Adam misses LA

Football Money

2007-04-02T12:39:00.000-07:00

Alright, I know that professional football players make "a lot of money", but compared to Baseball and Basketball players, it is not even close. Moreover, a lot of times that is money that, in reality , needs to be spread out over decades. An average NFL player might earn $750,000 a year over 10 years. Yes, a great deal of money, but that may have to last them for another 50 years after retirement.

However, I do think that the biggest problem with NFL salaries is the rookie salaries. I mean, every year rookies demand more and more money depending upon their place in the draft. I think that the NFL should do what the NBA does in this case - have mandatory contract amounts and length for players depending upon their draft position. For example, the 9th player in the draft may have a 4 year contract worth 30 million, and the player taken mid-way through the 6th round may have a 2 year contract worth 1 million. or something.

1. It would keep rookies from being suckered in my crooked or stupid agents (remember Ricky William's awful rookie deal).

2. It would lessen the incentive for agents to try and get to recruits early, while still in college (as in accusations against Reggie Bush & family)

3. It would allow all teams to better prepare for salary caps.

4. It would do a lot more to help teams keep veterans.

Just my thoughts.

A.T.

Local Race

2007-03-27T11:37:00.000-07:00

Although months away, the Sheriff's election is upcoming. The old Sheriff is retiring, but has handpicked his successor (Very common, at least in Louisiana). In addition, there are two other candidates - one who had a long policing career but left a few years ago, and another who had a little policing experience years ago and has since worked in private industry.

Now, for those of you not familiar with Louisiana, the Sheriff has a LOT of power. He (or she) is also the tax collector, and is a power unto themselves. So, this is a pretty important job.

What has amazed me so far is two things: First, the amount of attacks on background and character that have already made themselves prevalent through various blogs and posting, and second, how little other additional information is available.

For example, I can tell you that the candidates has been accused of racism, using the deputies for campaigning, passing campaign literature out in in squad rooms, at unrelated non-profit events and even at funerals, and on and on and on.

However, I couldn't tell you what political parties, if any, they are running for. They could be running as Libertarian, Communist and Jedi for all the online information is.

In other words, it has become more important in even local campaigns to get out attacking information on candidates than it is to even provide basic information about the candidates. In other words, they're not trying to win your vote for them, but ato get you to vote against the other person.

A.T.

Presidential Politics - Part II

2007-03-26T10:56:00.000-07:00

Hey Y'all,

Part 2, with some comparison questions:

You have two people running for an elected position (Let's say its the run-off and thus the only two voting). One of them clearly seems to be very competent, experienced and professional, but has political positions that are opposed to yours on most major issues. The other one has ideas and positions very much like your own, but they have some clear competency issues. Which are you more likely to vote for if:

1. It is an administrative/executive position, like President, Governor, Sheriff, Mayor, etc.

2. It is a legislative positions, like Senator, State Representative, School Board Member.

3. In Louisiana, we vote for Judge's. What if it were a position for a district or appellate judge.

Also, would whether it was a local, state or national office make a difference?

Thanks,

A.T.

Draft

2007-03-23T14:17:00.000-07:00

The NFL draft is a little more than a month away, and I think I have empathy for whomever is picked first, for two reasons:
1. Obviously, the first team to pick is never a very good team, but in this case, the Oakland Raiders are especially bad. Maybe the new coach can turn things around, but since Al Davis has so much control, it ain't looking good.

and

2. The expectations for the number one pick (and all first round picks) are way, way to high. In all honesty, most first round picks develop into solid, if not spectacular picks. However, since the expectation is that they will be first year all-pros and pro bowl players every year.

Think back over the past 20 years. How many number one picks have been that level of proven performer. Most of these teams would have been much better served drafting a solid player than trying to make some poor guy (usually a QB) the next super-stud.

Fortunately, the Saints are low enough down the draft order that they can really pick a need pick or the best available and get away with it.

A.T.

Why are you voting how you are - Part 1

2007-03-20T07:13:00.000-07:00

Presidential Questionnaire:

I’m trying to get some feedback from people about what traits they are looking for in candidates. Basically, I’ve posed some questions and am hoping y’all will respond by answering how important that characteristic is to you. I’m not giving a number scale, because I am more interested in your real responses as opposed to some number. Plus, most people have thoughts that don’t necessarily fit into a box.

I’m going to do these a few at a time over the next few weeks, so as not to overwhelm y’all.

How important is a candidate’s political party, and which one do you tend towards?

How important is it to you that the candidates have experience at the National Level of Government (i.e. Senator, Representative, etc.)?

How important is it to you that the candidate have military experience? Combat experience? Experience working with the military (like on a House Military Committee, etc.)?

How important is the candidate’s religion to you? If of any importance, how would particular professed religions affect your vote.

I’ll start with those.

Politicians and Bashing

2007-03-16T13:45:00.000-07:00

Okay,

I'm currently participating in several local and national blogs. Can't seem to find a good state one I find interesting. A buddy from another blog noted that I should post on my own, so I will,

I've been following the local Sheriff's race and, based on the comments, apparently all three of the people running are dirty, no good, incompetent good-ol'-boys. Of course, compared to the apparent negatives of the 14 or so people running for President (already - jeez!), they are pristine citizens. After all, that group includes hate mongerers, cowards, murderers, insane people, crooks, drug addicts, right wing ideologues and left-wing hypocrites.

Of course, the real truth is that all of these people are, for the most part, just like us. They have friends who support them in spite of the facts, and enemies who attack them in spite of the facts. They obviously have ambition. I assure you that none of them are intent on destroying the United States (or even little Rapides Parish), nor is any of them a Saint who is only looking out for the community.

In general, I vote against incumbents, unless they can show me that they have done the job I have asked them to do . And I have high standards. When an incumbent is retiring, I tend to be against his or her party for that office, but not as strong. For example, these were my Presidential votes.

1984 - For Reagan (one of only two Presidential pro-incumbent vote)
1988 - For Bush (This one was close)
1992 - Against Bush
1996 - Against Clinton
2000 - Against Gore
2004 - Against Bush

This time, since neither Bush nor Cheney is running, and they have not seemed to "pick" a successor, I'm less likely to lean against the Republicans, but probably lean more against them than against the Dems. In other words, all things being equal, I'll probably vote Dem this time.

I'm working on a post/survey which I hope to have up soon. I'll let y'all know.

A.T.

Superbowl

2007-02-08T10:04:00.000-08:00

Just a couple of comments on the Superbowl.

1. I think that this year, and especially during the playoffs, the Colts did what teams have done to them for the past several years. Play ball-control offense and keep the opposing offense off of the field. It was clear that if you keep Manning & Co. sitting long enough, they have trouble getting back in the flow. However, it is clear that lesser offenses are even more adversely affected by this. Even Brady had trouble getting back in the groove after his long rest.

2. enough Rex bashing. While he did not have a great game, and had a couple of bad picks, it was Chicago's lines (offense and defense) and their linebackers who laid the big goose-eggs.

3. I think that the Bears would have had a better chance of winning if Hester had not scored on the early runback. Bascially, it put Chicago into "playing to hold the lead: mode way to early, and they spent the rest of the game backing up.

Adam T