The Best of the Year

Here are some of my favorite things from the past year. I'll try to add a word or two of constructive criticism along with my praise, just in the hope of making these favorites even better the next time the sun orbits the earth.

1. The Best Sports Law Blog of 2010
This was a tough one, as obviously I have a horse in the race. So I checked my calculations twice, tried to remain as objective as I could . . . and the winner is . . . The Sports Law Blog! (Darn it. The Sports Law Professor came in 2139th place, in case you were wondering. There's always next year.) The boys at The Sports Law Blog have pretty much become my go-to people for links to new developments, academic articles in the field, and upcoming conferences. There's really no substitute, and I point my browser to the site nearly every day. At times the blog can become a bit self-promotional, but that's an excusable folly. What's less excusable is the habit into which some of the authors have fallen of just raising an issue for discussion and (apparently) hoping for an answer to grow from the comments. That approach may be a way to generate some traffic, but I'd encourage the writers to try for more. Why else take the time to write a blog if not as a forum for your views? (Wait, don't answer that.)

2. The Best New Sports Blog of 2010
Hey, I don't even know if this site is "new" in chronological terms, but it's new to me and this is my blog. (Yes, for you philosophers out there, I'm a radical idealist; nothing exists until I stumble across it.) So I scoured the internet, searching every single server in the world, and have determined that the best new site of the year is . . . Wei Under Par! It provides the insider story of the professional golf tours. Golf is a sport that, as compared to the daily rumor-trading about other important sports, has always been kept buttoned-up. I guess the Tiger Woods fiasco took the wraps off, so to speak, and Wei Under Par shows the golf fan a different side of the great game. The writer (Stephanie Wei) has a clever way of mixing in photos, comments and some genuine reporting to present a fun, quick package. Wei is also cute as a button and spreads plenty of photos of herself on the page, which I suspect is part of the draw. (We at TSLP are considering a similar marketing strategy for next year. May I take photos of Wei off her site and put them on mine?)

3. The Best Sports Magazine of the Year

No contest here, Sports Illustrated has solidified its traditional spot as the king of the general-interest sports magazine. For a few years, a few years ago, SI had become predictable, and had clearly dumbed-down its writing and its subjects. Yet the advent of a strongly edited competitor (ESPN The Magazine) has had a good effect on SI. (I suspect SI initially tried to answer the competitive challenge issued by ESPN by trying to appear more hip and youth-oriented; I don't know.) The magazine seems to this long-time reader to have regained its more literate voice. It is also devoting more of its pages to that which it does best: lengthy articles on the trends in the game, the controversies or scandals surrounding it, or the stories on the redemptive (or tragic) power of sports. I'm glad the experiment with style over substance is ending; I'll be happier when it's over. With all that said, the magazine disappoints recently with its consistently mawkish, leftist, and obvious political tone. The back page editorial is the worst; only Phil Taylor ever gives due regard to what might be considered the opposition view. It worries me that the moralists who inhabit SI's pages seem either unwilling to give (or worse, incapable of giving) due regard to the very substantial arguments that might slow down their rush to a sanctimonious conclusion. For example, a few weeks ago Sports Illustrated published what looked like a Cliff Notes version of the plaintiff's brief in the antitrust case against the BCS. Couldn't the writer have at least called one of the many BCS defenders (or me, if no competent person were available) to make the reader aware that the BCS has some compelling arguments in its favor too?

4. The Best Great Novel of the Year
I mean, wow, I'm sorry about this, but my sense of propriety had long made me shy away from ever reading Lolita, by Vladimir Nabokov. I have owned the book forever, but couldn't bring myself to walk around the house with it, owing to the racy art on the cover and the famously scandalous subject matter. (Yes, I blush easily.) But finally, at the end of last summer and looking for a study break, I finally felt mature enough to turn to the first page. Lo-li-tah, a trip of three steps down the palate. What a book. What an incredible piece of writing. It's a thrill and humbling, all at the same time. That's all; I'm not an English major.

5. The Best Sports Television Show
None. Not one show merited this prestigious, coveted award. In past years I had given this prize to Pardon the Interruption, but that show has slowly morphed into a slightly more thoughtful version of its competitors: increasingly louder, more abrasive, more concerned with the gag or the schtick than with actually saying something about the subject. The show has gone from unmissable to unwatchable. The gimmick where some fellow "scores" the hosts on their comments is just annoying. Here's my constructive criticism: Stop It! Get rid of all the silliness (it doesn't work and at best is stale) and just present two thoughtful commentators debating sports and you'll be back.

6. The Best New Sports Documentary Series By a Worldwide Leader
I guess ESPN's 30 for 30 wins. I didn't see all the documentaries in the series but watched enough of them to bestow the top honor in the category. The good part: the series represents an ambitious project, and ESPN must be commended for devoting so much time and money to programming it most likely does not need. Most of the programs have been good, a few even riveting. Sports has long been a perfect subject for documentaries. The story usually has a denouement (victory on the field), with lots of happenings off-field (obstacles to overcome) to fuel the film. Few walks of life present such a ready-made subject matter for documentaries. But the downside of the sports documentary has been evident in many of the 30-for-30 episodes: it's hard to tell an historical, off-the-field story without a lot of narration. The only film footage typically available is the on-field sports action, which works fine for the sports but less so for the off-field stuff. So at times you find yourself watching people talk, which (like my students, I'm sure) I seldom enjoy.

7. The Best of the "30 for 30" Documentaries
I know the general acclaim has been missing for this episode, but I found "Pony Excess," the story of recruiting scandals at SMU, to be stunning. What made the film work was that so many of the interviewed subjects (being sports stars) were interviewed at the same time the scandal was occurring, and (amazingly) gave pretty much the same answers then that they give now. They confessed to the money! In any event, the spectacle of former coaches and boosters admitting without shame or hesitation their direct involvement in paying football players was a shocker to this viewer. Wow, they (and apparently most everybody else) really bought players! Where is the NCAA (today) in all of this? If we're going to chase down Reggie Bush for his college years, why not go after the hundreds of athletes and dozens of schools from the "money era" of college football? Aren't there more trophies to be returned, more wins to be forfeited, and more money to be recouped? Let's get after it!

8. The Best Television Show I Want to See
This is an award I'm giving out preemptively. Dear major television networks, if you will please just spend millions of dollars and create this show, I promise I will give you my award next year. Here's the show: take the late-night talk show format, cross it a bit with Charlie Rose, and focus it on sports! (Thank you, thank you, please sit back down. Please.) Here's the problem with all of today's sports talk shows: the creators think that because viewing sports involves lots of brainless cheering, shouting and quasi-loutish behavior, then so must the show about sports be commensurately riotous. Why? People watch election returns with some of the same emotion as sports but can talk about it dispassionately later on. So here's the show: the genial host (let's call him TSLP) comes out for the opening monologue, offering a few wry observations, jokes and perhaps a humorous video clip or two from the sports world. Then, while the band plays, TSLP gets behind the desk. Over the next hour, divided into three 20-minute segments, comes the evening's guests. The guests would be drawn from star players, industry officials and insiders, and thoughtful commentators (TSLP again!). The discussion would be focused on current controversies and, in the case of star players, some personal issues. Players would adore this; Tom Brady supposedly loved being interviewed on 60 Minutes. The conversation would be thoughtful, interesting, controversial. This show would be great. I don't have a name for it yet (TSLP! is the working title), but everything else is fully conceptualized. Help yourself, ESPN.

9. The Best Coach of the Year
The award so many have been waiting for goes to . . . Bill Belichick, New England Patriots! Congratulations Bill. (We look forward to presenting the award to you at our annual TSLP Awards Dinner in Salem, Oregon. We'll cover your lunch bill if you can pick up the rest.) Why Belichick? I just love the guy. He flat out doesn't care about anything or anybody other than his team. This fact, by the way, is true of all coaches, but unlike everybody else, Belichick shows it! He gives us his honest perspective. He hates the media and makes his disdain evident. He cares not a bit for publicity, or NFL promotions, or playing up the big game, and he shows his lack of care for all to see. Unlike most coaches, Belichick never allows his players to be "miked up" (notice how all the shows reviewing past Super Bowls never include sideline remarks of Patriots' players?); Belichick seldom does routine NFL promo commercials. He just doesn't care. Again, no coaches do. But the media hate Belichick because he is honest in showing his lack of regard. I like people who are that honest. Even in the notorious "Spygate" scandal, Belichick took his medicine and uttered not one public word in his defense. He did once let slip that he thought the rules permitted his taping practices (which interpretation, as I wrote at the time, I agreed with), but that was it. Not another word said. He just doesn't care that he was and continues to be excoriated in the public conversation. You go, Bill.

10. Legal Brief of the Year
Out of the Milwaukee offices of the estimable law firm of Foley & Lardner, with Mssrs. Leffel and McKeown on the brief, comes the TSLP Legal Brief of the Year: the Brief of Economists in the American Needle v. NFL appeal. Here's the link. The amicus brief does an incredible job translating arcane economic concepts to legal prose; more importantly, the analysis is simply correct. How the Supreme Court couldn't have taken quality work like this and given a better, more thoughtful opinion on the case (even one that disagrees with the brief's recommendations) is beyond me. The Court should have answered the brief's arguments, if only to refute them. Answering would have elevated the court's opinion; instead the court ignored the brief. One reads the opinion in American Needle in the same manner one watches a politician make a speech (with which one disagrees) on television: how can Politician X claim everything's better, you mutter to yourself, when (to you) everything's worse? The American Needle opinion reads that way, like a politician preaching to his followers, blithely ignorant that nearly everything that is said in the opinion is conclusory and objectionable. You could have done better, Supreme Court of the United States. The Economists' Brief gave you that opportunity. You missed it.