four hours prior, the Los Angeles Rams defense was in an identical situation and produced a game-altering interception. In a game dominated by offensive firepower, defensive prowess becomes a necessity once overtime hits, and that should not be viewed negatively.

Unlike pre-2010 overtime games, the Chiefs defense didn’t have to be perfect; it could’ve allowed a field goal to keep its postseason dreams alive. The Chiefs defense simply wasn’t good enough to hold the Patriots to an average drive on the biggest stage.

It would not be utterly blasphemous to suggest a slight modification in overtime rules, but even that opens the possibility for an unnecessarily long extension of an already brutal game. New England possessed the ball for 14 minutes on its opening two drives — and only scored once. If the NFL were to change rules such that a team has a chance to respond to a touchdown, the possibility of a second overtime arises. So where would it end? The ability to hold a team to a field goal on a crucial drive is not the easiest task for a defense, but it is definitely a reasonable qualification for a championship-aspiring team.

Kansas City can, however, point a finger at the questionable roughing the passer penalty awarded to New England on the first of its last two go-ahead touchdown drives in regulation. This is a perfect segue to my next point: The NFL needs to make all penalties occurring at a crucial time reviewable and subject to change. If that were the case, the referees most likely pick up the flag on the roughing the passer penalty, and New England would’ve faced third and long from its own territory.  

The more salient missed call transpired in the last two minutes of the NFC Championship Game and likely cost the New Orleans Saints a spot in the Super Bowl.

Officiating an NFL game is not a task I envy. One must enforce a myriad of rules in three- to five-second spurts, 150 times, across three and a half hours. Despite conspiracy theories, NFL officials do not have ulterior motives — sometimes they simply miss calls. Sometimes, they utterly botch game-altering calls in the most egregious fashion possible.

Cue the NFC Championship.

I have watched the replay of the infamous no-call pass interference — where Nickell Robey-Coleman literally plowed helmet-first into a defenseless Tommylee Lewis — many times since Sunday. I can’t fathom how not one, but two officials missed such a blatant attempt to interfere with a catch.

That being said, the lack of an in-game system to atone for such ghastly errors is even more deplorable on the NFL’s part. This reactive rather than proactive approach is nothing new for America’s most popular sports league.

If you knock over a glass of milk, you better clean it up. You have to; you have no choice — otherwise it will start to smell, or maybe you’ll slip. But you know what’s even more prudent than wiping up the milk? Moving the glass away from your elbow to reduce the chance you knock it over — especially when you’ve already knocked it over once before. That’s a concept my dad taught me when I was six, so why does a league run by 30-plus billionaires still struggle to understand it?

Be it domestic violence, concussions or anthem protests, the NFL is always late to the common sense and PR-nightmare-prevention party. Only when something as extreme as a person taking his own life due to CTE, or a video of a man bludgeoning a woman in an elevator circulates the press does the league decide to address a problem that was reasonably avoidable with prior diligence and caution.

Once again, Roger Goodell and the NFL have a mess on their hands with the missed pass interference call. This wasn’t the first time a called penalty (or lack thereof) substantially altered the outcome of a game. But in addition to amending penalty rules, Goodell and league officials should look at other perplexing rules that have already showed signs of proving troublesome in a high-stakes game — such as the rule that awards the opposing team the football if the offense fumbles it out of the end zone.  

It shouldn’t take a team losing out on a Super Bowl birth to spark a rule change.

Move the glass, Goodell.

 

Contact Zach Naidu at znaidu ‘at’ stanford.edu.

The post Naidu: Time for changes, NFL appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2019/01/23/naidu-time-for-changes-nfl/feed/ 0 1148557
Naidu: Parity in the NBA https://stanforddaily.com/2018/11/28/naidu-parity-in-the-nba/ https://stanforddaily.com/2018/11/28/naidu-parity-in-the-nba/#respond Wed, 28 Nov 2018 09:59:18 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1147288 Well, Adam Silver, you have your wish, tanking is dead. Six weeks into the regular season, the Western Conference standings are bunched up in a seemingly unprecedented fashion.

The post Naidu: Parity in the NBA appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
Well, Adam Silver, you have your wish: Tanking is dead. Six weeks into the regular season, the Western Conference standings are bunched up in a seemingly unprecedented fashion.

Six weeks into the 2015 season, seven teams had a record of three or more games below a .500 win percentage — three of which were six or more games below the mark. The following year, that number dipped to four teams. However, last season, seven teams were once again three games below an even record, with three of those teams boasting a record of seven games below or worse. This year, only one team out West, the Phoenix Suns (4-15), fits the bill.

Multiple factors contribute to the current Western Conference parity. For starters, recent Western Conference bottom feeders have excelled in free agency or seen past losing seasons award them franchise-altering talent. The Minnesota Timberwolves, New Orleans Pelicans, Sacramento Kings, Dallas Mavericks and Los Angeles Lakers primarily fall into this category. Minnesota has seen highly drafted players Karl-Anthony Towns and Andrew Wiggins continue to develop, while the 2015 arrival of head coach Alvin Gentry in New Orleans has finally started to channel Anthony Davis’ elite talent into wins.

Most notably, Sacramento and Los Angeles — who have combined to miss 17-consecutive playoff appearances — have risen in the ranks. Unsurprisingly, the Lakers have returned to relevance due to superstar free agent signing LeBron James. However, few outside Sacramento anticipated what the Kings have achieved thus far; young guards Buddy Hield and De’Aaron Fox have made tremendous strides in the first quarter of the season, improving their scoring averages by five points and allowing the Kings to click as a whole offensively. As a result, the Kings sit at 10-10 six weeks in, a 41-win pace representing a drastic improvement for a team that hasn’t won more than 32 games in the past decade.

In addition, many teams who don’t have elite young talent have head coaches who won’t sacrifice current success for potential future prosperity. The Los Angeles Clippers, devoid of elite talent after a two-year exodus of Lob City’s core of Chris Paul, Blake Griffin and DeAndre Jordan, were expected to be one of those teams in search of future talent at the expense of regular season wins. However, Doc Rivers has led an egalitarian roster to the best record in the Western Conference after 19 games. That’s right, in a conference housing the likes of LeBron James, Kevin Durant, Steph Curry, James Harden and Anthony Davis, the team with seventh-year swingman Tobias Harris as its leading scorer sits atop the standings. Gregg Popovich and his San Antonio Spurs, fresh off of trading disgruntled All-Star Kawhi Leonard for DeMar DeRozan, opted to compete for a bottom playoff seed rather than blow up the roster in search of young gems.

Meanwhile, the Eastern Conference still has many teams hugging the bottom of the NBA standings. This is in large part due to the void of talent in the conference outside of Toronto, Milwaukee, Boston and Philadelphia. In the West, teams that don’t feature elite superstars like the Denver Nuggets and Clippers supplement this weakness with solid, deep lineups that implement and execute sound team basketball. That is quite difficult for teams like New York and Cleveland to do. Couple that with nightly matchups against elite talent at the top of the East in Giannis Antetokounmpo, Kawhi Leonard and Joel Embiid, and these teams stand little chance to succeed.

If decades of results provide any indication, once the 82-game season reaches its quarter mark, teams win percentages largely hold constant the rest of the way. This year, 3.5 games separate the number one seed from the 14th seed, meaning the West will be a dog fight come April. It is very likely juggernauts like Oklahoma City, Golden State and Houston utilize their talent to distance themselves from the pack.

Now how long this parity will last for beyond this season is another question. While the playoff race will be tight out West, once the playoffs begin the teams with elite talent will prevail over those with depth, as the condensed nature of a playoff series rewards those teams that can overpower an opponent in a relatively short timespan.  

Moreover, the only reason Sacramento and New Orleans are in the position to succeed is because of past losing seasons that enabled them to draft coveted players.

These are all thoughts and questions for 2019.

For now though, whether it be due to an influx of talent or organizational philosophy, tanking out West is dead.

Contact Zach Naidu at znaidu ‘at’ stanford.edu

 

The post Naidu: Parity in the NBA appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2018/11/28/naidu-parity-in-the-nba/feed/ 0 1147288
Naidu: No stars in Boston https://stanforddaily.com/2018/11/14/naidu-no-stars-in-boston/ https://stanforddaily.com/2018/11/14/naidu-no-stars-in-boston/#respond Wed, 14 Nov 2018 10:25:59 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1146820 Bold Prediction: The Boston Celtics won’t make the NBA Finals.

Bolder Prediction: They won’t even make it past the second round in their conference.

The post Naidu: No stars in Boston appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
Bold prediction: The Boston Celtics won’t make the NBA finals.

Bolder prediction: They won’t even make it past the second round in their conference.

Coming into the season, the Celtics were all but anointed Eastern Conference Champions and hailed as the biggest threat to the Golden State Warriors’ quest for a third straight title.

The hype was in some ways justified. The Celtics were one win away from reaching the finals last year without their supposed two best players, Kyrie Irving and Gordon Hayward. Simple addition (and the subtraction of LeBron James from the East) should yield a result of the Celtics in the finals.

However, there are a couple things to consider when challenging the notion the Celtics are the clear-cut favorites out of the East.

The Celtics have tremendous depth; their third best player is Jayson Tatum. Or is it maybe Hayward? Or could it actually be Irving? Herein lies the problem: Despite their deep roster, the Celtics do not have a bona fide, top-10 NBA player. That’s fine during the regular season when a grueling 82-game schedule rewards depth with wins. However, how will Boston fair against an improved Bucks team featuring arguably the best player in the conference, Giannis Antetokounmpo, or against the challenger to that title, Kawhi Leonard? The Celtics beat the Bucks without Irving and Hayward last year, but that was a different Bucks team, one that wasn’t leading the league in scoring as it is now. Yes, the Celtics have a tremendous edge in the coaching and depth department, but in a seven-game series, can this squad really be relied on to deny Antetokounmpo or Leonard? Even more, can Kyrie Irving really be the crunch time leader without LeBron James on the court to ease some of the pressure?

The best players in the NBA in no particular order are Anthony Davis, Kevin Durant, Stephen Curry, LeBron James, Giannis Antetokounmpo, James Harden, Kawhi Leonard and Joel Embiid. All of these players have the capability to lead teams to a championship; the only things that have held them back in the past have been subpar supporting casts, injuries or poor coaching. That does not appear to be the case this year for Antetokounmpo and Leonard, and now Embiid has added a top-15 player to his starting lineup in Jimmy Butler. Brad Stevens is a tremendous coach, but he can’t score 51 points in three quarters (Curry) or average 25+ points and 13 rebounds (Embiid, Antetokounmpo)

The same reason the Celtics won’t win the East, and possibly won’t advance past the second round, is the same reason why nobody feared the 60-22 Atlanta Hawks in 2015: They had no superstars. In the 2015 Eastern Conference Finals, who did Atlanta have to go toe to toe with LeBron James? Paul Millsap, who averaged a whopping, team-leading 16.7 points per game. To the shock of no one, the Cavaliers promptly swept the Hawks.

Of course, the 2018 Boston Celtics are better than those Hawks. But they will face the same problem if they run into Philadelphia, Toronto or Milwaukee, and unless they finish with the number one seed, they are all but guaranteed to play one of those teams in the second round. By no means will I be stunned if Brad Stevens leads the Celtics past one or two of those opponents. But if Boston does indeed triumph over two teams that have a sizable advantage in the “best player” category, it will not be because Irving and Hayward were the missing pieces. It will be because their coach is that good – and that’s not something you hear too often in a superstar driven league.

 

Contact Zach Naidu at znaidu ‘at’ stanford.edu.

 

The post Naidu: No stars in Boston appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2018/11/14/naidu-no-stars-in-boston/feed/ 0 1146820
Naidu: The mistreatment of Ty Montgomery https://stanforddaily.com/2018/11/01/naidu-the-mistreatment-of-ty-montgomery/ https://stanforddaily.com/2018/11/01/naidu-the-mistreatment-of-ty-montgomery/#respond Thu, 01 Nov 2018 11:56:03 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1146056 Ty Montgomery, former wide receiver for the Stanford Cardinal and member of the Stanford class of 2015, made a crucial mistake last Sunday.

With just over two minutes remaining in the game, the undefeated Los Angeles Rams kicked a field goal to take a 29-27 lead over Montgomery and the Green Bay Packers. On the ensuing kickoff, Montgomery fielded the ball just inside the Packers end zone and returned it to the 21-yard line only to fumble and give the Rams possession.

The post Naidu: The mistreatment of Ty Montgomery appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
Ty Montgomery, former wide receiver for the Stanford Cardinal and member of the Stanford class of 2015, made a crucial mistake last Sunday.

With just over two minutes remaining in the game, the undefeated Los Angeles Rams kicked a field goal to take a 29-27 lead over Montgomery and the Green Bay Packers. On the ensuing kickoff, Montgomery fielded the ball just inside the Packers end zone and returned it to the 21-yard line, only to fumble and give the Rams possession.

The fumble dashed Green Bay’s chances of a late game comeback, as Los Angeles successfully ran out the clock to remain undefeated.

Following the game, NFL Network’s Michael Silver reported, “Ty Montgomery was explicitly told by the coaches…if it’s in the end zone take a knee.” In addition, Silver cited star quarterback Aaron Rodgers’ outrage over the play, and quoted an anonymous player who said about Montgomery, “They took him out [of the previous drive] for a play and he slammed his helmet and threw a fit… Then [before the kickoff] they told him to take a knee, and he ran it out anyway. You know what that was? That was him saying, ‘I’m gonna do me.’ It’s a f—– joke.”

This report prompted ESPN’s Stephen A. Smith to assert on First Take the next morning that Montgomery should be cut. “It has nothing to do with the mistake; it’s the motivation behind which you made the mistake,” Smith said. Smith wasn’t the only mainstream sports analyst to express this sentiment.

Montgomery said his wife and infant son have received threats from angered Packers fans following his late game fumble – all because the sports media has depicted the image that Montgomery cost his team a win due to selfish actions.

Facts can’t be ignored. Montgomery made a poor decision. Objectively, if he doesn’t fumble the ball, the Packers likely win the game on the arm of the best quarterback in the league. Objectively, some blame is warranted for the former Stanford wideout.

But the way in which Montgomery has been villanized shows nothing short of egregious ignorance from the media and Packers fans.

For starters, Smith cited Montgomery’s “motivation” as the reason he should be cut, but did he even stop to ponder the perceived motivation before skewering the athlete on national television?

Why is everybody assuming based on an anonymous report that Montgomery acted selfishly? Why isn’t anybody trying to take a closer look at what exactly happened and examine all of the information – specifically Montgomery’s own explanation?

On Monday, Montgomery gave NFL reporters his first comments on the play: “Before every single return, we say the same thing ‘if it’s in the end zone, keep it in the end zone,” he said. “I made a split-second decision. I don’t know if this is going to land on the goal line. I’m not going to take a knee on the goal line, at the half-yard line and take a chance at putting the game in the ref’s hands.”

Montgomery also said, “I’ve never been a guy to completely disobey what I’ve been told. That’s not the kind of man I am.”

People have attacked Montgomery’s motives because at an initial look, the ball obviously appears to be in the end zone. If Montgomery had fielded the ball five, six yards deep, it would be difficult to accept his explanation. The spot of a fair catch is marked where the ball is, not the player. Yes, from the TV angle it appeared relatively apparent that the ball was in the end zone. But is it ludicrous to think Montgomery – about a yard in the end zone and leaning forward at the time of fielding the kick – genuinely doubted the ball itself was past the goal line and didn’t want to risk costing the Packers 24 yards by taking a knee or calling for a fair catch? The reason the Packers were even down two points was because they suffered a safety running a play from their end zone in the first half.  

Is it so absurd to believe that in the heat of the moment, the last two minutes of a professional football game, Ty Montgomery erroneously judged that the ball wasn’t in the end zone? Is it not a possibility that Montgomery was indeed frustrated about his role when he fielded the kick, but didn’t let that impact his decision? Why are the media and Packers fans so easily accepting the fact that he cost Green Bay a chance to win because of selfish reasons rather than simply misjudging a play and fumbling the football?

I have met Ty Montgomery. We both went to St. Mark’s School of Texas in Dallas and I was a water boy for the football team his junior year in high school. Amid all the jaw-dropping plays Montgomery produced, I have one vivid memory. St. Mark’s was down two scores nearing the end of the game when he returned a kickoff for a touchdown to put us within reach. After the touchdown, on the sidelines, my 12-year-old excited self – caught up in the moment – rushed over to him and said, “You can do this!” to which he responded, “Nah dude. We can do this.” As cliché as that sounds, I’ll never forget that moment because Montgomery demonstrated the mindset of a selfless team leader during that brief exchange.

A lot of time has passed since Montgomery attended St. Mark’s. However, in four years at Stanford, there wasn’t a single negative report about him from Head Coach David Shaw or any players that would’ve discredited the exemplary reputation he established as a teenager.

A more public defense of the running back came from the Packers’ Tramon Williams, who denounced the anonymous criticism and supported his teammate. According to NBC Sports, Williams said, “That’s the reason they are anonymous and not said their name. If they want to say it, put their name by it. That’s them. Whoever that is, it is what it is. But we’re going to have Ty’s back. I know for a fact he didn’t do it selfishly. It may look that way, but he didn’t do it selfishly.”

Why do we put less weight on the comments of Williams, a 12-year veteran and Super Bowl champion, than those of the anonymous player? Why is the course of action here to take every negative comment at face value and shatter the character and professional image of someone who, until now, has been nothing but an exemplary teammate and person?  

These are all questions nobody is answering because nobody wants to ask them. Instead, Stephen A. Smith and the rest of the media and fans are doing the easy thing, drawing ill-informed conclusions about Montgomery’s motives after guzzling reports that he did what he did to “prove something” to the coaching staff. That’s the juicy storyline – nobody wants to hear that somebody simply made a mistake at a critical point in a game. As a result, Montgomery’s image has unfortunately paid a price.

On Tuesday, Montgomery was traded to the Baltimore Ravens for a 2020 seventh round pick, swiftly ending the saga and his tenure in Green Bay.

What happened to Ty Montgomery is wrong.

Hopefully Baltimore gives him the warm welcome and second chance he deserves.

 

Contact Zach Naidu at znaidu ‘at’ stanford.edu

The post Naidu: The mistreatment of Ty Montgomery appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2018/11/01/naidu-the-mistreatment-of-ty-montgomery/feed/ 0 1146056
Naidu: Not my World Series https://stanforddaily.com/2018/10/24/naidu-not-my-world-series/ https://stanforddaily.com/2018/10/24/naidu-not-my-world-series/#respond Wed, 24 Oct 2018 08:54:10 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1145542 This is not the World Series everybody wanted.  A matchup between the Boston Red Sox and Los Angeles Dodgers could not feature two more vintage blueblood franchises. The Dodgers haven’t won in three decades, but they’re still six-time World Series champions – they’re still the team that housed legends like Sandy Koufax, Pee Wee Reese and Jackie Robinson. The Red Sox are no stranger to the limelight and World Series rings either, winning five years ago, with three championships since the year 2000.

The post Naidu: Not my World Series appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
This is not the World Series everybody wanted.  A matchup between the Boston Red Sox and Los Angeles Dodgers could not feature two more vintage blue-blood franchises. The Dodgers haven’t won in three decades, but they’re still six-time World Series champions — they’re still the team that housed legends like Sandy Koufax, Pee Wee Reese and Jackie Robinson. The Red Sox are no stranger to the limelight and World Series rings either, winning five years ago, with three championships since the year 2000.

So, what did we want? More often than not, neutral fans want to see an underdog or a likable franchise triumph on the biggest stage. Picking their preferred winner gets even easier when that feel-good underdog matches up against a storied, blue-blood franchise or perennial contender whose success has become borderline annoying.

Remember the Minnesota Miracle against the New Orleans Saints? If that exact play had happened, but rather than Case Keenum completing the pass to Stefon Diggs it had been Tom Brady throwing a last-second touchdown to Rob Gronkowski for the win and a spot in the conference championship, would there have been as much pandemonium from the neutral football fan? No, because the New England Patriots always end up in the conference championship. This reality also explains why the majority of America wanted the Jacksonville Jaguars to beat the Patriots and Minnesota Vikings to beat the Philadelphia Eagles in the most recent AFC and NFC championship games. Jacksonville was regarded as a relatively young franchise with no prior Super Bowl berth, and Minnesota had arguably the most tortured NFL fan base outside of Ohio.  Meanwhile, the Patriots had appeared in more than one third of the previous 17 Super Bowls, winning five of them, while the Eagles — though they hadn’t won a championship to that date — notoriously have one of the most callous and extreme fan bases. The reason people rooted for the Jaguars and Vikings is the same reason why the majority of people outside the Bay Area were hoping for LeBron James and the Cavaliers to pull off a miracle this past June against the juggernaut Warriors.

Unfortunately, there is no little guy to choose. Coming into the series, the Red Sox were the odds-on favorite to win, but that by no means makes the Dodgers a mismatched opponent or one to cheer for as a massive underdog. There is no perpetually success-starved fan base the neutral viewer can latch onto. All we get are two polarizing teams with loaded payrolls and top-tier talent.

Make no mistake, these were the two best teams in each of their respective leagues. As shown during the Red Sox’ 8-4 opening series win, there will continue to be exciting baseball in the remaining three plus games. There will be quality pitching, electrifying home runs and many more moments of superb baseball. Such moments simply won’t be amplified by an underlying narrative of good vs. evil, David vs. Goliath.

The Red Sox have won in the current decade while the Dodgers haven’t in 30 years and lost a heartbreaker in seven games a year ago. If you want to split hairs, the Dodgers appear to be the most deserving of the neutral fans rooting interest.

So that’s who I’ll be rooting for, I guess.

Contact Zach Naidu at znaidu ‘at’ stanford.edu

The post Naidu: Not my World Series appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2018/10/24/naidu-not-my-world-series/feed/ 0 1145542
Naidu: My Mavericks https://stanforddaily.com/2018/10/17/naidu-my-mavericks/ https://stanforddaily.com/2018/10/17/naidu-my-mavericks/#respond Wed, 17 Oct 2018 08:17:37 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1145022 As a sports columnist for The Stanford Daily, I always try my best to cover material that piques the average Stanford sports reader’s interest. Thus, the diversity of Stanford’s student body means I must strive to cover timely topics that appeal to a variety of fan bases and sports.

The post Naidu: My Mavericks appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
As a sports columnist for The Stanford Daily, I always try my best to cover material that piques the average Stanford sports reader’s interest. Thus, the diversity of Stanford’s student body means I must strive to cover timely topics that appeal to a variety of fan bases and sports.

With the NBA regular season tipping off last night, professional basketball is on the queue.

However, because of Stanford’s geographic location I’m aware the vast majority of people support the greatest basketball dynasty since the 1990’s Chicago Bulls — the Golden State Warriors. As I have written before, the Warriors are truly a transcendent spectacle to behold, and with the (what some may say unfair) offseason addition of four-time All-Star DeMarcus Cousins, Dub Nation seems primed to hoist its third Larry O’Brien trophy in as many years and the fourth in five.  

But you must forgive me, for now I must indulge in the one sports franchise to which my heart is perpetually tethered more than any other, the Dallas Mavericks.

To the Warriors fan base, the Mavericks are the source of the “We Believe” team of the 2006-2007 season, in which the eighth seeded Warriors became the first team to knock off a number one seed in a best-of-seven series.

To me, the Mavericks are my longest-tenured source of pride and joy.

Of course, one cannot discuss the franchise without mentioning Dirk Nowitzki. The 2011 NBA champion and Finals MVP, 2007 regular season MVP, 13-time All-Star, 12-time All-NBA selection and 2006 Three-Point Shootout champion power forward is entering what is probably his 21st and final season.

Led by Nowitzki, from 2000 to 2011 the Mavericks made the playoffs with 50 or more wins every season, made the Finals twice and won it once. Every year during that run, especially the latter half, I found myself saying it was “our year” — a sense of hope and optimism validated every night by an in-his-prime Nowitzki and stellar support from Jason Terry. Even when the Mavericks lost the 2006 NBA Championship and were bounced early in 2007, I always was excited for the next year because of that sense of hope and feeling that “it could happen!”

The 2011 NBA Championship gave me unfettered euphoria. I still hang my replica championship banner and re-watch highlights on YouTube of that magical run.  

Unfortunately, after scaling the championship mountain in 2011, the franchise plummeted to mediocrity, barely squeaking into the playoffs the following season and missing it altogether the next year. Every season has seen constant roster turnover, free agency failures and a declining win total. Even when the Mavericks would make the playoffs, they never posed a threat, and exiting early as a bottom seed became routine.

Slowly during that time, that feeling of “it could happen!” has melted into a melancholic acceptance of “we will never win again.”

However, the Mavericks have new life, thanks in large part to two budding talents, Dennis Smith Jr. and Luka Dončić. The Mavericks selected Smith Jr. ninth overall in the 2017 draft and traded up in this year’s draft to select the teenage Slovenian phenom third overall.

One of my friends at Stanford is an admirably loyal Cleveland Browns fan. The elation he felt a few weeks ago when the Browns won a single game for the first time in almost two years has put things in perspective. Not to compare the Mavericks current rough patch to the seemingly interminable suffering of the Browns, but it did show me that there is a light at the end of the tunnel. There always is.

The Kansas City Royals eventually made the playoffs in 2014 after a 29-year drought, and the Buffalo Bills did so last year after a 17-year absence. Nothing lasts forever in professional sports.

The Mavericks’ season tips off tonight against the Phoenix Suns, and there are many reasons to be hopeful. Rick Carlisle is a consensus top-five coach in the NBA. DeAndre Jordan is a strong center coming off his first All-Star season, and Smith Jr. continues to make strides. But more than anything, this season seems special because for the first time in a while, Mavericks fans have hope again. Not a hope for a championship or even a playoff series victory. But maybe, just maybe, the Mavericks could sneak into the playoffs.

And maybe not too long after that, they could make some noise at the top of the standings. For the first time in a while, it’s not too ludicrous to feel it could happen.

Contact Zach Naidu at znaidu ‘at’ stanford.edu

The post Naidu: My Mavericks appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2018/10/17/naidu-my-mavericks/feed/ 0 1145022
Naidu: Le’Veon vs. everybody https://stanforddaily.com/2018/10/10/naidu-leveon-vs-everybody/ https://stanforddaily.com/2018/10/10/naidu-leveon-vs-everybody/#respond Wed, 10 Oct 2018 19:45:11 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1144622 The entire saga surrounding the Pittsburgh Steelers and their All-Pro running back, Le’Veon Bell, has highlighted the ugly reality of the business side of football.

The post Naidu: Le’Veon vs. everybody appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
The entire saga surrounding the Pittsburgh Steelers and their All-Pro running back, Le’Veon Bell, has highlighted the ugly reality of the business side of football.

For those unfamiliar with the situation, in July, Bell turned down a four-year, $70 million contract with $33 million guaranteed. As a result, the Steelers placed the franchise tag on Bell for the second consecutive season. The franchise tag pays a player either the average of the top five highest-paid players at their respective position or a 120% pay increase from his previous year’s salary, whichever is higher. Under the tag, Bell was slated to make $14.54 million for one year of service. The problem? Bell did not want to be tethered to the Steelers on a measly one-year deal because he wanted the security of a long-term deal.. Now, Bell has abstained from reporting to the Steelers for the first five weeks of the year and plans to sit out one more in an effort to minimize the possibility of suffering a serious injury and preserve his long-term value.

So where has this left everybody?

Bell has caught flak for this decision, as fans and Steelers players alike have publicly criticized his apparent selfishness and unwillingness to take his big paycheck and report. Meanwhile, the Steelers are off to an uncharacteristic 2-2-1 start, with backup running back James Conner filling in admirably — ranking second overall in touchdowns and seventh in rushing yards among all running backs. Conner’s success in the Steelers system provides even more ammo for those in the anti-Bell corner.

However, when analyzed further it’s quite understandable why Bell has chosen this route. First, Conner’s success shouldn’t take away from Bell’s long track record as a do-it-all running back. Bell led the NFL in rushing attempts a year ago with 321, a healthy margin above Los Angeles Rams’ Todd Gurley who totaled 279. Meanwhile, Gurley signed a four-year, $45 million guaranteed deal this past offseason that could be worth as much as $60 million.

In addition, Bell also finished with 85 receptions, good enough for 10th in the league among all wide receivers. This total is more the likes of Demaryius Thomas and AJ Green, each of whom made more than $8 million last year. All things considered, Bell shouldn’t have been satisfied with a deal that would pay him less than $10 million guaranteed annually when he does the work of an $18 million man according to market value.

Now, there are those who say regardless Bell should take the money because it can be worth as much as $70 million, even more than Gurley’s deal. But Bell’s agent Adisa Bakari explained to ESPN that guaranteed money defines the deal: “These contracts are not fully guaranteed. Le’Veon plays a position that has one of the shortest lifespans in the league. We have to focus on the guarantee. It’s safe to say he’ll get a guarantee [as a free agent] that is more traditional, and he’ll be protected for the balance of his career.” Bell has done far more in his career than Gurley has thus far. While Gurley has the brighter future, Bell still had four quality years remaining at the beginning of this season and was well within reason to desire a comparable or greater payday.  

The incessant desire to criticize and chide Bell for not just taking the Steelers money sheds light on a larger issue — one of misunderstanding and envy among analysts, fans and players. Sports analysts and fans obviously feel obligated to weigh in on such a hot topic; however, outside of a few former NFL players, very few people have championed Bell for his decision. However, such harsh criticism of a person for settling for a paycheck below his market value in what will be his only prime earning years of his life seems questionable at best. What player would want to be paid less than what they are worth? By the time Bell turns 30, his market value tanks. Nobody will turn to NFL teams and say, “He was underpaid when he was in his prime, so you should pay him now,” so it would be wise to let the man get his money now.

Le’Veon Bell wants his money. Who are we to tell him how to get it?

 

Contact Zach Naidu at znaidu ‘at’ stanford.edu

The post Naidu: Le’Veon vs. everybody appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2018/10/10/naidu-leveon-vs-everybody/feed/ 0 1144622
Naidu: Tanking will prevail, unless… https://stanforddaily.com/2018/05/21/naidu-tanking-will-prevail-unless/ https://stanforddaily.com/2018/05/21/naidu-tanking-will-prevail-unless/#respond Tue, 22 May 2018 05:43:47 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1141385 The NBA will never completely fix its tanking problem. Last Tuesday’s NBA Draft lottery is a perfect example why. It took them three years of losing more than 57 games, but the Phoenix Suns finally landed a number one pick – a pick that perhaps could prove to be a pillar of future success for what was once a perennial contender. In the grand scheme of things, three losing seasons for a franchise-altering talent is trivial. Just look at the Philadelphia 76ers.

The post Naidu: Tanking will prevail, unless… appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
The NBA will never completely fix its tanking problem.

Last Tuesday’s NBA Draft lottery is a perfect example of why.

It took them three years of losing more than 57 games, but the Phoenix Suns finally landed a number one pick — a pick that perhaps could prove to be a pillar of future success for what was once a perennial contender. In the grand scheme of things, three losing seasons for a franchise-altering talent is trivial. Just look at the Philadelphia 76ers. While prior to this season, the franchise had had four dismal seasons, the last one wasn’t with the intent to lose, as the team had already acquired franchise-altering talents Joel Embiid and Ben Simmons (who were injured for much of last season). Meanwhile, it took the Minnesota Timberwolves only one abysmal 66 loss season to acquire Karl Anthony-Towns via the number one pick and start forming a roster around him built to win and attract free agents.

In order to address the issue of teams like these intentionally losing games to have the highest odds of landing the number one pick in the draft lottery, the NBA changed its lottery system. The new system dictates the first four picks of the draft as opposed to three, and reduces the worst teams odds of acquiring the number one pick from 25 percent to 14 percent. This de-incentivizes teams to full-on sacrifice a season in hopes of a one-in-four chance to get a potentially game changing talent. There will probably be an increase in competitiveness given this tweak in the system. However, the fact remains if a team has two choices (1) fielding a sub-par roster in order to lose and increase its chances of acquiring a transcendent talent, or (2) field the best roster possible, which happens to consist of primarily players of replacement level sprinkled with just enough above average players to contend for a bottom playoff seed, a front office will be more inclined to choose the former.

This is simply because in order to progress deep into the playoffs and win championships, teams must have elite talent. At a minimum, two superstars are necessary to be in the championship conversation, but as the Oklahoma City Thunder, Houston Rockets and any team LeBron James has been on have proven this year, even that might not be enough. In other sports this isn’t necessarily the case. In football, the most direct path to success is to have an elite quarterback, but there are ways around it like having an exceptional offensive line that allows for a strong running game and possession control, or a punishing defense that eases a team’s offensive burden. A team without an exceptional quarterback will sometimes try one of these other strategies by going after key free agents to build a successful team, as opposed to intentionally losing games to get a star quarterback. As the Denver Broncos and Baltimore Ravens have shown over the years, this approach can work. This is not the case in basketball, where individual talent — and individual talent alone — trumps any amount of sound coaching or complex defensive scheme.

Yes, a well-coached team will sometimes beat the team with greater overall talent, just like the Utah Jazz did to the Oklahoma City Thunder, but eventually the most powerful of all the juggernauts prevail because but that’s what wins in the NBA playoffs. In a seven-game series, the team with greater talent has time to adjust to an upset loss and can falter as many as three times. In college basketball, this is not the case. Part of what makes the annual college basketball championship tournament so exciting is the magnitude of every single game: you lose, you’re out. It’s why 11th seeded Loyola — with a 57th RPI ranking in non-conference games — was able to win four non-conference games against higher ranked opponents en route to nearly winning the national championship. If Tennessee, the far more talented team, had had six more attempts to beat the Ramblers, they most likely would have ended Cinderella’s party before it even began.

The NBA has always struggled with teams intentionally fielding inferior rosters in order to lose games and acquire the best talent possible. Until the NBA implements some form of a March Madness-like format for its postseason — where one or two big wins is all it takes to trump a more talented team — tanking will always be a problem.

The post Naidu: Tanking will prevail, unless… appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2018/05/21/naidu-tanking-will-prevail-unless/feed/ 0 1141385
Naidu: passion of The Phantom – and sports https://stanforddaily.com/2018/05/14/naidu-passion-of-the-phantom-and-sports/ https://stanforddaily.com/2018/05/14/naidu-passion-of-the-phantom-and-sports/#respond Tue, 15 May 2018 06:54:58 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1141027 As I sat in the audience for the matinee showing of Stanford Light Opera Company’s production of The Phantom of the Opera, I couldn’t help but fight back a few tears. I had seen a fair share of Broadway shows before, but never had I felt such an emotional pull by any one of those professional performances. The reason was clear – the lead, Miles Petrie performed with so much passion and conviction. Miles made me believe he truly was the Phantom of the Opera, and I was experiencing firsthand what true tragedy and heartbreak feel like. The ordeal elicited feelings reminding me of why I love sports: the raw passion.

The post Naidu: passion of The Phantom – and sports appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
As I sat in the audience for the matinee showing of Stanford Light Opera Company’s production of “The Phantom of the Opera,” I couldn’t help but fight back a few tears. I had seen a fair share of Broadway shows before, but never had I felt such an emotional pull by any one of those professional performances. The reason was clear — the lead, Miles Petrie performed with so much passion and conviction. Miles made me believe he truly was the Phantom of the Opera, and I was experiencing firsthand what true tragedy and heartbreak feel like.  

The ordeal elicited feelings reminding me of why I love sports: the raw passion. When the Dallas Mavericks won the 2011 NBA Finals, claiming its first championship, I remember more than any individual play the footage of Finals MVP Dirk Nowitzki immediately after the game ended. Nowitzki was trotting to the locker room to have a moment alone to cry. Minutes later at the trophy ceremony, a close up of Nowitzki’s face showed a man still overcome with emotion and exhibited why winning the championship, and playing basketball, mattered so much. It’s a level of importance one can’t put into words. Rather, you just have to see to understand.

Nowitzki wasn’t the first nor last to exhibit such emotion in sports. Brandi Chastain was photographed at the 1999 Women’s World Cup after she iconically dropped to her knees. She is pictured holding up both of her arms in a triumphant moment of joy after claiming gold in the championship match. It is difficult to recount U.S. soccer history without bringing up that image and the magnitude of the moment.

While sports are about hard work and grit, they are also just as much about passion and deep emotion – which is why some of the fondest moments in sports occur when all that passion and emotion come to the forefront.

One of the most memorable plays in NFL playoff history took place a mere five months ago, when Minnesota Vikings quarterback Case Keenum hit Stefon Diggs for a 61-yard touchdown pass against the New Orleans Saints as time expired, sending the Vikings to the NFC Championship for the first time in almost a decade. Almost immediately after the game, Twitter and Facebook flooded with reactions of dismay, shock and joy. The Minnesota Miracle is remembered for the myriad of hysterical fan reaction videos almost as much as it is for the improbable play itself.

Moreover, when the Chicago Cubs finally won the World Series in 2016, cameras cut to a teary-eyed Bill Murray, who will forever be linked to the Cubs historical feat. Sports are important because people — whether they are a fan or athlete — care so much about them. Personally, for the brief window in time when a sporting event takes place, nothing seems to matter other than my team winning. All the stress of life melts away as I lock into my team and watch its players fight their hearts out. As a close game progresses, a new type of stress bubbles to a boiling point in my chest, but this is different from the stress I face in my daily life.  This is about watching my team battle through a slugfest and hoping it comes out on top. This is fun. I had similar feelings of escape from reality while watching Miles, and the rest of the cast of “The Phantom of the Opera” for that matter, chiefly due to the engagingness of their sheer passion and exceptional talent. Obviously, every cast member was talented, but their emotional investment took the entire performance to another level.

Miles and his costars did an exceptional job evoking emotion through a display of unfettered passion. And just as Nowitzki, Chastain and Murray have done before, many more athletes and fans will continue to do the same.

 

Contact Zach Naidu at znaidu ‘at’ stanford.edu

The post Naidu: passion of The Phantom – and sports appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2018/05/14/naidu-passion-of-the-phantom-and-sports/feed/ 0 1141027
Naidu: Appreciate the Warriors https://stanforddaily.com/2018/05/08/naidu-appreciate-the-warriors/ https://stanforddaily.com/2018/05/08/naidu-appreciate-the-warriors/#respond Tue, 08 May 2018 08:23:36 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1140625 I’m not saying you need to like to them. I’m not saying you shouldn’t hate them. All I am saying is that if you truly love basketball, you have no choice but to appreciate the Golden State Warriors.

The post Naidu: Appreciate the Warriors appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
I’m not saying you need to like to them. I’m not saying you shouldn’t hate them. All I am saying is that if you truly love basketball, you have no choice but to appreciate the Golden State Warriors.

Yes, there is much scrutiny over how they acquired (arguably) their best player in Kevin Durant. But snake taunts aside, the Warriors play basketball as it should be played: teamwork, excellent ball movement, athleticism and a dash of flash.

This wasn’t necessarily the case for super teams in recent memory. Most notably, the Miami Heat with LeBron James, Dwayne Wade and Chris Bosh. They were a spectacular assembly of talent — LeBron is still better than Kevin Durant, and Chris Bosh in his prime wasn’t too far off from Klay Thompson as a great, All-Star-caliber third option. But Mario Chalmers was no Stephen Curry, and Andre Iguodala would’ve run circles around Shane Battier or Mike Miller. The Heat would dominate games, and you would see great defense as a product of sheer athleticism and talent. However, on the offensive side, the Heat often lacked the pure fluidity the Warriors exhibit on a nightly basis. The Warriors’ passing and shooting make even the best defensive players in the world obsolete — just ask Anthony Davis.

Moreover, Steve Kerr deserves more recognition than he gets from the average basketball fan. Sure, he has objectively the most talented NBA roster of the past two decades and arguably of all time. But getting results with superstars is no walk in the park. Just ask Oklahoma City Thunder head coach Billy Donovan. The fact the Warriors have thrived in years past has at times been used to discredit Kerr, but this is flawed thinking. If anything, Kerr should be lauded for implementing a system that needs minimal involvement by the interim coach in his absence. Kerr allows great players to be great while staying in touch with them on a personal level. Earlier this year, he let his players coach a game against the Phoenix Suns, showing he isn’t hesitant to go outside the box to get through to his players.

If you support the Cavaliers, Celtics, 76ers, or any team in the Western Conference, the Warriors are the reason why your chances of tasting victory in the NBA Finals is as hard as it’s been since the Jordan era. Of course, you shouldn’t be expected to “love” the most annoyingly talented sports team of a generation.

But to those of you who know anything about basketball — if you were to sit back and just watch the Warriors play a game, with no rooting interest involved, you’d be lying if you didn’t think, to some degree, “wow, that was beautiful basketball.”

 

Contact Zach Naidu at znaidu ‘at’ stanford.edu

The post Naidu: Appreciate the Warriors appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2018/05/08/naidu-appreciate-the-warriors/feed/ 0 1140625
Naidu: Bite your tongues https://stanforddaily.com/2018/04/30/naidu-bite-your-tongues/ https://stanforddaily.com/2018/04/30/naidu-bite-your-tongues/#respond Tue, 01 May 2018 06:25:31 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1140280 This week’s column was supposed to be about Colin Cowherd. About how out of all of the sports analysts and radio/talk show hosts, he was the one people should listen to and why. But then Game 6 of the Utah Jazz vs. Oklahoma City Thunder occurred Friday night, and something that has happened far too frequently transpired once again: a player lashed out at a fan.

The post Naidu: Bite your tongues appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
This week’s column was supposed to be about Colin Cowherd. About how out of all of the sports analysts and radio/talk show hosts, he was the one people should listen to and why. But then Game 6 of the Utah Jazz vs. Oklahoma City Thunder occurred Friday night, and something that has happened far too frequently transpired once again: a player lashed out at a fan.

To be more specific, the incident occurred as Thunder star point guard Russell Westbrook, still hot after a controversial loss that ended his team’s season, was on his way towards the visitor’s tunnel. Right before entering the tunnel, Westbrook swiped at a middle aged man’s phone that was too close for comfort, saying “Get the f*** outta my face bro, get that sh** out.”  

All the headlines Saturday morning read, to some extent: “Russell Westbrook confronts another fan …”  (Bleacher Report) and “Russell Westbrook tries to swipe phone …” (CBS Sports). However, little to no blame should be placed on Westbrook. For starters, Westbrook was in the heat of the moment, fuming after a blatant foul wasn’t called against the Jazz that would have given the Thunder three free throws and a chance to tie the game with less than 20 seconds remaining.

Westbrook shed light on the situation in his post-game press conference: “Here in Utah, a lot of disrespectful, vulgar things are said to the players. It’s truly disrespectful. Talk about your families. Your kids. … It’s disrespectful to the game. I think it’s something that needs to be brought up.”  

Westbrook broaches a topic greater than a fan sticking a phone in his face. Clearly, his actions were sparked by other fans’ hateful speech and overall uncouth behavior.

This is not an isolated incident in basketball, or any sport for that matter.

The audacity of some fans to spew such hate is baffling. In May of last year, All-Star Baltimore Orioles outfielder Adam Jones had to stand in center field of Fenway park as a bag of peanuts was thrown at him and a fan shouted racial slurs.

Avid sports fans fervently follow their team. Anybody not on their team is the enemy and they make that known. There is nothing wrong with this sense of allegiance and loyalty. But such people need to compartmentalize what belongs in the realm of sports and what doesn’t.

Players don’t get a pass for retaliating to jeering or simple heckling. The majority of these athletes are paid millions, and with that high payday comes a degree of public exposure and criticism — especially during a contest — some may find inconvenient but need to accept and cope with.

When athletes steps onto their playing surfaces, they are enveloped with a veil of immortality, making them seemingly insusceptible to anything that elicits an emotional response. But this is not the case, and sports fans must calibrate their own emotions and bite their tongue when it comes to talking to players.

All sports need a healthy dose of passionate fandom, and fans should voice such allegiance.

But to insult a man’s family or degrade him with a racial slur while he has no choice but to stand there and take it, that’s simply despicable. There is no room for such barbaric behavior by any sports fan.

 

Contact Zach Naidu at znaidu ‘at’ stanford.edu

The post Naidu: Bite your tongues appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2018/04/30/naidu-bite-your-tongues/feed/ 0 1140280
Naidu: Leave the playoffs alone https://stanforddaily.com/2018/04/23/naidu-leave-the-playoffs-alone/ https://stanforddaily.com/2018/04/23/naidu-leave-the-playoffs-alone/#respond Tue, 24 Apr 2018 06:24:46 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1139874 The NBA has a few quirks in its system. The most salient of which is the lack of competitiveness at the bottom of each conference – where teams seemingly don’t field their best possible roster in order to have a worse record and, in turn, pick higher in the draft – more commonly known as “tanking.” The NBA’s playoff format is another hotly contested topic. Most recently, commissioner Adam Silver has entertained the idea of having a one through 16 seeding across conferences rather than each conference seeded one through eight.

The post Naidu: Leave the playoffs alone appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
The NBA has a few quirks in its system. The most salient is the lack of competitiveness at the bottom of each conference — where teams seemingly don’t field their best possible roster in order to have a worse record and, in turn, pick higher in the draft — more commonly known as “tanking.” The NBA’s playoff format is another hotly contested topic. Most recently, commissioner Adam Silver has entertained the idea of having a one through 16 seeding across conferences rather than each conference seeded one through eight.

This is not the solution.

For starters, had this format been implemented in each of the past three seasons — taking the 16 teams with the overall best records rather than the top eight in each conference — it would’ve only changed the 16-team field by a combined two teams at the bottom of the standings. In one case the East would’ve had nine teams and the West seven, and vice versa in the other instance. Given that the eight seed has only beaten the one seed twice all-time in a best-of-seven series following an 82 game season, such changes would be trivial for both the competitiveness and final outcome of the playoffs.

Moreover, this year’s playoffs is a prime example of why the current format works in terms of competitiveness, entertainment and excitement. In the East, the fourth-seeded Cleveland Cavaliers and fifth-seeded Indiana Pacers are in an evenly-matched dogfight, tied two games apiece, while the sixth-seeded New Orleans Pelicans stunned the league with a shocking sweep of the third-seeded Portland Trail Blazers. With a 1-16 seed format, neither of these matchups would have occurred, in fact the only matchup that would remain constant would be the West’s four/five seed bout between the Oklahoma City Thunder and Utah Jazz. Would the Golden State Warriors currently up three games to one on San Antonio have had that much more difficulty against the Miami Heat that is also currently trailing the Philadelphia 76ers 3-1?

Lastly, if the NBA were to change this format, it would also entail a need for drastic schedule reform. If the league were to implement a conference-less playoff format, there would need to be more inter-conference matchups among teams in order to more fairly determine seeding — teams from the East should be required to play more than only two games against every team of the objectively stronger West. This reorganizing would then make already-grueling regular season travel more exhausting for the players, as Portland would have to make two trips to the Northeast against teams like Boston and Philadelphia, and Houston would have to go up to Toronto, Canada more than should be necessary. More matchups with teams from the other conference would also mean fewer games within the division for each team, where traveling is typically the lightest, further exacerbating the teams’ plights. Moreover, a team seeded outside the top three in its conference hasn’t made the NBA Finals in more than a decade — so how much would all of these changes really help in regard to crowning the league’s rightful champion?

The NBA does have competitive flaws, and tanking most certainly needs to be addressed. But when it comes to reformatting the NBA playoffs, the ends do not justify the means.

 

Contact Zach Naidu at znaidu ‘at’ stanford.edu

The post Naidu: Leave the playoffs alone appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2018/04/23/naidu-leave-the-playoffs-alone/feed/ 0 1139874
Naidu: Just one fist pump https://stanforddaily.com/2018/04/09/naidu-just-one-fist-pump/ https://stanforddaily.com/2018/04/09/naidu-just-one-fist-pump/#respond Tue, 10 Apr 2018 05:40:06 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1138971 Records aside, Tiger Woods is the most talented golfer the world has seen. He won 14 major championships in 11 years. He was rocked by scandal and suffered major injuries in the prime of his career a decade ago. If Woods’ body had held up and he had been able to be as steadily competitive as he was in the first half of his career, he’d have upwards of 20 major championships – well past Jack Nicklaus’ record of 18.

The post Naidu: Just one fist pump appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
The second round of the 2018 Masters saw the tournaments’ highest TV ratings in five years. Going into the tournament, Tiger Woods — the former number one ranked golfer, 11-time PGA Player of the Year, 14-time major championship winner, and 79-time PGA tournament winner — had consecutive top five finishes and showed flashes of his 2000s self. Las Vegas odds had him as the favorite for the tournament, and after an up and down 73 in the first round, Tiger Woods was in the hunt in Augusta, Georgia for the first time in a very long time. He was seven shots back after round one – it was a sizeable deficit, but it was nothing the greatest golfer in the world couldn’t handle.

Unfortunately, Woods would not be able to live up to the unreasonably high hype this week. A bogey on his first hole of the second round, followed by a double bogey four holes later knocked him further behind the leader and he wasn’t able to keep within striking distance. By Sunday morning, Tiger was just additional entertainment and a warmup for Justin Reed’s final round. He finished strong in the final round, carding a three-under-par 69 in what was otherwise an underwhelming showing. The painful part is many of us who have been watching Tiger since he was the world number one have come to hope for what we had at one time expected – excellence, precision, utter domination of the competition.

Records aside, Tiger Woods is the most talented golfer the world has seen. He won 14 major championships in 11 years. He was rocked by scandal and suffered major injuries in the prime of his career a decade ago. If Woods’ body had held up and he had been able to be as steadily competitive as he was in the first half of his career, he’d have upwards of 20 major championships – well past Jack Nicklaus’ record of 18.

As tough as it may be to admit, Tiger’s fans are living in the past – we yearn for those full body fist pumps while he’s wearing red on Sunday and the stakes are highest. We just want one more moment like on the 16th green at the 2005 Masters, or his one-legged 2008 U.S. Open triumph over Rocco Mediate at Torrey Pines. Tiger made watching a putt in golf as exciting as a touchdown, alley-oop or home run. The golfer’s sheer brilliance amazed the occasional golf watcher and turned them into a regular. Tiger captivated the entire sports world for more than a decade, and we all refuse to let him go. Why else would we care more about the player tied for 32nd place than the one two shots off the lead?

There are still three majors to go in the 2018 season, and Tiger’s strong finish at the Masters lends reason for optimism. Hopefully we will get to see one of those signature fist pumps from the man in red.

 

Contact Zach Naidu at znaidu ‘at’ stanford.edu.

The post Naidu: Just one fist pump appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2018/04/09/naidu-just-one-fist-pump/feed/ 0 1138971
Naidu: Time to pay up https://stanforddaily.com/2018/04/03/final-fl-naidu-time-to-pay-up/ https://stanforddaily.com/2018/04/03/final-fl-naidu-time-to-pay-up/#respond Tue, 03 Apr 2018 08:38:33 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1138610 Congratulations Villanova. You are the national champion of college basketball (once again).

The post Naidu: Time to pay up appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
Congratulations Villanova. You are the national champion of college basketball (once again).

But this isn’t about the thrill of victory or agony of defeat. This is about a much more pressing topic — athlete compensation.

Darius Bazley, a five-star recruit in high school, de-committed last week from Syracuse and instead will join the NBA’s developmental league, the G-League. G-League salaries are roughly $20,000 for the season. That’s $20,000 more than he’d make in college.

Bazley is the first high-profile prospect to ditch college for the G-League. Highly touted prospects in the past like Brandon Jennings and Emmanuel Mudiay have bypassed college, but that was by playing in professional leagues in different countries, and even then that didn’t happen very frequently. While they would make more money overseas, the hassle of going abroad just for one year often deterred prospects from doing so. Instead, NBA-bound players “enroll” in college for a semester to participate in the college basketball season and then declare for the draft and drop out as soon as their season ends. This “one-and-done” trend has worked for quite some time since the NBA enacted its age requirement, but it isn’t ideal for the athletes.

It’s no secret elite talent generates massive profits for schools and the NCAA through deep tournament runs and overall national attention — yet the players don’t see a dime of the revenue. One-and-done hasn’t been the best system for programs, but it has still allowed top talent to play in Division One basketball and create excitement every year. Bazley’s decision is the biggest threat to college basketball. If the decision works out well, there will be no reason for elite prospects to follow in his footsteps and go straight to the G-League.

Moreover, if enough players start doing so, the G-League will be more entertaining and feature more prominent talent than college basketball, and the developmental league will almost certainly steal at least a portion of the NCAA’s viewership. More viewers means bigger TV contracts for G-League teams which will only increase league salaries and allow for expansion of the G-League, creating more lucrative roster spots and further incentivizing elite talent to bypass college. In not too long, the NBA could have a full-fledged system just like the MLB has with minor league baseball. Even if a player isn’t ready to join the NBA, a promising talent equivalent to a three-star prospect could be drafted after his first year in the G-League, but still stay in the league to further develop. Some of the biggest stars in the MLB were drafted as teenagers and spent a minimum of two years in the minors before making the leap.

College basketball will never go extinct, and neither will the rivalries. People are too strongly bonded to their schools to stop supporting them over a lack of NBA talent. But the superhuman athleticism, the dueling of elite talent on a big stage, the overall excitement — everything that makes college basketball better than the G-League — will slowly wane if more high school players choose the G-League.

The only solution is for the NCAA to amend its rules about athlete compensation. Let’s see what it comes up with.

Contact Zach Naidu at znaidu ‘at’ stanford.edu

The post Naidu: Time to pay up appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2018/04/03/final-fl-naidu-time-to-pay-up/feed/ 0 1138610
Naidu: Confessions of a fan https://stanforddaily.com/2018/03/06/naidu-confessions-of-a-fan/ https://stanforddaily.com/2018/03/06/naidu-confessions-of-a-fan/#respond Tue, 06 Mar 2018 09:38:28 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1137793 I have not always been a faithful football fan. For a few years, I did not support the Dallas Cowboys. In fact, for the majority of high school, there were many times I rooted against the only football team I had ever loved. I rooted against the very team I cried over when it fell in an upset to the eventual Super Bowl champion New York Giants in the 2007 season. I turned my back on the team belonging to the only city I ever lived in before college.

The post Naidu: Confessions of a fan appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
Forgive me, Cowboys Nation.

I have not always been a faithful football fan. For a few years, I did not support the Dallas Cowboys. In fact, for the majority of high school, there were many times I rooted against the only football team I had ever loved. I rooted against the very team I cried over when it fell in an upset to the eventual Super Bowl champion New York Giants in the 2007 season. I turned my back on the team belonging to the only city I ever lived in before college.

As the start of the 2012 NFL season, I did what most dedicated fans never do  — I quit on my team.

You see, while being an athlete relies primarily on physical capabilities, one’s fandom is entirely dictated by emotional endurance and pure heart. A sports fan has no actual power over his or her team. We can whine and complain on social media about a team’s performance or the front office’s decisions — but we never get to control the team, we never get to dictate what happens on the field or court.

Moreover, contrary to what one might think, a sports fan doesn’t choose his choose sports team out of pure objectivity. Something always compels you to select a favorite team, whether it’s the team your parents bestowed upon you through their own fandom — regardless of where you grew up — or if you simply latched onto the hometown squad because you love where you live. There’s always a reason why you love your team. For me, it was simple as an eight-year-old — I loved Dallas and I loved football, so the Cowboys stole my heart. From September through December — and sometimes until January if it was a special season — every one of my Sundays revolved around the Cowboys’ schedule. Everything else I liked — GameCube, Pokémon, my dogs — took a back seat when Tony Romo was under center for the boys in white and blue.

While there were some great moments, there were far more miserable ones. Year after year, the Cowboys ripped my heart out. The team was quite creative and diverse in the ways it tested my fandom — whether it ruined my Thanksgiving by blowing a lead, collapsed in the playoffs or played so poorly in the regular season that it missed the postseason altogether. Being a Cowboys fan hurt. In 2009, I got my first taste of playoff success with a win over the Eagles. That joy was short lived after a 31-point mind-numbing defeat against the Vikings one week later. The next year the Cowboys missed the playoffs, winning only six games.

Then, after an 8-8 season in 2011, I decided I was “done” with my hometown team. I wanted a fresh start — and no more broken hearts.  An avid sports fan, I simply couldn’t quit watching football, so I chose to root for the Baltimore Ravens. I have cousins in Baltimore who had gifted me Ravens apparel in years past so it seemed appropriate to pick the team with which I had some ties. The Ravens won the Super Bowl that first year in 2012.

While I began purchasing Ravens gear, and celebrated the team’s 2012 Super Bowl victory, it never felt as good as when I rejoiced over the Dallas Mavericks 2011 NBA Championship, or the Texas Rangers’ back-to-back AL pennants in 2010 and 2011.

When the Ravens lost a game, I never suffered from the same raw bitterness and heartache I would when the Rangers or Mavericks would falter, or in previous years, when the Cowboys would lose. Compared to what I had had with the Cowboys, I was so emotionally detached from the Ravens I would occasionally even “root” for the Indianapolis Colts because they drafted Andrew Luck, my favorite college quarterback.

Throughout the next few years, every time I wanted the Cowboys to lose, it came from a desire to validate my decision to abandon my first love. Yet, I learned the hard way — through a stubborn allegiance to a Dallas Mavericks team that won despite many past struggles (but not nearly as many as the Cowboys) — that ditching your team for another doesn’t solve the problem, it only complicates it; your true team will never stop tugging on your heart strings.

Before the 2016 season, the future did not seem bright for Dallas. Tony Romo had suffered yet another severe back injury in the preseason, and unproven backups Kellen Moore and Dak Prescott offered little reason for optimism. Over the years, I had found reasons to justify not supporting the Cowboys: “Jerry Jones is a bad owner … they’ve let me down so many times.” However, it’s the second reason that drove me back to the Cowboys — you can only be let down by something you care about. So, I didn’t think about the bleak prospects of the upcoming season, all I wanted was to root for my hometown team. I was tired of forcing myself to not like the Cowboys. To quote The Office’s Michael Scott, I was “ready to get hurt again.”

My first game as a reborn fan, the Cowboys opened the season with a one-point heartbreaking defeat to the New York Giants. The loss ruined my day — I finally felt like a true football fan again.

In the past two years, I’ve seen the Cowboys go 13-3, but suffer a bitter playoff loss, and then finish 9-7 and miss the postseason altogether with the team’s best player suspended almost half of the season.

Both years ended in tremendous heartbreak. However, I’ve learned you can’t celebrate the highs as an invested fan without being there for the many, painful lows. Excluding those who root for the Alabama Crimson Tide, San Antonio Spurs or New England Patriots, dedicated and passionate fans endure far more agony than joy from supporting their teams.

But that’s what makes loving a sports team so painfully gratifying: the numerous soul-crushing valleys we experience from our team only amplify the unfettered euphoria from the rare peak — an upset win, signing a big free agent, or, if you’re really lucky, hoisting that championship trophy at the end of season.

 

Contact Zach Naidu at znaidu ‘at’ stanford.edu.

The post Naidu: Confessions of a fan appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2018/03/06/naidu-confessions-of-a-fan/feed/ 0 1137793
Naidu: In the moment https://stanforddaily.com/2018/02/26/naidu-in-the-moment/ https://stanforddaily.com/2018/02/26/naidu-in-the-moment/#respond Tue, 27 Feb 2018 06:16:07 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1137381 Olympic hockey player Jocelyne Larocque has undergone some unwarranted criticism following her Canadian team’s loss to the USA women’s hockey team in the gold medal match. During the medal ceremony, cameras captured the moment Larocque had her silver medal placed around her neck, only for the Canadian defender to remove it immediately in disgust.

The post Naidu: In the moment appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
Olympic hockey player Jocelyne Larocque has undergone some unwarranted criticism following her Canadian team’s loss to the USA women’s hockey team in the gold medal match. During the medal ceremony, cameras captured the moment Larocque had her silver medal placed around her neck, only for the Canadian defender to remove it immediately in disgust. Larocque was clearly still processing the loss of the biggest hockey match of her career, a 3-2 shocker to one of her country’s fiercest rivals. The 29-year-old has dedicated her whole life to hockey, and she had just fallen short reaching the pinnacle of her career just moments before she was awarded what was to her a consolation medal. Social media had a field day following this, attacking Larocque for being a sore loser and having a lack of sportsmanship.

While what Larocque did was not on par with typical post-game etiquette, the amount of criticism the Olympian received for being discontent losing her gold medal match was unwarranted to say the least. Yes, for us mere mortals, it’s easy to say “she should just be happy and accept the Olympic silver medal.” Yet we have no way of processing what it is like for an Olympian, somebody who has dedicated their entire life to one sport, to fall short of the ultimate glory by one goal on an international stage. Not to mention, she received the medal immediately following the match, still hot from the loss. Larocque is only human — a competitive, driven Olympian who was not satisfied with second place. What about that deserves criticism?

In addition, the criticism Larocque received was especially unnecessary given the minimal reactions people have had to more egregious acts of poor sportsmanship. In 2012 London Summer Olympics, gymnast McKayla Maroney went viral for her “not impressed” smirk following a stunning second place finish in the women’s vault competition. Maroney wasn’t chastised, she was memed.

Moreover, people forget how immature and blatantly childish Carolina Panthers quarterback Cam Newton was during his post-Super Bowl press conference in 2015. Most notably and recently, five-time Super Bowl champion Tom Brady didn’t have the decency or humility to shake Eagles quarterback Nick Foles’ hand. This was an especially significant lack of sportsmanship due to the disrespect it showed towards an opponent. None of these athletes faced the backlash Larocque has, and they shouldn’t have. Because, while we like to be every athlete’s biggest critic, at the end of the day, it’s their life, and they should be able to do and act how they want to, short of harming another individual.

In addition, Larocque is one of the few athletes who has the class to apologize for her lack of sportsmanship: “In the moment, I was disappointed with the outcome of the game, and my emotions got the better of me.”

As fans, we remain quick to skewer athletes for inconsistencies in their behavior or doing something we don’t perceive as the right thing: whether it’s Kevin Durant exercising his right to join the Warriors, Le’Veon Bell holding out for a deserved contract extension, or any number of college basketball players leaving after one year to get their payday. And yet, we are not so swift to govern our own vacillations.

That needs to change, because there is no place for hypocrisy in sports — especially from fans.

 

Contact Zach Naidu at znaidu ‘at’ stanford.edu.

The post Naidu: In the moment appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2018/02/26/naidu-in-the-moment/feed/ 0 1137381
Naidu: Officially wrong https://stanforddaily.com/2018/02/20/naidu-officially-wrong/ https://stanforddaily.com/2018/02/20/naidu-officially-wrong/#respond Tue, 20 Feb 2018 12:05:55 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1136993 Following his basketball team blowing a 12-point halftime lead to the Kansas Jayhawks, West Virginia head basketball coach Bob Huggins made a very different yet insightful comment about the state of officiating in sports:

The post Naidu: Officially wrong appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
Following his basketball team blowing a 12-point halftime lead to the Kansas Jayhawks, West Virginia head basketball coach Bob Huggins made a very different yet insightful comment about the state of officiating in sports. “Officials want to be part of the game, but they don’t want to be part of the game that has to answer,” Huggins said. “Why aren’t they in here answering your questions? We’re going to bring 19 and 21-year-old kids in here that don’t get paid and you’re going to ask them questions. You’re going to ask [Daxter Miles], ‘Why didn’t you shoot it?’ They don’t want to get asked why didn’t you call this, why didn’t you call that.”

The main impetus for this quote was the astounding difference in the number of free throws the Jayhawks were granted (35) compared to the Mountaineers (2).

This quote is far from the typical sob story excuse from a team losing a game. The NCAA and other professional sports have very stringent rules regarding commentary on officiating. Yet at the same time, when a colossal error does occur and everybody – even the men in stripes responsible for the bad calls – knows it, the NCAA, NBA or NFL will come out and say, “it was an incorrect call,” or some other terse statement of fact that helps nobody.

I suggest the NCAA and sports leagues across the country amend this policy. It is understandable to prohibit players and coaches for commenting on the officiating. Yet if that is the case, the officials themselves should have to answer questions. The coach who drew up the wrong play to end the game or the kicker who missed the field goal wide left as time expired have to face the microphones in the post-game press conference and explain what went wrong or what they were thinking. So then why shouldn’t the men directly responsible for one team attempting 33 fewer free throws not have to explain themselves? This is not to say that the calls referees make on the court or field are wrong. However, by allowing more transparency there will be less confusion among players, coaches and officials.

While officials explaining their actions will not have an impact on the game, knowing they will have to explain themselves rather than remain behind a closed curtain immediately following the game would potentially lead to fewer scenarios in which discrepancies of this proportion occur. In addition, hearing directly from the referee who threw the flag on the controversial pass interference penalty or blew his whistle on the questionable foul call would assuage many people’s frustrations with the system. League offices responding 48 hours after a bad call is made does nothing other than provide a superficial PR shield and further anger players, coaches and fans.

Just like the players and coaches, officials will never be perfect — and that’s OK, it’s a part of the game. But that is precisely why they shouldn’t be granted any immunity from the media — no matter the reasons of the NCAA or any other sports association.

 

Contact Zach Naidu at znaidu ‘at’ stanford.edu.

The post Naidu: Officially wrong appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2018/02/20/naidu-officially-wrong/feed/ 0 1136993
Naidu: It’s not just business https://stanforddaily.com/2018/02/12/naidu-its-not-just-business/ https://stanforddaily.com/2018/02/12/naidu-its-not-just-business/#respond Tue, 13 Feb 2018 07:37:15 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1136643 Last week, shortly following Super Bowl LII, New England Patriots’ long-tenured offensive coordinator Josh McDaniels officially agreed to become the next head coach of the Indianapolis Colts. The Colts’ official Twitter account tweeted the news, formally announcing the hiring of one of the brightest offensive minds in the game today. The news came as a […]

The post Naidu: It’s not just business appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
Last week, shortly following Super Bowl LII, New England Patriots’ long-tenured offensive coordinator Josh McDaniels officially agreed to become the next head coach of the Indianapolis Colts. The Colts’ official Twitter account tweeted the news, formally announcing the hiring of one of the brightest offensive minds in the game today. The news came as a surprise to no one, as McDaniels had been talking to Indianapolis for weeks and had all but signed the dotted line – he had already hired assistant coaches.

But then McDaniels changed his mind.

After meeting with Patriots owner Robert Kraft, McDaniels decided to stay put in Boston, citing stability for his wife and four children as the chief reason. Throughout the Patriots’ playoff run, McDaniels had been in contact for over a month with the Colts about the coaching job, but per league rules could not officially sign the contract while his current team was still playing. One would assume in that time he would’ve consulted his family and thought about what was in its best interest before verbally agreeing to move to Indianapolis.

For whatever reason, McDaniels had a change of heart – and there is no shame in that. A man cannot be judged for doing what he believes is in the best interest of his family.

McDaniels can be criticized for, however, drastically impacting the lives of the coaches he recruited to be his assistants – coaches who had already informed their current employers and were planning a move to Indiana. Dave DeGugliemo, Matt Eberflus and Mike Phair all had signed contracts with the Colts as assistant coaches and agreed to move from Miami, Dallas and Illinois respectively to serve under McDaniels.  All three men have wives and children – DeGuglielmo has one child, Eberflus two and Phair four (just as many as McDaniels). Per reports, McDaniels gave these men no warning about his decision to backtrack before telling the Colts. Despite the shakeup, the Colts have decided to honor the contracts. But this does not fix the problem – in many ways it exacerbates it. These three men thought they were coming to work for McDaniels and work in a system centered around his football philosophy. They uprooted their families to follow McDaniels. Now they will be forced to adjust to a different coach who in all likelihood will be disappointed he couldn’t hire his own coordinators.

In response to those who said McDaniels shouldn’t be criticized for his decision, former Colts coach Tony Dungy described it best, saying, “Don’t get married, start a family, then say I changed my mind. He didn’t sign the contract but he said ‘I do.’ That is common decency and integrity. You don’t do that to the families of your peers.”

Josh McDaniels swindled everybody around him. He didn’t want to let the Colts job slip away, so he verbally agreed to take it and began assembling a team – as many coaches have done in the past. Companies pull job offers and teams pull contracts from players quite frequently, so McDaniels had every right to renege. The team has already moved on, hiring former Philadelphia Eagles offensive coordinator Frank Reich as its new head coach. The disheartening part of the situation comes from the profound impact McDaniels’ vacillation and lack of integrity will have on the lives of those he deceived. No ill will should be wished on McDaniels — but it cannot be forgotten how detrimental his flip-flopping was. The situation should highlight the importance of integrity in a profession that throws around the term “it’s just business” far too often.

The McDaniels reneging is the first major one in American sports since NBA center Deandre Jordan publicly spurned the Dallas Mavericks to return to the Los Angeles Clippers in 2015. During the opening days of the summer free agency period, Jordan reached a verbal agreement with Mavericks owner Mark Cuban to become the team’s new starting center. However, days later – and hours before the official signing period began – Jordan had broken off communication with the Mavericks and began talking to his Clippers teammates. Clippers All-Stars Chris Paul and Blake Griffin infamously flew down to Jordan’s house in Houston, barricading his front door until the All-NBA center signed a new contract with the Clippers – much to the ire of the Mavericks organization and its fans.  Jordan handled the ordeal very immaturely, as he said nothing to the Mavericks organization until tweeting following his signing with the Clippers, causing the Mavericks to miss out on other key free agents because the team believed it was investing in Jordan. And yet while the optics were not ideal, what Jordan did to the Mavericks pales in comparison to what McDaniels has done to all of those involved in the Colts head coach saga. Only one party was directly impacted by Jordan’s decision, and despite disrupting Dallas’ 2015 free agency, the decision’s effects on the franchise are irrelevant at this stage, as the Mavericks would merely have elevated to a slightly above average team. Children are forced to leave their friends and hometowns for what is now a less-than-ideal job opportunity for their fathers.

While many believe Jordan ultimately made the right decision by returning to the more talented Clippers, the same cannot be said about McDaniels. He turned down a team with a star quarterback still in his 20s to be an assistant for a team that at best has an elite yet aging quarterback for the next five years and a legendary head coach on the way out. There is certainly something McDaniels knows that nobody else does. Reports have surfaced Kraft guaranteed him the Patriots head coaching job once Belichick retires, which would make the decision more understandable. However, nothing excuses the indecency McDaniels showed to those he had personally recruited to uproot their families’ lives for perceived greener pastures in Indianapolis.

Every man must do what’s best for himself and his loved ones. However, that decision should not come at the expense of others’ lives. Josh McDaniels crossed a line – and those he lied to are now left stranded on the other side.

 

Contact Zach Naidu at znaidu ‘at’ stanford.edu.

The post Naidu: It’s not just business appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2018/02/12/naidu-its-not-just-business/feed/ 0 1136643
Naidu: Faux All-Stars https://stanforddaily.com/2018/02/06/naidu-faux-all-stars/ https://stanforddaily.com/2018/02/06/naidu-faux-all-stars/#respond Tue, 06 Feb 2018 08:24:25 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1136161 If the NBA wants it’s increasingly tangential All-Star game to retain any credibility, it must reduce the impact of fan voting on the game’s starters. Lonzo Ball, shooting is averaging 10 points, 7 rebounds, and 7 assists per game with a 12.17 Player Efficiency Rating (PER) for the bottom-five Los Angeles Lakers. Meanwhile, Damian Lillard of the sixth-seeded Portland Trail Blazers is posting 25, 6.5 and 4.8 with a PER of 22.82. Ball received more than 27 thousand more votes than Lillard. Meanwhile, fellow Lakers’ rookie Kyle Kuzma out-voted Minnesota Karl-Anthony Towns, in the league’s first returns of fan voting, despite Towns’ scoring four more points per game with a PER nearly nine points higher.

The post Naidu: Faux All-Stars appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
If the NBA wants its increasingly tangential All-Star game to retain any credibility, it must reduce the impact of fan voting on the game’s starters. Lonzo Ball is averaging 10 points, seven rebounds and seven assists per game with a 12.17 Player Efficiency Rating (PER) for the bottom-five Los Angeles Lakers. Meanwhile, Damian Lillard of the sixth-seeded Portland Trail Blazers is posting 25, 6.5 and 4.8 with a PER of 22.82. Ball received more than 27,000 more votes than Lillard. Meanwhile, fellow Lakers’ rookie Kyle Kuzma outvoted Minnesota’s Karl-Anthony Towns in the league’s first returns of fan voting, despite Towns’ scoring four more points per game with a PER nearly nine points higher.

More than that, statistics aside, any rational basketball fan could not in good conscience say that Lonzo Ball is anywhere near as good as Damian Lillard, let alone better, and likewise with Kuzma and Towns.

This stems from years back, when former Houston Rockets center Yao Ming would be among the top five in voting without stepping on the court due to injury, simply from his large fan base in China.

The NBA already made strides by reducing fan voting for All-Star starters to 50 percent; however, this clearly is still too high, as starting in the All-Star game remains a popularity contest rather than the meritocracy it should be.

I understand the NBA’s hesitation to strip the fans of too much of their voting power. However, if number of All-Star game appearances/starts continues to remain a part of distinguishing NBA careers, people who pay more attention to LaVar Ball off the court in Lithuania than Lonzo Ball on the hardwood should have a minimized role in dictating who receives the honors. I commend the NBA for the steps it’s already taken to address this issue, and maybe the solution is a simple as a reduction to 35 percent — so fans still retain the largest single proportion of voting among the three pools but don’t dominate the overall share.

Players haven’t proven to be any more professional, as Tyler Zeller (averaging 7.5 points per game for the bottom-feeder Brooklyn Nets) received four votes, while no-names like Tyler Cavanaugh, Marvin Williams and Lance Thomas also received votes.

The bottom line is that coaches and the media should have more of a say in the All-Star starters voting, as they have clearly shown to be the most apt at rewarding players when deserved. Last year, Zaza Pachulia of the Golden State Warriors would’ve been named an All-Star starter had the fans had 100 percent control as in years past. However, when it came time to vote in the remainder of the team, the coaches didn’t get Zaza anywhere close – which is the way it should’ve been.

The NBA receives far less outrage about its administration than its MLB and NFL counterparts. However, this still remains an issue that needs to be resolved if the league desires for its superstar weekend to maintain some merit, rather than the country’s – and in some cases the world’s – biggest popularity contest.

 

Contact Zach Naidu at znaidu ‘at’ stanford.edu.

The post Naidu: Faux All-Stars appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2018/02/06/naidu-faux-all-stars/feed/ 0 1136161
Naidu: Nassar isn’t the only crook https://stanforddaily.com/2018/01/30/naidu-nassar-isnt-the-only-crook/ https://stanforddaily.com/2018/01/30/naidu-nassar-isnt-the-only-crook/#respond Tue, 30 Jan 2018 09:00:24 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1135745 Larry Nassar was sentenced to up to 175 years in prison last week, effectively ending his life as a free man. Yet nobody other than his victims will come forward and say what they knew about the former Michigan State and USA Gymnastics team doctor, one given a great deal of power. Instead, high-ranking officials […]

The post Naidu: Nassar isn’t the only crook appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
Larry Nassar was sentenced to up to 175 years in prison last week, effectively ending his life as a free man.

Yet nobody other than his victims will come forward and say what they knew about the former Michigan State and USA Gymnastics team doctor, one given a great deal of power. Instead, high-ranking officials at both USA Gymnastics and Michigan State are resigning to save face.

We’ve seen this act before.

Just like with ex-Penn State assistant coach Jerry Sandusky: Everybody was quiet — or ignorant — about the atrocities occurring behind closed doors for decades.

Only three people outside of Sandusky faced jail time; they were sentenced to a combined seven months behind bars. How does that happen? It’s because whenever something like this happens, society jumps to sympathize for the victims, skewer the lone culprit and admonish the enablers. Everybody then returns to life as if everything is normal with the abuser behind bars, failing to realize the bigger problem at hand is the system that enabled him to have such powers to affect innocent children.

An effective system of sports institutions would’ve prevented this from happening again in any other sport. In a system with people caring about their job and the well-being of their athletes, the Sandusky scandal should’ve prompted the discovery of Nassar’s transgressions years ago.

Now coaches associated with Nassar are retiring, dropping like flies from the stage of USA Gymnastics. But that is not enough. The countless women Nassar molested for years will never get a chance to forget or fully move on. John Geddert is a former head coach of the 2012 U.S. Olympic gymnastics team. He was cited by multiple victims as a prime enabler of Nassar. If you go to his Wikipedia page, the first line says he “is an American gymnastics coach, best known for allowing Larry Nassar, a former doctor convicted of sexual assault and child pornography, access to sexually abuse his gymnasts.” How can such a man be allowed to just retire and walk away from the scene of the crime? He was a mentally and physically abusive coach who discouraged athletes from speaking out against their own coaches. Gymnast Lindsey Lemke says he threatened her after she accused him of abuse in court. He wasn’t just adjacent to pedophilia and acts of monstrosity. By silencing victims, he was a facilitator, making him almost as culpable as Nassar.  

This is not a commentary on strict coaching styles or if they are bad. As a high school athlete, I experienced playing for demanding coaches who expected the best out of their athletes. But my coaches always balanced that style with love, compassion and a bond with the athletes — things the abusive Geddert clearly never cared to share. Geddert went way beyond being a strict or demanding coach. Geddert was a tyrant.

Furthermore, Steve Penny served as CEO of USA Gymnastics from 2005 to 2017. He deserves equal blame for empowering predatory and abusive individuals. A CEO should be aware of the personalities put in place to run the system.

Last week, Geddert resigned, just like Michigan State President Lou Anna Simons and MSU head gymnastics coach Kathie Klages. Penny was out before all of this unraveled. Neither they — nor anybody else with a semblance of knowledge of the situation — should have the freedom to walk away unscathed. There should be investigations and trials for each of these people who could’ve done something but didn’t.

Once the situation came to light, jailing Nassar was easy. The tougher test will be holding the enablers responsible for their own actions.

Negligence is not an excuse.

 

Contact Zach Naidu at znaidu ‘at’ stanford.edu.

The post Naidu: Nassar isn’t the only crook appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2018/01/30/naidu-nassar-isnt-the-only-crook/feed/ 0 1135745
Naidu: Khan’s new cats https://stanforddaily.com/2018/01/17/naidu-khans-new-cats/ https://stanforddaily.com/2018/01/17/naidu-khans-new-cats/#respond Wed, 17 Jan 2018 20:03:56 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1135164 A mere 12 months ago, the Jacksonville Jaguars were fresh off an anemic 3-13 season. A season that saw the worst football team in Florida win a total of two home games and post a final scoring differential of -82. Impending talk of relocation to a more popular city continued for a franchise 10 years removed from […]

The post Naidu: Khan’s new cats appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
A mere 12 months ago, the Jacksonville Jaguars were fresh off an anemic 3-13 season. A season that saw the worst football team in Florida win a total of two home games and post a final scoring differential of -82. Impending talk of relocation to a more popular city continued for a franchise 10 years removed from a winning season and playoff birth. Blake Bortles, the once-promising young quarterback and third-overall pick from the University of Central Florida in 2014 was all but considered a bust and on his way out. His promising 4,400-yard, 35-touchdown sophomore year campaign was a distant memory following a paltry 23-16 touchdown-interception ratio and 42.8 quarterback rating (QBR) in 2016. Head coach Gus Bradley didn’t even make it to week 17.

In four days, that same franchise will play Tom Brady and the New England Patriots for a spot in the Super Bowl.

This isn’t simply an ode to the feel-good story of the 2017 season. This is a message to all of the perpetually struggling franchises in the NFL — Cleveland, Tampa Bay, Cincinnati — or those looking to get back on top — Dallas, New York Giants, Denver. Listen to the tale of the miraculous Jaguars. A team that won three games a year ago is 60 minutes from a Super Bowl appearance! The big question: How did they do it?

More than anything, credit owner Shahid Khan. Credit Khan for doing what most owners are too stubborn or ignorant to do themselves, and admit he needed to surround himself with higher football IQ rather than do everything himself *cough* Jerry Jones *cough.* Khan made his billions in the auto parts industry, so he is far from a football aficionado. However, he did all he could to change the Jaguars narrative as a cellar-dweller in the standings after purchasing the team in 2011. He invested $3 million to create what became the league’s most luxurious locker room, spent another $63 million on the world’s largest HD LED video boards and oversaw the unveiling of a new, fierce logo (New York Times, USA Today). Though Khan’s measures fueled a strong effort to rebrand and reinvent the image of the Jacksonville Jaguars, the team’s 17 total wins in the five years since his purchase showed there was much more to do. Expensive, world-class facilities wouldn’t aid changing the Jags reputation if they didn’t serve a winning team.

To Khan, it appeared things were on the right track after a stellar 2016 draft.

General manager Dave Caldwell selected three prolific defensive assets in cornerback Jalen Ramsey, linebacker Myles Jack and defensive end Yannick Ngakoue with his first three picks, respectively. Jack was a solid defensive starter, Ngakoue set the team record for sacks by a rookie, and Ramsey played like a Pro-Bowler and began cementing himself among the best in the game at his position.

The blueprint appeared set for the Jaguars to return to relevance for the first time since 2007. However, things still didn’t click in 2016 as the Jaguars won only three games and saw Bortles regress significantly as a quarterback.

While Caldwell had a stellar 2016 draft, decisions like passing on Todd Gurley and Melvin Gordon in 2015 only to take TJ Yeldon over David Johnson highlighted his inability to supply the team with a bell-cow running back. In addition, Bradley, Caldwell’s head coach of choice, lost 48 games in less than four-years time. It appeared as if the Jaguars were destined to continue riding the carousel of atrocity for years to come.

Enter Tom Coughlin.

Last offseason, Khan gave Coughlin, the franchise’s inaugural coach and a two-time Super Bowl champion with the New York Giants, full control and final say over all football matters as executive vice president of football operations. Instantly, Coughlin made an impact, signing defensive end Calais Campbell, cornerback A.J. Bouye and safety Barry Church while removing the interim tag from Doug Maronne and naming him full time head coach. With these savvy acquisitions, the Jaguars defense rocketed from bottom 10 to top two in one season. Despite losing Pro-Bowl wide receiver Allen Robinson early in the 2017 season, the Jaguars offense flipped from bottom to top 10 thanks in part to the number-four overall pick, running back Leonard Fournette, and a new offensive philosophy implemented by Maronne.

In one offseason, Coughlin successfully analyzed the team and delivered the missing pieces for a playoff contender. Coughlin saw a talented yet wildly erratic and inconsistent quarterback in Blake Bortles and surrounded him with the pieces needed to make a player of his nature the quarterback of a successful team. A tenacious, smothering defense and elite running back have the Jaguars on the cusp of greatness nobody saw coming.

The biggest lesson to be learned is Khan knew things weren’t going the way he wanted because he didn’t have the right people making the decisions. Rather than arrogantly proclaiming he knew how to solve the myriad of problems the Jaguars faced and attempting to sign the players and higher the coach himself, he brought in a man who has succeeded and thrived at the highest level and is now reaping the rewards as a proud winning owner.

Yes, it takes some good fortune to strike gold as many times as the Jaguars have in recent years. But Khan put Jacksonville in the best position to do so by bringing in one of the best in the game. It would be wise for owners like Bengals’ Mike Brown and Cowboys’ Jerry Jones, who insist they know what’s best for their teams but clearly do not given their performances, to learn from Khan and admit they need to bring in help. After all, the Jaguars have won as many playoff games in eight days as Dallas and Cincinnati have combined in the past 20 years.

There is no shame in admitting you need help. Just ask Shahid Khan.

Statistics from NFL.com and ESPN.com.

 

Contact Zach Naidu at znaidu ‘at’ stanford.edu.

The post Naidu: Khan’s new cats appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2018/01/17/naidu-khans-new-cats/feed/ 0 1135164
Naidu: Loyal to fault https://stanforddaily.com/2018/01/09/naidu-loyal-to-fault/ https://stanforddaily.com/2018/01/09/naidu-loyal-to-fault/#respond Wed, 10 Jan 2018 06:34:26 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1134834 Jimmy Garropolo was not too long ago the next man up for the New England Patriots.
The theme of the next chapter in what has become a long novel of success for the NFL’s winningest franchise of the past two decades.

The post Naidu: Loyal to fault appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
Jimmy Garropolo was not too long ago the next man up for the New England Patriots.

The theme of the next chapter in what has become a long novel of success for the NFL’s winningest franchise of the past two decades.

And then, after one mind-boggling trade to ship him West, he was gone. And it’s all because of loyalty.

Stupid, irrational, detrimental loyalty of Patriots owner Robert Kraft for Tom Brady.

As ESPN senior writer Seth Wickersham reported, Kraft essentially forced head coach Bill Belichick’s hand when it came to the Patriots quarterback situation, as the owner’s perceived loyalty to his aging star quarterback ultimately led to Belichick trading his promising young backup to prevent further quarterback competition.

The Patriots returned a measly second round pick for what appears to be a franchise quarterback.

And why? Because of an owner’s loyalty to his player.

A loyalty that will ultimately cost the Patriots franchise in the biggest way possible — with wins.

It’s no secret Tom Brady plans to defy Father Time. And so far he’s been pretty successful at doing so. However, the fact remains that Brady can’t play forever, and he is far closer to his performance tailing off in a significant way than Garropolo.

Which is why the Patriots simply made the wrong decision in trading the budding superstar, proving further that staying loyal only compromises success.

For example, the other successful Boston franchise showed no signs of such loyalty to All-Star Isaiah Thomas by trading him to the Cleveland Cavaliers for the much younger Kyrie Irving. As a result, the Celtics sit atop the Eastern Conference standings and are poised for success for the coming decade.

Kevin Durant and LeBron James have often been criticized for not showing loyalty to their former teams. However, if there is anything that we have learned as sports enthusiasts from the decisions of the Patriots and Celtics, it’s that there is no room for such loyalty in sports if a party’s main goal is to win. That’s why LeBron and Durant each won rings while their former teams have struggled to do so.

There are a lot of emotions involved in professional sports, and loyalty is the trigger point for a lot of those feelings. However if a team or individual wants to succeed, the fact remains that there is no room for loyalty.

 

Contact Zach Naidu at znaidu ‘at’ stanford.edu.

 

The post Naidu: Loyal to fault appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2018/01/09/naidu-loyal-to-fault/feed/ 0 1134834
Naidu: You messed up, Jerry https://stanforddaily.com/2017/12/05/naidu-you-messed-up-jerry/ https://stanforddaily.com/2017/12/05/naidu-you-messed-up-jerry/#respond Wed, 06 Dec 2017 06:55:09 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1134520 It was around this time last year that the Dallas Cowboys stood as the hottest team in the NFL. Winners of 11 straight and well on their way to an NFC East crown and first round bye, the decision seemed very simple. Don’t change anything. That meant leaving in fourth round rookie Dak Prescott at quarterback instead of seasoned veteran Tony Romo, even after the long-time Cowboys gunslinger had recovered from his preseason back injury.

The post Naidu: You messed up, Jerry appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
Naidu: You messed up, Jerry
Tony Romo (center) was usurped boy rookie Dak Prescott (left) in the 2016-17 NFL season. Romo suffered a back injury which gave Prescott the opportunity to start. (Brad Loper/Fort Worth Star-Telegram/TNS)

It was around this time last year that the Dallas Cowboys stood as the hottest team in the NFL. Winners of 11 straight and well on their way to an NFC East crown and first round bye, the decision seemed very simple. Don’t change anything. That meant leaving in fourth round rookie Dak Prescott at quarterback instead of seasoned veteran Tony Romo, even after the long-time Cowboys gunslinger had recovered from his preseason back injury.

However, unlike last year’s top two overall picks, Jared Goff and Carson Wentz, respectively Dak has regressed since that time.

The explanation is quite simple – Jerry Jones made the wrong decision. Dak Prescott should be an above average quarterback for years to come, but he hadn’t reached his highest potential, unlike Romo who was nearing the twilight of his experienced career. Evidence of the mistake first came to fruition in the Cowboys stunning playoff loss to the Aaron Rodgers-led Green Bay Packers. Yes, Aaron Rodgers is a consensus top two quarterback in the NFL today and one of the greatest of all time. But Dallas held the edge over the Packers in nearly every other facet of the game: offensive line, defense, special teams and running back. The problem was Dak’s inability to be prepared for the big stage – nor should he have been. The Cowboys rallied from a 21-3 deficit, but the point is they were too good of a team to have allowed themselves to fall behind that quickly.

This year, many people expected Prescott to continue excelling, yet failed to realize that with the supporting cast the Cowboys fielded last year, Scott Tolzien would’ve had a chance at posting respectable numbers. An elite running back, Ezekiel Elliott, combined with an even more dominant offensive line to create the holes made it very difficult to stop the Cowboys a season ago. All Prescott had to do was make the occasional obvious throw to a slanting Cole Beasley or streaking Dez Bryant to keep defenses honest and let them know Dak wasn’t just there to hand the rock to Elliott. However, despite Ezekiel Elliott’s talent, and despite Tyron Smith, Travis Frederick and Doug Free’s dominance in the trenches. One crucial truth remained: They couldn’t throw the football.

Football is a very complex sport. But when it boils down to crunch time or a reduced sample size, it’s very easy to see what leads to success more often than not – elite quarterback play. And despite the years of harsh criticism, Tony Romo was elite. No, he was not in the class of Rodgers or Tom Brady or what Peyton Manning used to be. But the tier just below that? The one with Drew Brees, Ben Roethlisberger, and Russell Wilson – there isn’t a throw any of those quarterbacks can make that Romo couldn’t have (and probably still could) replicate. All three of those quarterbacks won a Super Bowl, it just took having the right supporting cast and the right circumstances. After a dismal 4-12, 2015 season, the Cowboys selected Elliott fourth overall in the 2016 draft, and Romo’s greatest shot at a title had finally arrived. Yet it was tragically ripped away from him just as quickly when he suffered a broken vertebra in the Cowboys first preseason game.

Aaron Rodgers was and remains superior to Tony Romo. However, Romo imitated many of the things that make Rodgers a perennial MVP candidate and the Packers Super Bowl contenders. He’s a poor man’s Aaron Rodgers. Romo’s ability to turn a broken down play into a big gain, read a defense and make the right audible, or turn a five yard sack into a 15 yard scramble are all things Rodgers does on a weekly basis. Though Rodgers does each of these things better, it still shows the point that Romo was capable of leading the Cowboys to a Super Bowl – especially with the talented roster the team fielded last year.

The Cowboys 6-6 record is not an accurate representation of this struggling team- after a 5-3 start they are lucky to have salvaged one win during Elliott’s suspension. And while a lot of that blame falls on Head Coach Jason Garrett and his ludicrous refusal being to make in game or even post game adjustments, the majority of the shortcomings are due to Prescott’s shortcoming and tendency to act as anything more than a high-end game manager who can scramble – he’s a mere step above Alex Smith.

Yes, Prescott will get better, but he should’ve been during his maturing on the practice field and in the preseason while Romo took advantage of the Cowboys opportunity. With a weaker offensive line and no Elliott the Cowboys have been exposed tremendously; shortcomings Romo was often able to mask with his propensity to extend plays and take daring, yet rewarding shots down the field.

Last year and again in 2017, the Cowboys missed an opportunity to do something they haven’t done in more than 20 years. Because while Tony Romo way be a poor man’s Aaron Rodgers. I’d take that any day over a rich man’s Alex Smith.

 

Contact Zach Naidu at znaidu ‘at’ stanford.edu.

The post Naidu: You messed up, Jerry appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2017/12/05/naidu-you-messed-up-jerry/feed/ 0 1134520
Naidu: Ball in good time https://stanforddaily.com/2017/11/29/naidu-ball-in-good-time/ https://stanforddaily.com/2017/11/29/naidu-ball-in-good-time/#respond Wed, 29 Nov 2017 17:12:53 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1134097 To those of you who think LaVar Ball is a fool. To those of you who think he is using his sons’ talent for his own personal gain. To those of you who think he is a bad father for putting a target on his eldest son’s back. You’re wrong. Now, I by no means […]

The post Naidu: Ball in good time appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
To those of you who think LaVar Ball is a fool.

To those of you who think he is using his sons’ talent for his own personal gain.

To those of you who think he is a bad father for putting a target on his eldest son’s back.

You’re wrong.

Now, I by no means think it is wrong to disagree with LaVar’s parenting style. Nor do I deny that the boisterous 50-year-old irks me too sometimes. Everybody is entitled to their own opinion. Your opinion just doesn’t concern the father of three basketball talents.

The bottom line is LaVar Ball is a father who is there for his sons.

LaVar Ball’s biggest crime was being a vocal supporter of his son. He is so supportive that it has rubbed some people the wrong way. Obviously, Lonzo Ball is nowhere near the level of the seasoned Stephen Curry. But why should we be angry that LaVar Ball says he’s better than him? Lonzo is his kid; he has the right to say what he wants about his own child. He knows what he’s doing by putting a target on Lonzo’s back. He’s just expediting the process towards impending superstardom for his eldest.

Yes, Lonzo has a target on his back, and yes, LaVar most certainly crosses a line of insanity when comparing his son to certain players. But he by no means is putting his son at a disadvantage, and I’m sure Lonzo is simply appreciative his father has his back and is putting him in the spotlight.

Imagine an alternative scenario. LaVar Ball is absent from young Lonzo’s life, yet on sheer talent alone, Lonzo still is the number two pick for the Lakers. Initially coming into the league, he is guarded no differently than the way fledglings De’Aron Fox or Dennis Smith Jr. are by opposing teams. He isn’t defended more aggressively because he doesn’t have a “target” on his back. Patrick Beverly doesn’t go out of his way to make his first matchup with Lonzo a nightmare for the rookie. Yet because of this, Lonzo shreds opposing defenses and records triple doubles on a regular basis because he actually is that good. Only then would Lonzo have a target on his back because he proved he’s no average NBA player and warrants special attention.

The point is that all great players have a target on their back; they just have to prove it first before teams see it. Yet even with that target, they perform and exceed expectations. Every team knows to guard LeBron James when the Cavaliers come to town. But that barely mitigates the damage the dominant James inflicts every time he strolls down the court.

Jeremy Lin is a prime example of how having a target reduces a player’s effectiveness. Lin is an average NBA player — however, nobody treated him as such when he first came into the league in 2012, which is why Linsanity happened in the first place. Lin led the New York Knicks on a seven-game win streak, averaging 26.8 points per game in the first six. Now Lin is still in the NBA, but he isn’t averaging 27 points and lighting up opposing defenses because he isn’t able to overcome a typical defense the way Kobe was able to — or how LeBron, Durant and Russell Westbrook routinely do with a so-called target on their back.

Lonzo needs more time before people can dismiss LaVar as a lunatic who overhyped his son; the season is barely a month old, and even Stephen Curry averaged fewer than 10 points per game his first month as a rookie.

I certainly understand your displeasure with LaVar — he can come off as self-centered and greedy for the spotlight. But I caution you to not jump to this conclusion. Because if Lonzo Ball is really just an above average NBA player, LaVar can only run his mouth for so long after his son has no room to improve. If five years from now — about the time most stars solidify themselves as a force in the league — Lonzo is still averaging under nine points on 30 percent shooting, and the Lakers are still a mediocre team, LaVar will no longer be able to speak to Lonzo’s potential a half decade into his career.

But let’s say Lonzo Ball does end up being better than Stephen Curry and leads the Lakers to multiple championships.

Well, I guess that means LaVar was right? Doesn’t it?

 

Contact Zach Naidu at znaidu ‘at’ stanford.edu.

The post Naidu: Ball in good time appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2017/11/29/naidu-ball-in-good-time/feed/ 0 1134097
Naidu: Don’t blow this, Milwaukee https://stanforddaily.com/2017/11/14/naidu-dont-blow-this-milwaukee/ https://stanforddaily.com/2017/11/14/naidu-dont-blow-this-milwaukee/#respond Wed, 15 Nov 2017 07:37:35 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1133451 He’s 6’11” with a seven-foot wingspan. He can pass like a guard, post up like an elite center and stretch the floor better than any player not named Kevin Durant. With his team on defense and trailing the Portland Trail Blazers 108-109 with 17 seconds left in the third game of the season, he plays […]

The post Naidu: Don’t blow this, Milwaukee appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
He’s 6’11” with a seven-foot wingspan. He can pass like a guard, post up like an elite center and stretch the floor better than any player not named Kevin Durant.

With his team on defense and trailing the Portland Trail Blazers 108-109 with 17 seconds left in the third game of the season, he plays stalwart defense, forces a turnover, breaks away in transition and jams home the clinching bucket with 10 ticks on the clock. That’s typically a three-man job.

Giannis Antetokounmpo, “The Greek Freak,” is redefining the term “unicorn.”

Like Durant and LeBron James, he’s one of the few elite players you absolutly cannot “guard.” You just do your best to limit his dominance. What Giannis Antetokounmpo is doing is unprecedented, and his young career is on the trajectory of one of the best players of all time, if not the most athletic.

The best part? He’s only going to get better. He’s still got a jump shot to develop.

This column isn’t about how good he is. The whole league sees it, and if you can’t, you should probably give your ophthalmologist a call – this man is the real deal.

Right now, the sky’s the limit, and nobody – not Kevin Durant, not Kobe Bryant, not LeBron James – is safe from this freight train of talent. Yes, it’ll take some time, and yes, he still has a lot to prove, but somewhere Michael Jordan has an eyebrow half raised.

So don’t blow this, Milwaukee.

By some miracle, you landed this once-in-a-generation talent midway through the first round of the 2013 draft. The Dallas Mavericks almost stole him from you, but, regrettably, they traded the pick to save money.

With the 15th pick, you took a chance, on a raw, relatively unknown 18-year-old from Greece. And it paid off big time.

Now, however, is the challenging part. This next part will speak more of your organization than the selection itself.

Do not let this unicorn escape in free agency or – even worse – wither away with multiple first- and second-round playoff exits and never taste the championship level. Shaquille O’Neal, Kevin Garnett, LeBron James, Tracy McGrady – all future Hall of Famers who were denied success by poorly managed teams early in their career. Teams that didn’t surround them with enough great players or show enough commitment to take them to the championship level and snatch the trophy. Though the Orlando Magic reached the finals once, O’Neal bolted the first chance he got when Orlando was (foolishly) hesitant to pay him the money he deserved, and Shaq went on to win four times. Garnett got a pass when the Timberwolves freed him to Boston, and everybody knows how LeBron got his. History will remember that McGrady was never so fortunate.

But Giannis is unlike any of them. It’s tough, probably even impossible, to conclude that he’s objectively better than LeBron and Shaq were at 22, but it most certainly isn’t a stretch – 31.7 points, 10.4 rebounds and nearly 2 blocks per game is nothing short of spectacular.

Giannis is already on record saying he wants “to play for the Milwaukee Bucks forever.” But Kevin Durant said very similar things years before bolting Oklahoma for the bay two summers ago.

What changed? He wasn’t winning. Right now, the Bucks are just starting to blossom and have the Greek God of Basketball under contract for three seasons after this one, so they are off to a good start. But they cannot be complacent. Trading a first-round pick and Greg Monroe for Eric Bledsoe was a perfect message from the front office to Giannis; This organization is committed to winning and winning now.

The team is on the right track. But Head Coach Jason Kidd and General Manager Jon Horst cannot let up with acquiring talent and tailoring the team to best gel with its superstar, and owners Wesley Edens, Marc Lasry, and Jamie Dinan need to be behind them. If the Bucks have a bad season, don’t stand pat, do something about it.

There is no time to waste. Yes, he’s only 22, but on the flip side, he’s already 22.

The transcendent Warriors have a stranglehold on the league, every member of their dynamic core in their prime and firing on all cylinders, so maybe the Bucks get a pass for now. But as soon as the kings fall off the mountain three, four, maybe even five years from now, Milwaukee better be there, ready to take that spot.

 

Contact Zach Naidu at znaidu ‘at’ stanford.edu

The post Naidu: Don’t blow this, Milwaukee appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2017/11/14/naidu-dont-blow-this-milwaukee/feed/ 0 1133451
Naidu: This one’s for you, Texas https://stanforddaily.com/2017/11/07/naidu-this-ones-for-you-texas/ https://stanforddaily.com/2017/11/07/naidu-this-ones-for-you-texas/#respond Wed, 08 Nov 2017 06:06:32 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1132848 As I sat in the stands I kept trying to bring myself to root against Houston, the unquestioned biggest sports city rival of my hometown, Dallas. My favorite pitcher, Yu Darvish, was starting for the Los Angeles Dodgers in Game 7 of the World Series against the Houston Astros. I was crushed when he was traded midseason from the Rangers. But that didn’t keep me from wearing my Texas Rangers, number 11 Darvish shirt to the game while sitting in the visitor’s section - surrounded by many Astros fans.

The post Naidu: This one’s for you, Texas appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
I tried so hard. Honestly, I promise. I’m a diehard Texas Rangers fan. I hate David Freese.

As I sat in the stands, I kept trying to bring myself to root against Houston, the unquestioned biggest sports city rival of my hometown, Dallas. My favorite pitcher, Yu Darvish, was starting for the Los Angeles Dodgers in Game 7 of the World Series against the Houston Astros. I was crushed when he was traded midseason from the Rangers. But that didn’t keep me from wearing my Texas Rangers #11 Darvish shirt to the game while sitting in the visitor’s section – surrounded by many Astros fans. 

As I stared into the outfield, I kept having chilling flashbacks to the Rangers’ Game 6 of the 2011 World Series against the St. Louis Cardinals: All you had to do was catch it, Nelson Cruz … I hate you David Freese.

I still get queasy thinking about it.

This only aided my attempt to scorn the 2017 American League Champions – my sheer envy of the coveted position the Astros were in fueled my fire of hatred towards Houston sports.

But then the jolly plump man with a well-groomed beard and an Astros jacket sitting in front of me high-fived his family members. He turned around and gave me a warm smile after seeing his Houston Astros go up 5-0 in the second inning of the series finale and I couldn’t help but think to myself: Now, that’s a happy Texan right there. All of the sudden, I felt happy for Astros fans and the city of Houston. To me, I was no longer surrounded by Houstonians. Instead, I stood among fellow Texans. 

You see, the only thing stronger than my passion for Dallas sports is my love for the state that raised me. The state that taught me there’s never such a thing as being “too nice” or having “too much football.”

While people in Dallas were not directly affected by Hurricane Harvey, we all were shaken by the colossal damage it did to our Texas neighbor. Droves of people made the trek down south to lend a helping hand. Those that stayed behind either donated to the city of Houston or sheltered evacuees themselves. It was truly one of the tougher times as a Texan. We all mourned together. But we also all rallied to recover together. So, as it became abundantly clear the Astros were going to hoist the Commissioner’s Trophy, I thought it only fitting we rejoice together. 

Now, this joy I felt was far different than that I felt six years ago when the Rangers won their second consecutive American League pennant, or when the Dallas Mavericks upset LeBron James and the super-team Miami Heat earlier that year. That was pure sports euphoria, unfettered elation, and – for the latter victory – actual tears of joy. That’s what Astros fans were feeling following José Altuve’s throw to first for the final out. What I felt in Dodger Stadium that Wednesday night was a far more subdued happiness. As I stood among the numerous Houston supporters prior to the trophy presentation, I was proud all these Texans flew up to California to support their team. Proud but by no means surprised, it’s what Texans do. We go through great lengths to support those we love. We stop at nothing to be there for each other when it matters most. It’s the people that make Texas such a special place.

My friends on campus are often amused by my home-state pride:

My Texas flag belt, my cowboy boots, the Texas flag with my high school’s colors that hangs above my door. But I can’t help it. I love Texas. Which is why I couldn’t be happier for Houston for bringing home its first World Series championship in what has been a tumultuous year for the city, to say the least. Hopefully all you Astros fans will have my back when the Rangers finally get back to the big stage. 

So, while I currently happily reside in California, my heart will always be where the stars at night are big and bright: Deep in the heart of the Texas.

 

Contact Zach Naidu at zenaida ‘at’ stanford.edu.

The post Naidu: This one’s for you, Texas appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2017/11/07/naidu-this-ones-for-you-texas/feed/ 0 1132848
Naidu: One and same https://stanforddaily.com/2017/11/01/naidu-one-and-same/ https://stanforddaily.com/2017/11/01/naidu-one-and-same/#respond Wed, 01 Nov 2017 07:01:17 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1132234 I’m sure a quarter at Stanford is analogous to other sports or extracurricular activities. But the similarities I see in particular between 10 plus weeks at the Farm and 24-30 minutes in my water polo cap and suit are striking.

The post Naidu: One and same appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
I’m barely into it, yet in the heat of a constant struggle right off the bat.

I prepared as best as I could. Yet, after one sequence of events, I already know it’s going to be rougher than I’d envisioned.

I can’t let up.

If I do, I’m screwed.

This is a typical water polo match.

This is a typical quarter at Stanford.

I’m sure a quarter at Stanford is analogous to other sports or extracurricular activities. But the similarities I see in particular between 10 plus weeks at the Farm and 24-30 minutes in my water polo cap and suit are striking.

From the first whistle, water polo is a sprint to the middle of the pool to secure possession. A quarter at Stanford is no different: we all frantically try to decide what our ideal schedule will be from day one, “shopping” classes that range from Sleep and Dreams to computer science. In fact, we’re sprinting even before the quarter starts because enrollment opens about six weeks before the next quarter begins.

Midterm season is another prime example of such similarities. This became most evident to me last week, when I had a midterm, two problem sets and then a second midterm all in a 24-hour span. In water polo, the final two minutes of the third period can often be the toughest for me in the match: I’ve already finished grinding through a substantial amount of hard work but have no choice but to keep going. The end of the period is right around the corner, but if I look too far ahead, the other team will pull a quick counter attack or two on me and make the final quarter irrelevant with the game out of reach. Midterm season is very similar. Last week, it didn’t matter I had already done my first PWR 2 paper the previous Friday, just learned the second to last concept in Econ 50, or was finally getting the hang of utilizing Poisson random variables for Econ 102A – I had to buckle down and just grind for those exams.

More than anything, though, the quarter system mimics a water polo match in the simplest way: regardless of what stage I’m at, I have no choice but to keep treading.

In water polo, even when I’m resting during a stoppage of play, I still have to tread water or else I drown. When my teammate is attempting a penalty shot on the other end of the pool, if I stop my eggbeater kick I’ll sink — there is no standing on the bottom. I just have to keep treading.

The quarter system is no different. On Friday, even after all of my exams last week, I had to make sure I knew what I was going to write about for my PWR 2 paper due in a week and a half, had to review the new concept I’d learned for the next unit in Econ 102A, and already had Econ 50 reading and a quiz due for the following week. There was no immediate heavy workload, but that didn’t mean I could stop working, or else I’d fall behind — I’d sink. I just had to keep treading.

With both water polo and the Stanford quarter system, I enter knowing I’m in for a dog fight. They are wars that will push me mentally or physically (and sometimes both) in ways that I knew I was prepared for but still find challenging. With water polo, it’s a grueling battle, but when it’s over, I can’t help but feel proud that I endured another match and gave it my all and fought every possession. It’s what happens after the first whistle that makes the final horn such a sweet sensation.

During the quarter system I, just like every other student, often have to make the tough decision every Friday or Saturday night — do I go out or do I study? While hopefully it’s the former for at least one of those nights, the quarter will often reach a stretch where the answer is the latter for both nights for many weeks at a time. We’ve all faced that dreadful stretch of a quarter at least once. We stay in not because we don’t want to socialize with our friends. Not because we want to test our ability to calculate the marginal rate of substitution for Econ 50 or have a burning desire to help Karel find all of its beepers for CS 106A. Rather, we do it because we have to do it to survive. We do it, so come exam time — the fourth period of the game — we are prepared as best as we can and have no regrets once we turn in that test or paper. We do it so we feel nothing but pride once the onslaught ends.

Throughout an average quarter at Stanford, there can be some pretty tough moments. But no matter how little sleep you get the night before, or how many problem sets or papers you have due the next week, remember one thing:

Just keep treading.

 

Contact Zach Naidu at znaidu ‘at’ stanford.edu.

The post Naidu: One and same appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2017/11/01/naidu-one-and-same/feed/ 0 1132234