Relegation would solve the problem of NBA tanking

Every year around the time of the NBA draft the topic of teams tanking the end of their season to increase their chances for the number one pick in the draft.  This year the Miami Heat were blatantly tanking their season by shutting down Dwayne Wade and Pat Riley focusing more on scouting than on coaching.  Coupled with the corruption issues with their refereeing, this is a terrible problem that the NBA needs to deal with.  The problem is that as long as the worst teams get the best picks, this problem with continue.  However moving to an even lottery for non-playoff teams is far from fair or healthy for the sport.

The best solution would be for the NBA to take a page from Euro soccer: Relegation.  The NBA should expand to forty teams and divide between an A division and B division of 20 teams.  They would practically be separate leagues and every year teams fluctuate, the 3 worst in division A drop to division B and the three best form division B move to Division A.  Only teams in division A can make the playoffs.  This system would guarantee teams would avoid tanking, at least in division A.

The NBA is the only league who could support such a system.  Basketball talent is expanding exponentially every year, (whereas baseball talent is diminishing). There are enough good players to spread between forty teams to keep things competitive and interesting.

Smaller cities, like San Antonio and Salt Lake City, can support teams and there are plenty of big cities that do not have teams that could, such as Baltimore, Pittsburgh, St. Louis, Kansas City, San Diego, and, soon, Seattle.

The final reason why this is a good idea is that it is innovative in America.  The NBA really offers nothing unique or special in its product, the playoffs are the same as the NHL’s and practically the NFL and MLB.  Besides the NBA is waning in popularity, despite the good year they have had this year.  They need something to make them unique and to draw the interest of Americans.  Perhaps a relegation system would be just the thing, it would at least give sports talk radio more to pontificate on.

Frustrated War Protesters

Apparently, many War protesters and activists are becoming increasing frustrated with the lack of motivation in the anti-War movement.

Of course they are! Why? Let me count the ways.

First, we are hardly in a War right now.  Basically, we are carrying out a massive peace-keeping and rebuilding operation.  To actually call what is currently going on in Iraq  a “war” is a bit ridiculous; there are no major battles, no storming of beaches, no crazy carpet bombing, so on and so forth.  Sure, there are military raids to root out terrorists or the occassional strategic bombing, but really a majority of the troops there are acting as peacekeeping troops and helping with Iraq’s infrastructure.

The only reason we call this a war is because of political reasons.  Republicans use the term war because it helps drum up support for funding and political backing from their base.  Democrats use the term war to drum up the anti-war sentiment and solidify support from their base.

What is going on in Iraq is nothing like what happened in Vietnam, Korea, Japan, or Germany.  It is a completely different conflict that, all things considered, is going quite well right now and looks like there will be a positive outcome for the U.S. and Iraq.

Aside from Why we went to Iraq in the first place and simple , I don’t understand what the anti-War movement is so upset about.  About the only argument they make that makes complete sense is that Iraq should be spending its own oil revenue to fund their reconstruction, amen!

How could they possibly expect the American people to be passionate against the war?  Just because polls show that 60-70% of Americans want the troops withdrawn in the next two years and think the war was a mistake, doesn’t mean they advocate our defeat there or think we have lost.  In fact I want our troops home in the next two years too.  Anyone who doesn’t has issues.  But that doesn’t mean they should be brought back in the next two years.  I want the job done and I want Iraq to be successful.  These things can’t be rushed, and, like nearly all of our previous wars in our history, it has taken a few years for our troops start winning and gaining the upper-hand (go read your history of the Revolutionary War, Civil War, and WWII).  We have a knack for struggling for a while, but we always seem to come out on top (and many argue we would have in Vietnam had we been given another year or two).

The other reason people are apathetic is because there are more important issues that we are facing, e.g. the economy.  Additionally, we are in the depths of a historic Presidential campaign where we focus on issues that are beyond trivial.

So basically, people are apathetic because things are not that bad in Iraq and we are generally safe from terrorism (and this is true and something I intend to address in a future post).  The only way the war gets more coverage and people end up being passionate against it is if there is no perceived progress ever occurring, like pre-2007.  However this is not likely.  The only thing that could make things interesting is Iran; their involvement and the way we handle them.

Pray for a NC, IN Split for the Dems

Tomorrow is yet another big day on the wild ride that is the Democratic race for the Presidential nomination.   What a ride it has been and continues to be.  If you are like me, a Republican and always interested in observing history as it happens, you want this to go on as long as possible. And in order for that to happen we need at least a split victory tomorrow.  Fortunately that is looking pretty good.

The most ideal situation would be Hillary blowing out Barack in Indiana, by at least 10 points.  Then have Barack just barely beat Hillary in North Carolina by 1-4 points.   This would continue the rhetoric of late that Barack is choking, thus keeping Hillary in the race, all the while still ensuring that Barack is the most likely nominee.

As long as Hillary thinks there is a chance on earth for her to get the nomination she will stay in.  And because Barack has the easiest path to the nomination there is no way he will drop out before convention.  And convention is what we want.

Sure, having the democratic race go to convention is great for Republicans because it keeps the dems attacking each other and allows the GOP candidate, John McCain (ugh!), to keep his shirt clean and promote a positive message without being attacked by the left.  But that is only a small benefit to me, for I don’t even know if I will vote for McCain in November (don’t worry I am not voting for Barack no matter what!).

The primary reason I want this to go to convention is to witness history. Because of how the nomination process now occurs, this is likely our one and only chance to witness a meaningful convention!  Who wants to miss out on that?  Not I.   If the Dem convention actually means something this year I will tune in and be glued to the TV, I may skip work to watch it.  If it doesn’t go to convention, I won’t watch 30 seconds of it.  So please, please Indiana and North Carolina, keep the dream alive.  Help we American witness history, we will likely never have another chance.