Tag Archives: Staples

Super bowl staples recalled over listeria outbreak in taco kits, bean dips, dairy products: CDC – Fox News

  1. Super bowl staples recalled over listeria outbreak in taco kits, bean dips, dairy products: CDC Fox News
  2. Cheese, Sour Cream and Yogurt are Being Recalled Nationwide—Here’s What You Need to Know Yahoo Life
  3. Listeria outbreak prompts recalls at H-E-B, other Texas grocery stores Houston Chronicle
  4. Fresh Creative Foods Announces Voluntary Recall of Dressings and Taco Kit Due to Risk of Listeria in Ingredient From Cheese Supplier: Rizo-Lopez Foods, Inc. FDA.gov
  5. Costco, Trader Joe’s pull some products with cheese in expanded recall for listeria risk USA TODAY

Read original article here

20 Years Ago, Sonic Advance 2 Perfected Sega’s Beloved Series

“Faster, Faster, until the thrill of speed overcomes the fear of death.”

Hunter S. Thompson

In much the same way that ancient peoples looked up at the night sky and imagined other worlds, the first video game developers looked at a thingy on a screen and imagined it moving really fast.

Who could blame them? Computers, since their inception, have been iterated upon with speed as a fundamental driving factor. Scour any historical rundown of the earliest computational devices and you’ll invariably discover some factoid about how a five-dollar Staples calculator can perform operations several orders of magnitude more efficiently (and it’s not even the size of a house!). Charles Babbage’s failure to complete the Analytical Engine was an implicit promise to his future understudies: some day, someone would complete it, and they’d make it better. Faster.

A century and a half later, they might even give it blast processing.

1993 Sega Genesis Commercial: Blast Processing

The early nineties marked a major inflection point for video games. 8 bits shot up to 16; color palettes entered the triple digits; Konami made a Simpsons beat-em-up. Once the fourth console generation was well underway, developers gradually shifted from revolution to refinement, trimming the fat from established design philosophies while doubling down on what already worked. Of course, increased processing power meant increased speed, and several of the era’s most acclaimed titles pointedly cranked up the velocity on their respective genres. Doom was a faster Wolfenstein 3D, Daytona USA was a faster OutRun, Chrono Trigger was a faster Dragon Quest, and—leading the vanguard in 1991—Sonic the Hedgehog was a faster Super Mario Bros.

Sonic—as a character, as a franchise—is a crystallization of video game hardware’s perpetual forward momentum. Here was a game created for the express purpose of literally outpacing the competition, a giant flashing “PICK ME” sign pointed at the Sega Genesis. It wasn’t marketed for its level design, and it didn’t need to be. Sonic was fast. He was named after fast. Level design doesn’t matter when you’re moving too quickly to see it. The novelty didn’t lie in the control itself, but in the notion that something so fast could be controlled at all.

At least, that’s what the commercials would have you believe. The first three mainline Sonic games (four, if you count Sonic & Knuckles as its own entry) drew audiences in with the promise of high-speed thrills, and then, with a wink, gave them physics homework. They were fast, but speed was a reward, not a guarantee. It could only be achieved via a combination of sharp reflexes and a thorough understanding of how Sonic responded to subtle changes in level geometry. Slopes, springs, and circular loops all affected his momentum in distinct ways, and oftentimes the quickest beeline through a level involved the most measured consideration of how to interact with it.

Nevertheless, the idea that Sonic was speed incarnate persisted. Maybe the marketing worked too well, or maybe people sensed, buried within this design, the possibility for something even faster. Why slow down at all? This is what computers are for. Hell, this is what life is for. Constant acceleration, wind whipping through your hair, pavement screaming past your feet. It’s why people become F1 drivers, and it’s why they play Sonic the Hedgehog. So let’s cut the crap. We’re all adrenaline junkies here. Juice that speed dial until it bursts into flames.

Over the course of the following two decades, this line of thinking metastasized into Sonic’s current design ethos: playable theme park rides that let players immediately go full throttle at any time with a press of the “boost button.” Boosting—which also turns Sonic into a moving hitbox, automatically razing most obstacles in his path—tickles the same part of the brain that likes watching sped-up GoPro videos, and not for nothing. It’s a visceral, inborn thrill, one that the best modern Sonic levels make compelling use of. Yet somewhere along the way, the friction vanished. Geometry stopped resisting player input in ways that encouraged creative play. Speed was no longer something to work towards, but something given freely. If Sonic the Hedgehog was about trick-or-treating, Sonic Unleashed and its progeny are about buying a discounted bag of mixed candy on November 1st.

But there exists between these two approaches an exact midpoint. A game that made good on the franchise’s dual promises of high speed and deep skill, blending the two so seamlessly and emphasizing them so severely that its innovation is overshadowed by its lucidity. Of course Sonic should be like this. Why was it ever not? Why isn’t it now?

Sonic Advance 2 was first released in Japan on December 19, 2002, for the Game Boy Advance. It’s the perfect Sonic game, and maybe, by extension, the perfect video game. It refined all of its predecessors and influenced all of its successors, yet it remains the only installment of its exact kind, a 2D side-scroller released in the midst of Sonic’s uneven transition to 3D and met largely with subdued praise. In hindsight, we should have been louder. This was as good as it would ever get.

Developed as a collaboration between Sonic Team and then-nascent studio Dimps, Advance 2 followed up 2001’s more traditionally-designed Sonic Advance; in 2004, it would receive a sequel in Sonic Advance 3, which capped off the sub-series. As with most of the classic Genesis games, Advance 2 features seven zones, each with two “acts” and a boss battle. There are five playable characters, a gracious but altogether empty gesture. Always pick Sonic. He’s the fastest one.

This is the first Sonic game that I’d feel comfortable describing as “being about speed” (though I wouldn’t go so far as to say it’s all about speed, because if it was all about speed, it wouldn’t be about anything else). Characters are exponentially faster than they’ve ever been. The difference between how they control in Advance 2 versus Advance, let alone the original trilogy, is staggering, as though the development team was hit with a sudden, explosive realization that they had the tools at their disposal to finally make the game people had been expecting (consciously or otherwise) for over a decade. And then they took it a step further. They wondered what would happen if, after speeding up, you never had to slow back down.

Enter “boost mode,” Advance 2’s load-bearing mechanic. It works like this. First, start running. Then, keep running until you hit top speed. (Rings, the series’ longstanding collectible currency, now act as more than just a damage buffer–the more you have, the faster you accelerate.) Finally, maintain top speed for long enough and the tension will snap: you’ll enter a unique state, visually indicated by what appears to be the sound barrier shattering, in which your speed cap is raised even further, allowing you to airily zip through stages almost too quickly for the screen to keep up. As long as forward momentum is sustained, so is boost mode; stop too suddenly or take damage and you’ll need to work your way back up. The flow of this design—wherein a sort of zen-like mastery over one’s environment is achieved through intense focus—is not unlike meditation. Advance 2 understands that boost mode can’t be free, because meditation isn’t easy. If everyone could meditate, nobody would argue about video games anymore, and I’d be out of a job.

Sonic entering boost mode.
Gif: Sega

The game’s stages, which have been expanded in size by a factor of six to accommodate higher speeds, fluctuate accordingly. Levels will feature long, relatively uncluttered stretches of flat or sloping terrain that might barely give players enough room to activate boost mode, followed by more precise platforming segments that challenge them to keep it. The majority of these segments are meticulously designed to allow momentum to carry over between jumps, so long as one’s understanding of Advance 2’s movement is sufficiently honed. And that movement, even disregarding boost mode, is astonishingly complex.

It’s worth noting that Dimps was founded by Takashi Nishiyama and Hiroshi Matsumoto, two fighting game alums whose greatest claim to fame was their co-creation of Street Fighter; they were also involved in varying capacities with Fatal Fury, Art of Fighting, and SNK vs. Capcom, among others. It’s a God-given miracle that these guys—who may understand video game movement better than anyone else on Earth—not only decided to take a crack at Sonic, but more or less perfected it on their second try.

Advance 2, put simply, has options. Each character comes equipped with multiple unique grounded moves, aerial moves, boost mode-exclusive moves (useful for clearing away enemies that would otherwise knock your speed (and rings) back down to zero), and, most ingeniously, aerial “tricks” that propel them along set trajectories when used in certain contexts. Mastering Advance 2 means intuiting exactly which tricks will strike the best balance between progression, momentum, and evasion, the goal being to bypass as much of the stage as possible without ever slowing down.

An excerpt from the game’s instruction manual, detailing the trick system.
Photo: Sega / Internet Archive

And then there’s Sonic, the sole character with an air dash, which can be executed by double-tapping forward in midair (an input immediately recognizable to anyone with even cursory knowledge of fighting games). To me, this move—the only one not mentioned in the game’s instruction manual—is proof positive that Advance 2’s designers thought of speedrunning as a feature, not a bug. Its execution is just difficult enough to appeal to higher levels of play, but not so difficult as to feel unreasonable. The result, once all of these options are successfully melded, is poetry in motion, a hypnotic string of lightning-fast jumps, flips, dashes, spins, and sprints. Advance 2 speedruns are all the convincing I need that Sonic never had to enter the third dimension: everything the series ever needed is right here, in this tiny, unassuming, 4.3 megabyte GBA cartridge.

In fact, if the game has any glaring flaws, it’s that its ideas are quite literally too big for the system it’s confined to. The Game Boy Advance’s screen clocked in at 240 x 160 pixels, or 5.7 x 3.2 inches–considerably less real estate than the Genesis, which displayed at a resolution of 320 x 224 pixels. Take into account Advance 2’s breakneck pace, and the criticisms initially leveled at it—too hard, too unpredictable, too cheap—start making sense. Even with the game’s economical visual presentation (rendered, I might add, with absolutely stunning sprite work), the screen size is limiting. There are several instances where an enemy might come at you just slightly too fast, or you may not be able to make a jump without a bit of guesswork.

I acknowledge these shortcomings, but I also can’t help but respect the ambition that spawned them. The designers could have easily made the game slower. They could have eliminated boost mode altogether; the game plays fine without it. But they must have known, deep down, that the integrity of their ideas was far more important than a dinky piece of plastic. Advance 2 was the tinderbox for something new. Sonic Adventure reinvented Sonic in 3D, and this would reinvent it in 2D. Two parallel design paths, budding in tandem, each continuously fulfilling the medium’s most primeval purpose—to go fast—in fresh and exciting ways. God, imagine it. Wouldn’t it be great?

Screenshot: Sega

Frustratingly, this actually did happen, just not in any of the ways it should have. The following 2D and 3D Sonic titles—Sonic Advance 3 and Sonic Heroes, respectively—bore several hallmarks of their immediate predecessors, but were too encumbered with superfluous ideas to meaningfully build upon them. Going forward, things were generally messier on the 3D side of things, and still are. Sonic’s most recent 3D outing, the open-world Sonic Frontiers, is an admirably big swing, but it ultimately does little to justify itself.

The 2D entries were more promising, but still trended downward. SEGA’s handheld follow-up to Advance was Sonic Rush, also co-developed by Dimps. As much as I enjoy Rush, it was the death knell: the game was the first to implement a boost button, clearly aiming for the highs of Advance 2 but vitally misunderstanding what made that game’s boost system so appealing. Nearly every 2D (and later 3D) Sonic game since has featured this mechanic, and none have fully nailed it. Maybe it’s a dead-end design, or maybe Advance 2 just casts too long a shadow.

A bit of trivia, and then an anecdote. Advance 2 was the first side-scrolling Sonic game without a single water level. This is great, because water levels in Sonic games are terrible, molasses-slow misery gauntlets that grind like sandpaper against everything that makes the series fun. But there’s an additional wrinkle. The first stage of Advance 2, Leaf Forest Zone: Act 1, does actually contain two separate pools of water, both of which are fully explorable. Characters move more sluggishly underwater, and if they stay submerged for too long, they’ll drown—two mechanics dating back to the original Sonic the Hedgehog. These mechanics never once matter here, because water doesn’t show up anywhere else in the game, and the pools in Leaf Forest are small enough that players can exit them with ease (or even avoid them altogether). They are, perhaps, the most personal flourish in Advance 2. Vestiges of its early development, likely implemented before its creators had fully cracked the code on what a perfect Sonic game should look like. A reminder, however small, of their growth.

The two pools of water, as seen in the level’s map data
Screenshot: Sega / Sonic Retro

I’ve been playing Advance 2 since I was seven. I know I was seven, because the game launched in North America on my seventh birthday. I’d never played a Sonic game before, and at the time, it seemed endless. The stages were colossal, their mystique bolstered by the fact that seven “special rings”—which unlocked bonus content—were hidden inside each one. I played Advance 2 until I beat it, then I beat it with every character, then I combed through every level until I’d discovered all the secrets, then I did that with every character, and then I just kept playing it, repeatedly, with no particular goal in mind. (It’s a pristinely replayable game, less than 45 minutes if you’re hurrying, which you obviously should be.) Over time, largely through sheer practice, I learned everything about it: the layouts of its levels, the movesets of its characters, the intricacies of its movement. It became akin to a fidget toy, something I’d pick up whenever I wanted to occupy my hands. Eventually, I felt like I’d hit a plateau. The first game I’d ever loved had finally run out of things to show me.

Several years later, I found out about Sonic’s air dash.

Read original article here

Staples: Ranking 13 teams eligible for College Football Playoff (even if they aren’t top 4 this week)

Every Saturday night, Andy Staples and Ari Wasserman react to the weekend’s slate of games on The Andy Staples Show & Friends. On Mondays, Andy revisits his and Ari’s biggest takeaway from Saturday night’s instant reaction. This week: Ari gave everyone homework — rank the 13 teams eligible for the College Football Playoff.

The only rankings that actually matter debut on Tuesday. And even these don’t truly matter. Remember, the first time the College Football Playoff selection committee released a ranking in 2014, these were the top four:

  1. Mississippi State
  2. Florida State
  3. Auburn
  4. Ole Miss

How many of those teams actually made the inaugural CFP? One. The Seminoles went 13-0, entered the bracket as a No. 3 seed and got crushed by Oregon in the Rose Bowl. So don’t despair if your team isn’t in the top four on Tuesday when the committee reveals its first ranking of the 2022 season.

As long as your team is one of the Lucky 13, of course.

On the postgame edition of The Andy Staples Show, Ari and I determined which teams remain eligible for the CFP. We might be wrong, but eight seasons worth of selections have established a fairly reliable pattern. The committee has yet to place a two-loss team* into the top four. You don’t have to be a conference champion to make the top four, but you’d better not have a blowout loss. (Unless you avenged said loss in the conference title game or beat the team that blew you out earlier in the season.) At the end of the show, Ari gave all of us a homework assignment: Rank these 13 teams.

*You’ll notice two-loss LSU is omitted from the Lucky 13. This is based on committee precedent. Should LSU beat Alabama and then beat Georgia or Tennessee in the SEC title game, perhaps that changes this year. A two-loss Auburn probably would have made the bracket in 2017, but the Tigers lost their rematch against Georgia in the SEC title game.

Entering this week’s games, these are the 13 teams that can still make the CFP, listed by conference.

ACC

Big 12

Big Ten

  • Illinois
  • Michigan
  • Ohio State

Pac-12

SEC

  • Alabama
  • Georgia
  • Ole Miss
  • Tennessee

That this many teams remain in the hunt means we’ve had a pretty fun season so far. Also, it doesn’t feel as if there are one or two teams that would absolutely smash everyone else still in the hunt. When the CFP expands to 12 in a few years, we’ll be able to measure the teams still in the hunt at this point by the dozen. But for now, let’s be happy the number is this high.

To complete Ari’s assignment, I tried to imagine how I’d vote as a committee member. I collected some stats I know are important to the committee. I also used some that I find important. I used the SP+ predictive ranking created by ESPN’s Bill Connelly. This is my favorite of the predictive ranking formulas, but I won’t quibble if you want to use ESPN’s Football Power Index or Jeff Sagarin’s rankings. (Bill’s formula can’t seem to accept that Texas isn’t back this year, but I’m willing to forgive that.)

I do like the FPI’s strength of schedule measurement, though. So I also used that. The FPI also has a handy measurement of remaining schedule strength, but that isn’t necessary for this exercise since we can only go by the games that have already been played. I also used the FPI’s strength of record, which measures how difficult a team’s record is to achieve based on the strength of its opponents, travel time, rest time and other factors.

One stat I love is net points per drive. This is the number of points a team’s offense averages per drive minus the average number of points that team’s defense allows on each opponent drive. Brian Fremeau keeps this stat on his excellent site. He also keeps available yards, which is another fun one. If a team gets the ball at its own 20, it has 80 yards available. If it scores a touchdown, then it gained 100 percent of available yards. I didn’t want to get too in the weeds, though. So I left that out.

Instead of using wins against Top 25 teams, which seems fairly arbitrary and also would require me to rank 25 out of 131 teams, I stole a concept from the NCAA Basketball Selection Committee. In basketball, the committee weigh Quadrant 1 (games against teams in the top 25 percent of the NET ranking) wins heavily. Football doesn’t have as many data points, so I decided to count Quadrant 1 and Quadrant 2 wins using SP+ as the ranking. Quad 1 is the teams ranked No. 1 through No. 30. Quad 2 is the teams ranked No. 31 through No. 60.

I also wanted to use some raw numbers that aren’t adjusted by any proprietary formula. So I went with tried-and-true yards per play gained and yards per play allowed. This adjusts for tempo better than total offense and total defense, and it also helps identify outliers.

Even though I know enough about these teams to make educated guesses as to their identities based on their numbers, I stripped the team names off my spreadsheet before I started sorting stats. My hope was that I would forget which team corresponded to which letter. That way, I could rank based solely on what the team had done this season and not on brand name, past success or failure or conference affiliation.

Does that make this ranking objective? Of course not. Rankings are by their nature subjective. At a certain point, I have to look at two (or three or four) data sets that seem quite similar and decide which one to place above the other(s).

Here’s my spreadsheet. Feel free to rank the teams as you see fit…

 

The actual committee chooses a bucket of about six teams in order to select its top three. It then scrubs through the list three at a time until it reaches 25. The six that seemed to belong at the top here were teams E, F, K, J, M and L.

So I moved them into a different spreadsheet and tried to parse them. Team J leads everyone with four Quad 1 wins but has a loss. Team M has three Quad 1 and two Quad 2 wins and the No. 1 strength of record. But Team M is one of only two on this list with a yards per play number above No. 15 in the nation. Its defense is No. 39 in yards per play allowed. But its offense is No. 3 in yards per play gained, and it is No. 5 in net points per drive. In other words, its defense might be giving up yards, but Team M usually is winning its games by a healthy margin.

Team K and Team F look cleaner. Neither has a loss, and both have single-digit ranks in the yards per play stats. Team K is No. 2 in net points per drive and has one Quad 1 win and three Quad 2 wins. Team F is No. 2 in strength of record and No. 1 in net points per drive. The drawback to these two? Their schedules haven’t been as difficult as Team J or Team M’s schedules.

Still, these two have been so consistent that I feel like I need to place them in the top two. So I’ll make Team F No. 1 and Team K No. 2. I’m only choosing the top three now, so I have to decide between Team J and Team M and then send the remaining team back to the pool. Team M’s No. 1 strength of record suggests that’s who I should pick, but I suspect Team M handed Team J its loss. I like using head-to-head results as a tiebreaker. (Otherwise why bother playing?)

So I peek at my key, which confirms my suspicion. Team M will be No. 3. Team J goes back in the pool.

My top three look like this:

  1. Ohio State (Team F)
  2. Georgia (Team K)
  3. Tennessee (Team M)

Now let’s move on. You’ve probably guessed by now that Team J is Alabama, but let’s try to ignore that knowledge and compare it with the next group.

We take the three remaining teams from the first group (J, E, L) and add three more teams (H, C, G).

The two that jump off the page are Team J and Team E. We’re trying very hard not to make any assumptions because we know who J is. What happened from 2009-21 is not important here. E has a similar strength of record, two Quad 1 and two Quad 2 wins and a better net points per drive rank. It seems the defense has been stingier but the offense isn’t quite as explosive. The biggest difference is strength of schedule. Team J’s strength of schedule is 10th out of 131. Team E’s is 79th, the lowest in this grouping of six. So let’s give the nod to Team J. Then Team E.

I’ve ranked:

4. Alabama (Team J)

5. Michigan (Team E)

Now let’s choose No. 6 from the remaining four on our list (H, C, G, L). All of these teams have more flaws than the others, and those flaws seem to show up on defense. Team G has a loss but only one Quad 1 or Quad 2 win. So that team goes back in the pool. Team C’s strength of record is No. 3, meaning it has achieved something difficult relative to its schedule. Team L has the best net points per drive rank and has two Quad 1 wins and one Quad 2 win.

I think I’m going with Team C. After peeking at my key, I see I’ve ranked:

6. TCU (Team C)

I’ll spare you most the gory details, but I ranked the next 13 the same way:

7. Ole Miss (Team L)

8. Clemson (Team A)

9. Oregon (Team G)

10. UCLA (Team H)

11. Illinois (Team D)

12. USC (Team I)

13. North Carolina (Team B)

The biggest surprise? Ole Miss at No. 7. If I had the team names next to the stats, I probably would have placed Ole Miss around No. 10. After watching the Rebels against Auburn, LSU and Ole Miss, I have no faith in their defense to hold up enough to allow them to beat Alabama, Arkansas, Mississippi State and the SEC East champion. But their defensive stats are not as bad as I thought, and Clemson’s were not as good as I thought. Plus, Ole Miss has an elite offense and Clemson has a pedestrian one.

That said, I think it’s much more likely that Clemson goes undefeated and makes the CFP than Ole Miss goes 12-1 and makes the bracket. But after looking at these numbers, I have less faith in the Tigers to beat Notre Dame, Louisville, Miami, South Carolina and the Coastal Division champion (probably North Carolina) in consecutive weeks than I did before. Taken individually, Clemson should beat each of those teams. But it feels as if the Tigers aren’t playing with the same margin for error they had when they were making the CFP every year. Another game as sloppy as their Syracuse matchup could result in a loss.

But that’s why they play the games. Clemson could prove me wrong and wind up in the field.

The bigger question: Will this be a Lucky 13 next week? The Tennessee-Georgia loser probably stays on the list. But can everyone else?

(Photo: Eakin Howard / Getty Images)



Read original article here

Staples: Oregon, Washington should want Big Ten, but might decide fate of Big 12, Pac-12

The move heard ’round the college football world last week inspired more than 200 questions for this week’s Dear Andy mailbag. But in trying to answer two in particular, I had a thought that I’d be fascinated to see put into action.

With USC and UCLA gone from the Pac-12 and headed to the Big Ten, Oregon and Washington are in peril and empowered at the same time. They don’t want to lose their stature, so naturally, they’d love to go to the Big Ten. But what if that’s not an option? They become some of the best options remaining on the board, and what they do could determine the futures of the Pac-12 and the Big 12. Joe and Jesse each came at their questions from a different direction, but they both lead to a potentially cutthroat scenario depending on how the dominoes fall.

Should Oregon pursue independence if Big Ten membership is off the table? — Joe in Albany, Ore.

One thing I’ve found interesting this past week has been the idea that the Pac-12 will try and steal from the Big 12. At this point, what Big 12 team would want to leave? Especially without USC and UCLA, is the Pac-12 really a more enviable destination? — Jesse

Notre Dame may hold the keys for everyone, but it feels as if Oregon and Washington hold the keys in the Big 12/Pac-12 situation. Obviously, Oregon and Washington would like to join USC and UCLA in the Big Ten. They would make sense in that league, too. They are big brands with passionate fan bases, and the schools are members of the prestigious Association of American Universities. They also would provide some travel partners for their fellow Pac-12 defectors.

But they clearly haven’t gotten an answer as to whether joining the Big Ten is a possibility. How do we know this? Because as soon as the Big Ten said it wanted them, Oregon and Washington would be gone. And if the Big Ten offered a definitive no, then Oregon and Washington would be moving to lock down their respective futures.

Presumably, the Big Ten’s next move depends on Notre Dame’s choice. If the Fighting Irish want to join, they’re in and the rest of the league decides if it wants to admit anyone else. But if Notre Dame isn’t ready to make that decision, it doesn’t have to. It is the one school that has an open invitation from every league whenever it wants. And the Big Ten could just hang out at 16 schools while it waits for the puff of white smoke or whatever signal the Domers choose to announce their choice.

If Notre Dame doesn’t choose soon, it could put Oregon and Washington in an awkward position. If the Big Ten isn’t sure it’s done expanding, the Ducks and Huskies shouldn’t lock themselves into any long-term deal. But the remaining Pac-12 members might be keen on making a long-term pact that ensures no one else leaves.

Sorry, Joe, but I don’t think independence is a viable option. I’m one of the people who always said Notre Dame should never join a conference in football if it didn’t want to, and after last week I think Notre Dame may have no choice but to join a conference in football. If Notre Dame can’t be independent anymore, there is no way Oregon could pull it off. But that doesn’t mean the Ducks don’t wield any power. Quite the contrary. If the Big Ten doesn’t shut the door, they and the Huskies have some options.

They could hold the Pac-12 together, providing two tentpole programs for that league — which presumably would expand. Jesse asks which Big 12 schools would leave for the Pac-12. All of them would as long as Oregon and Washington are still there. So the Pac-12 schools could select which ones they feel fit best.

There also is the possibility that the Pac-12 and ACC could come to some sort of rights-pooling agreement that could provide the remaining Pac-12 schools with some stability and the ACC schools with a few new revenue streams that might help soothe the members who feel they carry all the weight and deserve an unequal share of the pie. But that feels highly theoretical, and it also feels a little like a more fleshed-out version of The Alliance, the partnership formed last year by the ACC, the Big Ten and the Pac-12. “It’s about trust,” ACC commissioner Jim Phillips said at the time. “We’ve looked each other in the eye. We’ve made an agreement.” The Alliance essentially imploded last week when one of the leagues gutted another like a fish. And that tends to happen with these things. In 2010, the Pac-10 held informal meetings with the Big 12 about pooling television rights. A few months later, the Pac-10 tried to steal half the Big 12’s members.

Realignment is a dirty business, so perhaps it’s time the Big 12 tried to fight to win instead of merely to survive. What if the Big 12 could get Oregon and Washington? That may sound silly on its face, but we’re talking about a league with a new commissioner (former Roc Nation COO Brett Yormark) who doesn’t come from the college sports industry. Unlike a former athletic director, he doesn’t have to worry about shanking his friends to keep his conference ahead. He didn’t know these people before, so he can shank away.

Here’s the pitch. Tell Oregon and Washington they can join the Big 12, but just as a coach might get an out clause for his alma mater in his contract, let them have a clause that says they can leave with no financial penalty if the Big Ten wants them. (Maybe protect the league a little by forcing them to give something reasonable like 18 months notice.) Then use their defection to also grab Colorado, Utah, Arizona and Arizona State. If you must take Oregon State and Washington State to get Oregon and Washington because of political pressure in those states, take them and either just get really big or lop off two from the rest of the incoming group. Since the Pac-12’s media rights deal ends in 2024, go to partners Fox and ESPN and ask to begin negotiating a new deal that would begin in 2024 instead of 2025, when the next Big 12 deal is supposed to start. Write in the contract that you understand the payout will go down if Oregon and Washington leave.

If Oregon and Washington wind up staying, that 18-team league probably would be No. 3 behind the Big Ten and SEC in per-school revenue. The Big 12’s current deal (which includes Oklahoma and Texas) already pays more than the ACC and Pac-12’s deals. Oklahoma and Texas will be gone — and in this scenario, they’d be in the SEC in 2024 — but that lineup would be every bit as strong as the ACC’s. More importantly, that lineup can be on the market now.

Every league wants conference affiliation to be a 100-year decision, but if the last 100 years have taught us anything, it just isn’t. If anyone should understand that, it’s the presidents and athletic directors of the Big 12. Their league has been through every conceivable realignment scenario.

It has been clinically dead for a few minutes (2010). It has been minutes from implosion (2011). It has held a dog-and-pony show for potential members that resulted in nothing (2016). It has taken an epic gut punch and then grabbed four new members (2021). So while the presidents of the Pac-12 schools — who are new at this sort of thing — ask for blood oaths to ensure no one ever leaves their league again, the Big 12 should try to offer some flexibility to create the strongest lineup it can right now.

If that lineup stays together, great. If it doesn’t, well, the Big 12 has been through this sort of thing before.

But the conference that always seems to find a way to survive might soon have an opening to buy itself a little more time.

(Photo: Jacob Snow / Icon Sportswire via Getty Images)

 



Read original article here

Staples: It’s obvious which regular-season scheduling option the SEC should choose

MIRAMAR BEACH, Fla. — When presented with two choices — one sensible and exciting and one completely idiotic — the debate shouldn’t last long. The idiotic choice should be punted and the sensible, exciting idea should be adopted.

Once the choices were narrowed to two, the discussion about the SEC’s potential regular-season scheduling options once Oklahoma and Texas join the league (in 2025 at the latest) should have taken about five seconds. Yet SEC athletic directors are still debating which model is best after two days of discussions. In any profession, it’s always possible to get so deep in the weeds that the obvious decision doesn’t seem so obvious. That’s what’s happening on the shore of the Gulf of Mexico this week.

SEC presidents and chancellors will join the ADs Thursday. These people have a lot more to worry about. So hopefully they are less likely to get lost in the minutiae. And hopefully, they’ll make the correct decision.

I bet if I lay out the options without identifying which is the good one and which is the stupid one you’ll pick the better one without blinking. Let’s try it.

• One option would be a divisionless eight-game conference schedule that features one fixed opponent for each school while rotating the other seven games throughout the remainder of the conference’s (soon-to-be) 16-team membership. This plan would protect Alabama–Auburn (the Iron Bowl) but not Auburn-Georgia (The Deep South’s Oldest Rivalry) or Alabama-Tennessee (The Third Saturday In October). Florida and Georgia would play annually, but Florida and Tennessee would not. Oklahoma and Texas would play annually. Texas and Texas A&M would not.

• The other option is a divisionless nine-game conference schedule that features three fixed opponents for each school while rotating the other six games through the remainder of the conference. This would allow Alabama-Auburn, Auburn-Georgia, Alabama-Tennessee, Oklahoma-Texas and Texas-Texas A&M to be played annually. It also might stoke the fires of a few emerging rivalries such as LSU-Texas A&M. It could potentially create new ones as well. For example, it’s a little weird that Arkansas and Oklahoma — flagship universities in bordering states — have played only 15 times since 1899 and only three times since 1978. Perhaps each could be part of the other’s trio.

Did you spot the dumb one? Of course you did. It’s the 1-7 model. If a bunch of allegedly intelligent people got together and decided that Texas and Texas A&M — or Georgia and Auburn or Alabama and Tennessee — shouldn’t play annually when a reasonable possibility exists, then whoever voted to adopt that model should find a new line of work. They lack the common sense to sell football games for a living, and that calls into question their decision-making in every other matter as well. The Big Ten is likely about to change its scheduling model in the near future. Can you imagine that league’s leaders saying “We don’t need Michigan and Michigan State to play EVERY year?” Of course not.

The 3-6 model is the only logical choice. So why is anyone fighting it?

The resistance is two-fold. Some schools would rather take the short view than make a choice that ultimately will sell more season-ticket packages on their campus and make them more money through the SEC’s future media rights deals.

Part of the opposition comes from leaders at certain schools who fear the zero-sum nature of adding a conference game. That means half the league is guaranteed one more loss per season. With nonconference games, those schools at the bottom of the standings can try to schedule their way to six wins and a bowl game in a mostly empty stadium in a medium-sized city. Another conference game means those schools have to work that much harder to get to .500. These schools are so afraid their teams won’t be quite mediocre enough that they’re trying to block a model that embraces progress and tradition all at once.

But that isn’t the only loser thinking standing in the way of you getting better, with more interesting games to watch on television during the regular season. There is a fear among a few in the league that if the College Football Playoff doesn’t expand, moving to nine conference games could hurt the SEC’s chances to keep producing national champs. This is silly. First, the odds of the CFP staying at four are slim because the only league that even likes four is the SEC. An early expansion was blocked in part because the SEC’s acquisition of Oklahoma and Texas freaked out the leaders of a few other leagues, but after a cooling-off period, those leagues will come back to the same place they were before the Oklahoma and Texas news broke. Most of them need expansion. And if you’ve been reading this space, you know that the SEC either wants an eight-best format or a 12-team format with six automatic qualifying spots for conference champs. Either one would allow plenty of room for SEC programs with a few schedule blemishes to make the field. And in the unlikely event the CFP stays at four beyond the 2025 season, a nine-game schedule probably wouldn’t reduce the SEC’s odds of producing a national champion in most years. If anything, it probably would increase the likelihood of a two-loss team getting admitted to a four-team system — which has yet to happen in the eight-season history of the CFP.

The good news on this front is the SEC doesn’t have to make a decision this week. It can push this for a little longer and wait to see if some clarity emerges on the next CFP format. The new schedule format needs to be in place when Oklahoma and Texas arrive. That’s 2025 at the latest. We’ll refrain from any speculation as to whether those two could buy their way out of the Big 12 early; so far, there has been no indication they can. But the SEC also might want to have the new format ready for 2024, when the league’s new media rights deal with ESPN begins. Doing so probably would require a decision on a model by late 2022 or early 2023. Pushing until 2025 would buy another year. “We get to set our own timetable here,” SEC commissioner Greg Sankey said Wednesday.

For the schools that crave bowl eligibility, it would be wise to remember that the schools make the NCAA’s rules. So these schools could simply lobby to change the rule for bowl eligibility. They’d likely find plenty of allies in the ACC, Big 12, Big Ten and Pac-12. The Group of 5 leagues would understandably be dead set against lowering the standard for bowl eligibility. But answer this question honestly: Which Boca Raton Bowl would you rather watch while wrapping presents/casually betting second-half totals? Do you want Western Kentucky–Appalachian State or Mississippi State–Minnesota?

And please, don’t even start with the arguments about the need for bowls to be a reward for a great season. That was true when there were eight bowls. It’s laughable when there are more than 40. They are television inventory for our entertainment, and our viewing habits suggest that adding a few more could make some more coin for ESPN.

The supporters of the 3-6 model also likely would extend an olive branch to those schools by eliminating the requirement to book at least one Power 5 school in the nonconference schedule. So Georgia could keep scheduling Georgia Tech annually and a Clemson/Florida State type in most years — which it would even with a nine-game SEC schedule — and Arkansas could schedule Rice instead of Oklahoma State or Notre Dame. I don’t think that would make Arkansas fans happy. Nor do I think it would make them buy more tickets. But it would make 5-7 a lot less likely. (What’s odd about all this is that the schedules for Arkansas and Mississippi State would usually be easier without being in the meat grinder that is the current SEC West.)

For years, fans of Big 12, Big Ten and Pac-12 schools have surmised that the SEC would always stick at eight conference games to minimize the possibility of losses for CFP purposes. The group within the SEC that wants to move to nine conference games doesn’t care about any outside pressure to homogenize scheduling models across conferences. This is market-driven. The current model — eight conference games within two seven-team divisions and one permanent crossover opponent — has caused home schedules to grow stale. That has produced lower season ticket sales at some schools and no-shows at places that still sell all their season tickets. (No-shows eventually turn into no-sales.) Texas A&M has been in the league for 10 seasons and played football at Georgia once. The Bulldogs still haven’t played an SEC game at Kyle Field.

What’s interesting is the staleness of the schedule was a result of the SEC trying too hard to protect tradition. Keeping Alabama-Tennessee an annual game was the main reason both cross-divisional opponents didn’t rotate each year. Now the SEC has a chance to protect that tradition and create more variety.

If its school leaders can get out of their own way and make the obvious choice.

(Photo of Alabama quarterback Bryce Young scrambling for a first down against Tennessee: Gary Cosby Jr. / USA Today)



Read original article here

Staples: At a time when the NCAA needed a visionary leader, it hired Mark Emmert. His failures were plain to see

In 2009, a cadre of plaintiff’s attorneys led by Michael Hausfeld sued the NCAA on antitrust grounds on behalf of former UCLA basketball Ed O’Bannon and an as-yet-determined class.

Hausfeld had represented native Alaskans against Texaco after the Exxon Valdez oil spill. He had represented a class of Holocaust victims against a Swiss bank that held their money for the Nazis who had stolen it. Clashing with him would require a visionary NCAA leader capable of imagination, flexibility and a willingness to push the NCAA’s membership to make meaningful changes lest a wave of common sense get the NCAA laughed out of multiple courthouses and into regulatory purgatory.

Instead, the NCAA hired Mark Emmert.

In November 2010, Emmert took over as president of college sports’ governing body following tenures as the CEO at the University of Washington and LSU. The NCAA announced Tuesday that at some point between now and June 2023, Emmert will leave the office having presided over the near-complete dismantling of the organization and its once-unquestioned power. Whether that would have happened with or without him is a perfectly legitimate question. The world changed. The structure of the NCAA wasn’t designed to adapt quickly — to anything.

But Emmert cashed the (exceedingly large) checks. So he gets to wear the failure.

In a way, that was the entire point. Emmert was paid handsomely — as much as $2.9 million a year — to act as a heat shield for a bunch of university presidents who were either too greedy, too scared or too disinterested to adapt to a changing landscape and adjust the organization accordingly. At times, Emmert’s 12-year tenure felt like the 11-year period when the old World Wrestling Federation held out Canadian promoter Jack Tunney as the organization’s “president.” On TV, Tunney looked very official, and he made statements on all the major (fictional) events that affected the organization. Nine-year-old me didn’t understand that Vince McMahon was really in charge, so I yelled at the screen if Tunney handed down a decision that negatively affected Hulk Hogan or the Junkyard Dog or any of my other favorite wrestlers. Especially in the later years of his tenure, Emmert felt like that kind of figurehead. The CEOs at Georgetown or Wisconsin or Georgia or Oregon State were making — or not making — the decisions. Emmert felt as if he was just there for all of us to yell at.

Emmert did try to exercise power at first. In fact, one of his first major acts suggested he was keenly aware of the iceberg ahead. Less than a year into his tenure, Emmert held a retreat that included various university CEOs. During this retreat, Emmert pushed the idea that schools should be allowed to provide up to a $2,000-a-year stipend as part of athletic scholarships to help those scholarships get closer to the actual cost of attendance figure that the schools submitted to the federal government each year. He also voiced support for then-SEC commissioner Mike Slive’s idea to allow schools to offer four-year athletic scholarships instead of one-year, renewable ones.

“There’s a strong appetite … to find ways that allow us to be more flexible,” Emmert told ESPN in 2011. “All of our one-size-fits-all rules don’t really work when you’ve got schools as different as a small liberal arts college and a great big state university.”

Except the appetite apparently wasn’t that strong. Several leaders, most notably Boise State president Bob Kustra, voiced their disapproval of the plan. It didn’t survive an override vote, and an ever-so-tiny step toward progress was scuttled. It showed promise that Emmert saw a potential issue and worked toward a potential solution, but not being able to matriculate even that minuscule gesture across the goal line was a political failure that foreshadowed what was to come. Instead of building a consensus, Emmert allowed some shortsighted people to cause the NCAA to dig in its heels even further in the schools’ effort to keep money away from athletes even as they poured more every day into coaching salaries, athletic director salaries and questionably necessary facility improvements.

Emmert tried to grab the reins and curry public favor in 2012 when he and his hand-picked executive committee rammed through sanctions against Penn State for the Jerry Sandusky scandal. But Emmert didn’t consider several things: The NCAA had no authority to punish a school’s football program for something that was clearly a criminal matter, and going outside the usual enforcement procedure to issue such a punishment would sow mistrust from the leaders of the schools the NCAA governs.

The NCAA rolled back the penalties two years later, a few months before Emmert crony and Oregon State president Ed Ray — the chair of the executive committee — revealed in a deposition that he didn’t even bother to read the Freeh Report, which was the basis for the punishment, before issuing the punishment.

By the time those penalties were rolled back in September 2014, Emmert already had lost his Waterloo. That came June 19, 2014, in a federal courthouse in Oakland, Calif. On that day, Emmert took the stand in O’Bannon v. NCAA. The most damning part of his testimony didn’t come in an answer to a question from Hausfeld or any member of his team. Instead, it involved Emmert falling into a trap laid by the plaintiffs’ attorneys. During his cross examination of Emmert, attorney Bill Isaacson had zeroed in on the concept of amateurism as defined by the NCAA manual.

“Student-athletes shall be amateurs in an intercollegiate sport, and their participation should be motivated primarily by education and by the physical, mental and social benefits to be derived. Student participation in intercollegiate athletics is an avocation, and student-athletes should be protected from exploitation by professional and commercial enterprises.”

Shortly after, Judge Claudia Wilken cut off Isaacson and started asking her own questions of Emmert. This was a bench trial, so Wilken — not a jury — was the arbiter. The word “exploitation” in that context clearly struck a nerve with Wilken. It led to this exchange:

Wilken: What do you mean that student-athletes should be protected?

Emmert: “There’s no shortage of commercial pressures to utilize student-athletes in promoting commercial products.”

Wilken: Do you consider that to be exploitation of them? Or is it just something you don’t want?

After this exchange, plaintiffs’ attorneys followed by showing everyone in the courtroom a series of photos showing college athletes either wearing or standing in front of corporate logos. One photo showed the entire Kansas State football team running across a Buffalo Wild Wings logo. The message was obvious. The schools and Emmert’s NCAA were happy to have college athletes promote commercial products as long as the schools or the NCAA got the money instead of the athletes themselves.


NCAA president Mark Emmert testifies in Washington during a Senate hearing a month after the Ed O’Bannon ruling in 2014. (Pablo Martinez Monsivais / Associated Press)

The NCAA should have offered to settle in that humiliating moment. Emmert should have pushed school leaders to understand that people who hadn’t been indoctrinated by decades of NCAA propaganda could see right through every flimsy argument the NCAA’s attorneys had in their (tiny) toolbox. This included federal judges. Before he flew home from Oakland, Emmert should have been on the phone to his executive committee with a message: “We’re screwed. We need to start giving the athletes more now or our entire organizational structure is going to get annihilated.”

He especially should have known this because when he had walked out of that courthouse the previous day, sports law’s version of the Terminator had walked in. Following the Wednesday portion of the trial was a status hearing for other antitrust cases against the NCAA. The plaintiffs in one case were represented by Jeffrey Kessler, who years earlier had helped bring free agency in the NFL. Just as in that case, a sports governing body was claiming that giving more to the athletes would destroy the business. Kessler had watched the NFL grow and grow following its loss in McNeil v. NFL. He had no doubt a system that gave college athletes more wouldn’t mean the end of college sports.

Why did he know this? Because the governing bodies — be they Major League Baseball, the NFL or the NBA — always said this, and they had always been proven stupendously wrong. Emmert would have been wise to remind his constituents of this. But either because they refused to budge, because he refused to budge or because Emmert lacked the political wherewithal or force of personality to convince them they needed to try to negotiate, the school leaders who actually make the NCAA’s decisions dug in their heels and tried to take on Kessler on his home turf.

We know how that turned out. That case, Alston v. NCAA, ended with the NCAA getting skunked 9-0 in the U.S. Supreme Court. Though the ruling only dealt with the narrowly focused matter before the court — NCAA rules that placed limits on “educational” expenses for athletes — the less forceful-but-still-potent majority decision and the fire-breathing concurrence from justice Brett Kavanaugh were clear: All of the NCAA’s rules were subject to antitrust scrutiny, and any rule challenged in the federal court system ran the risk of being declared illegal.

At the same time the Alston case hurtled toward its lopsided conclusion, Emmert’s NCAA managed to do something that seemed impossible: It united politicians on the left and the right in one of the most divided times in our nation’s history. Blue states — citing workers’ rights — and red states — citing free markets — passed laws that essentially made the NCAA’s rules against players making money off their name, image and likeness rights illegal. This was a classic case of pigs getting fat and hogs getting slaughtered. The schools had been so unwilling to give the athletes even an inch on this front that the public — which had seen TV contracts and coaching salaries balloon — got fed up. Dunking on the NCAA became the easiest win possible for state lawmakers.

When California became the first state to pass such a law, the NCAA put out a press release. It claimed the schools would adjust the NCAA’s rules accordingly so that further state intervention would be unnecessary. As happens in nearly all NCAA stories, a blue-ribbon committee of athletic directors and other administrators was formed. That committee did meet. Its members took their charge seriously. But nothing ever came of their work. Ultimately, Emmert’s NCAA punted on NIL rules and allowed a patchwork of state laws to go into effect.

While all that went on, a pandemic engulfed the world. The NCAA quickly canceled its championships in spring 2020. But that summer brought fighting among the conferences about what to do in the fall. In August 2020, when the Big Ten and Pac-12 postponed their seasons indefinitely while the ACC, Big 12 and SEC plowed ahead, it became abundantly clear. No one was in charge. Either because the bloated structure of the NCAA made it impossible to lead or because he just didn’t want to lead, Emmert had abdicated. But he kept cashing the checks.

Suddenly, between the rapidly shifting NIL landscape and the schools’ fear to make new rules or enforce existing ones lest they get dragged into federal court, college sports faced the most transformative time in their history. Strong leadership was more important than ever. In April 2021, as if trying to prove it hadn’t been paying attention at all the previous 10 years, the NCAA’s board of governors — a group of university presidents and other leaders — extended Emmert’s contract through 2025. That mistake was corrected Tuesday.

Now more than ever, college sports needs a visionary leader capable of imagination, flexibility and a willingness to push the schools to make meaningful changes. If that passage looks familiar, it should. You read it at the start of this column. The only difference is that all the references to the NCAA have been removed. Because in the wreckage left behind following Emmert’s tenure, an entirely new governing body might be best for everyone involved.

(Photo: Drew Angerer / Getty Images)



Read original article here

Lakers vs. Spurs Final Score: Staples Center era ends with blowout loss

LeBron James and Russell Westbrook continued their scorching hot play, combining for 66 points, but the remains of their supporting cast struggled yet again and the San Antonio Spurs thoroughly dismantled the Lakers’ defense, beating L.A. 138-110. The ugly affair marked the final NBA game played at Staples Center before it’s renamed Crypto.com arena on Christmas.

James was once again the brightest star for the Lakers, finishing with a team-high 36 points, 23 of which came in the first half alone. This marks the sixth time in seven games that James has led the Lakers in scoring, and he’ll have to continue to carry a substantial part of the load with Anthony Davis out for the better part of the next month and the rest of James’ supporting cast outside of Westbrook either in health and safety protocols or struggling mightily to provide any real value on the court.

Westbrook finished with 30 points, including 17 in the third quarter. Talen Horton-Tucker was the only other Lakers scorer in double figures with 13 points, but he shot 5-13 from the field.

The Lakers’ defense continued to look horrible in Davis’ absence, allowing 103 points through three quarters. Despite Dwight Howard’s return to the starting lineup after he spent time in health and safety protocols, the Lakers’ paint protection continued to be absolutely abysmal without Davis, with both Howard and DeAndre Jordan looking like washed-up shells of the former All-Defense rim protectors they once were.

Trevor Ariza’s entrance into protocols earlier Thursday also meant that the Lakers had just two healthy forwards — the 37-year-old Carmelo Anthony and almost-37-year-old James — so their small-ball lineups were (understandably) extremely ineffective on defense as well.

The difference between the older and coronavirus-impacted Lakers roster and younger, healthier Spurs roster — which features zero players over the age of 30 and zero currently in COVID protocols — was especially evident in their second units, as San Antonio’s bench outscored L.A.’s 69-20.

Whether due to the lingering effects of their COVID-19 outbreak — which many other teams have also dealt with — or just the general wear and tear endured by their aging roster, including the injuries suffered by Ariza, Davis and Kendrick Nunn, the Lakers are in another massive rut. The powers that be within the franchise are preaching patience until we see this team at full strength, but L.A. is now 16-17 and running out of time. The team that many expected to compete for an NBA championship has yet to show any signs of being a legitimate threat for a deep playoff run. Absences are setting them up for failure right now, but it’s also getting harder and harder to see them figuring things out in time.

The Lakers commemorated their final game in Staples Center before the name change with a t-shirt and souvenir ticket giveaway, and brought out an honorary “starting five” of former Lakers players and coaches at halftime to pose with the six NBA championship trophies won since the team moved into Staples Center in 1999.

The five ex-Lakers players present were Metta Sandiford-Artest, Robert Horry, Gary Payton, Byron Scott and Luke Walton—the latter two, of course, were also former Lakers head coaches. It was Walton’s first public appearance at Staples Center since he was fired as head coach of the Sacramento Kings earlier this season.

The Lakers now head into an uncertain Christmas Day primetime matchup against the Brooklyn Nets, who have dealt with an even larger COVID-19 outbreak than the Lakers have. Brooklyn had its past three games postponed due to the lack of players available, and currently have 10 players in health and safety protocols, including Kevin Durant and Kyrie Irving.

However, three Nets players — including James Harden — cleared protocols on Thursday, giving Brooklyn enough healthy bodies to suit up for tip-off against the Lakers at 5 p.m. on Saturday. The game will be broadcast nationally on ABC.

For more Lakers talk, subscribe to the Silver Screen and Roll podcast feed on iTunes, Spotify, Stitcher or Google Podcasts. You can follow Austin on Twitter at @AustinGreen44.



Read original article here

Los Angeles Lakers bid adieu in home arena’s final game as Staples Center

LOS ANGELES — Fans at Thursday night’s game between the Los Angeles Lakers and the San Antonio Spurs commemorated the arena known for more than 22 years as Staples Center at its final event before it will be christened as Crypto.com Arena on Saturday.

“Staples,” as it was known colloquially in Los Angeles, became synonymous with the Lakers’ championship teams headlined by Kobe Bryant, Shaquille O’Neal and Pau Gasol and coached by Phil Jackson. The Lakers won the NBA championship each of their first three seasons at Staples Center, and won three additional titles while calling the building home.

At halftime of the Lakers’ 138-110 loss to San Antonio, the team held player introductions for former Lakers Gary Payton, Byron Scott, Luke Walton, Metta Sandiford-Artest and Robert Horry, as each trotted out to stand amid six trophies each resting on a plinth on the court.

Staples Center also hosted three NBA All-Star Games whose MVPs were O’Neal, Bryant and LeBron James, respectively. The 2011 All-Star Weekend featured LA Clippers forward Blake Griffin’s storied dunk over a car on All-Star Saturday. In addition, Bryant’s 81-point milestone in 2006 as well as his 60-point performance in his final NBA game in 2016 took place on the hardwood at Staples Center.

AEG Worldwide, the owner of the arena that has housed the Lakers and the Los Angeles Clippers for the past 20 years, sold the naming rights to office-supply giant Staples in 1997 for $116 million for a term of 20 years that began when the arena opened its doors in downtown Los Angeles in 1999.

The building will be rebranded as Crypto.com Arena on Christmas Day, when the Lakers face the Brooklyn Nets (8p, ESPN). The Singapore-based cryptocurrency platform purchased the rights from AEG for $700 million over 20 years, according to multiple reports.

Read original article here

Philadelphia 76ers’ Dwight Howard ejected after receiving ’20 title ring in return to Staples Center

LOS ANGELES — Dwight Howard flashed a wide smile across his face before the Philadelphia 76ers faced the Los Angeles Lakers on Thursday night, receiving his 2020 championship ring with fellow former Laker Danny Green.

It didn’t take long for Howard’s expression to change from cheer to chagrin.

Howard, making his return to Staples Center, was ejected between the first and second quarters, as referee Kane Fitzgerald called a technical foul on Howard for intentionally walking into Lakers big man Montrezl Harrell on his way to Philadelphia’s bench after the buzzer sounded.

Howard and Harrell had already been called for double technical fouls for getting tangled up with 1 minute, 8 seconds remaining in the first quarter, making the second technical an automatic disqualification for Howard.

Harrell pushed Howard away from him and continued toward the Lakers’ bench, turning to wave goodbye to the three-time Defensive Player of the Year winner while he pleaded his case with Fitzgerald.

The Sixers won 109-101.

“I just thought it was a very selfish play,” Philadelphia coach Doc Rivers said of Howard. “You got one tech, you can’t get another one. We just have to have better discipline. I get it. I know there’s a lot of emotion. But we had one center on our team, and he got thrown out. I was not very happy with that one. I know it’s an emotional game. But he’s a veteran. We got to have better discipline.”

What prompted the pair’s bad blood is unclear, but Harrell, last season’s Sixth Man of the Year while playing for the LA Clippers, might not have ever joined the Lakers in the offseason had Howard not signed with the Sixers.

At the outset of free agency in November, Howard tweeted, “I’m staying right where I belong. Laker nation I love y’all. Purple and gold never gets old.”

In a bizarre turn of events, though, he quickly deleted the tweet and ended up inking a one-year, $2.6 million contract with Philadelphia. Later that day, the Lakers agreed to a two-year, $19 million deal with Harrell.

Harrell, when asked what caused the altercation with Howard, said, “I don’t know, honestly. I don’t even care to be real with you. I was just playing basketball, man.”

He added, “I’m not backing down from nobody, man. I don’t take that lightly. I don’t take none of that disrespect. You’re not gonna push me all around the court and just feel like you’re gonna big-boy me and just attack me or whatever. It’s not in my blood, it will never be in my blood. I don’t care what nobody feels about it, I don’t care who don’t like me. It is what it is.”

Read original article here

Recap: Suns bust Lakers at Staples despite Devin Booker’s ejection, 114-104

There was one decisive word to describe the atmosphere of this game: energy.

Energy, energy, energy – and both teams were diligent to ensure a losing plight didn’t come as a result of lack of effort.

Diving for loose balls, hard fouls, and ornery chatter were all ever-pertinent, and each unit pieced together a display that would epitomize an early Western Conference Playoff matchup.

And they could very well face off in a postseason series in these upcoming months.

The stars were aligned, although some (most notably Anthony Davis) were sidelined, tensions were high, and skills were on primetime as two titans squared off in one of this season’s most important matchups for both.

Lose, and the Lakers would surrender their second-seeded conference ranking.

And nothing could be more sweet for Phoenix than notching a victory against the defending champs.

Suns win, 114-104

1st Quarter

The breadth of each team’s high-volume scoring potency was brandished rapidly upon tip-off.

Jae Crowder splashed home a 3-ball to open scoring for the affair, and Mikal Bridges added a trey of his own to go up 6-0 early.

The Lakeshow stormed back though as Markieff Morris knocked down a step-back jay, and Lebron began unraveling his laundry list of deadly offensive moves to plant his stake in the scoring column.

Chippy gameplay and chirping mouths began to ensue shortly thereafter – a sentiment that wholly confirmed the importance both units had placed on this matchup heading into the All-Star break.

Monty Williams showed a clear desire to dominate down low, and opportunities for Deandre Ayton soared with Marc Gasol sidelined. Ayton ate heartily as Chris Paul fed him low post entry passes, and his early dominance became a glaring weak point for Frank Vogel and his defense.

Phoenix took a 24-15 advantage after Cam Johnson sprayed in a deep ball, holding steadfast to a decent cushion as they entered the break up 29-21.

2nd Quarter

Clearly unhappy with his team’s rocky start, Lebron James decided to take the bucket-getting matters into his own mitts.

The King unleashed a torrent of high-powered attacking drives and rim-running cuts as he exerted his reign on the inside block, thrusting his squad right back into contention.

Talen Horton-Tucker joined Lebron in his scoring governance, and capitalized on a few isolation chances to keep the Lakers in it.

They showed a feverish uptick in defensive intensity as well, and a few timely interceptions led to easy transition openings that allowed Lebron to flash the timeless springiness of his 36-year old legs. Their fortitude on that end ignited a 16-5 run that afforded them a 37-36 advantage.

CP3 showcased his passing wizardry on numerous half-court possessions as he strove to preserve the Suns’ early push, and his calm savviness allowed them to recapture a cozy margin as the quarter wound down.

Phoenix dished out 12 assists on 13 made baskets in an epic display of efficiency, and kickstarted their own 8-2 run, aided by Dario Saric and Cam Johnson that gave them a near 10-point edge.

A Mikal Bridges buzzer-beating 3 put Pheonix up 60-53 heading into halftime. They began the half with an open corner 3, and finished it out in chameleon-like fashion.

“Finished like they started,” in the words of commentator Jim Jackson.

Devin Booker had 15 points at the break, while Bridges finished the first half with 11. Phoenix shot 10/17 from beyond the arc.

Lebron scored 15 through the first two.

3rd Quarter

The Suns went right back to Ayton’s post arsenal at the second half’s inception.

And when he wasn’t receiving one-on-one on ball opportunities, he was the giddy recipient of lofty alley-op tosses from Devin Booker.

Phoenix continued to burn bright offensively as the Book-Ayton duo kicked up their production.

Book put the Suns up nine after converting a 3-point play on a crafty layup maneuver, which enveloped into four points after James was hit with a tech.

Their momentum was quickly siphoned from their grasp however, when an ensuing technical on Booker culminated in his ejection from the game. He received the infraction after a not-so-friendly reaction towards a call in which he added a little extra mustard on a pass to the referee.

The tossing was costly for Phoenix, who quickly surrendered their margin as LA blasted off on its own 7-0 run.

But Chris Paul is battle-tested – and it was here that he showed just how valuable his veteran presence is to this unit.

He was CCC – cool, calm and collected in the heat of the moment, and kept the Lakers at bay as he enkindled several scoring plays to bolster his team’s lead. Their pace of play hastened, but Paul is an efficiency-architect, and his work in creating avenues for points is unmatched.

Phoenix entered the fourth with a slim 86-83 advantage.

Ayton posted 17 through three.

4th Quarter

Phoenix is a unit that refuses to be out-worked. Their best scorer was gone. They’d received litanies of infractions for their testiness. And still, they would not be denied.

The Lakers may have had more talent at their disposal throughout the fourth, but the Suns unloaded a slew of big-time hustle plays that ultimately closed the door on LA’s furious comeback attempt.

Chris Paul knocked down a 28-footer to take a 93-85 lead, before Abdel Nader and Mikal Bridges swished consecutive jumpers.

Lebron and company kept their fire ablaze, cutting the Suns’ edge to just five before Bridges pulled off a magnificent feat of court awareness and foot dexterity: saving a wayward-headed airball in Jae Crowder’s direction, who was waiting under the rim for an easy deuce.

Several scoring contributions from Saric kept the Suns’ lead close to double-digits, and while Lebron sprayed home a couple deadeye 3-balls, his efforts were rendered futile by Phoenix’s stifling defense.

Mikal Bridges’ thunder-jam was an emphatic deathblow to any inklings of Laker life, and Phoenix was able to escape Stales Center with a 114-104 victory.

Lebron would finish with 38 points on 16-24 from the floor in the loss.

The Suns meanwhile, move to the second spot in the West.

Player of the Game

Mikal Bridges: 19 PTS, 6-10 FG, 3-6 3PT, 6 REB, 5 AST



Read original article here