Bump for new season. Tonight's episode, "Broke", originally airs on ESPN at 8pm EST.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efzKNh-_poU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efzKNh-_poU
Which is a better sales pitch to a 22 year old:I'll probably watch, but boy does that look to be a depressing show.
I've never understood how an agent can help an athlete land a contract that pays him more money than he can even grasp and then does nothing to help him manage his sudden wealth. Putting aside the ethical reasons for addressing the problem, it's also a huge advantage as they recruit clients. ("You're not going to end up in bankruptcy 3 years after your playing days are over.")
I understand the point you are making, but the contrast you present here is a little silly. Also - it's not a binary decision in any case.Which is a better sales pitch to a 22 year old:
A.) "I'm going to put you together with an excellent fee- based financial advisor who, based on your unusual risk tolerance for a high earner of your age, will focus on 1.) maxing out 529 contributions to your kids, 2.) creating an 18-24 month cash "emergency fund", 3.) buying a modest home with little or no mortage and 4.) creating a diverse portfolio of low cost mutual funds, with a very healthy allocation to bonds"r
B.) "Hey grab your posse, we're going to the steak house and then the strip club and here's $3k in walking around money*
*(to be paid back from your first paycheck but you won't figure that out, will you)
Either Shelter and I are hopelessly cynical or you are naive. Put another way, how old is Plaxico? Ocho?I understand the point you are making, but the contrast you present here is a little silly. Also - it's not a binary decision in any case.
Beyond that, pro athletes change agents all the time and the decision process for the kid coming out of school is a lot different than the decision process for the 27 or 28 year old in line for that first big contract.
To be somewhat less sarcastic, I think the caliber of client care agents give is going to vary immensely agent to agent and sport to sport. Like any other profession different agents have their niche. Tom Condon--who represents like half the starting quarterbacks in the league--probably has to differentiate himself more and provide access to financial planning travel agents, sports psychiatrists, flowers for the QB wife, whatever they want, in a way that some lower tier agent whose speciality is "undrafted guys from the big 12" don't need to, and possibly can't afford to, provide. There's an agent whose name escapes me who signs all the ivy league guys--I assume his clients have different expectations than someone who gets first round picks from USC.I understand the point you are making, but the contrast you present here is a little silly. Also - it's not a binary decision in any case.
Beyond that, pro athletes change agents all the time and the decision process for the kid coming out of school is a lot different than the decision process for the 27 or 28 year old in line for that first big contract.
I didn't really like it. Hated the format and would've preferred they focused on a couple of former players and told their story in more detail, kind of like the Real Sports segment on this topic back a year or two ago. It felt like the USA Today version of broke pro athletes."Broke" was good, not great. Not an awesome second first effort.
Not only that, but it didn't really address the biggest issue that plagues many of these guys, out-of-control spending habits. Sure, there are some guys who are broke because they did not make smart decisions with their investments. But the issue for many of these guys isn't knowing how to properly invest their money, it is knowing what percentage of their take-home pay they should be investing, rather than buying the mansion or the 2nd Bentley. Especially for guys who have short careers, even though they might be pulling down significant coin while they are playing, it is not really enough to retire on when you are in your mid to late 20s and your career ends. They did adress that issue, but the pie-chart was just so randomly out-of-place as it related to the rest of the story.The model portfolio they quickly threw up on the screen at the end of the documentary undermined the whole thing. "Invest 20% in alternatives and put a big chunk into "private equity" (presumably various franchise-type businesses and not some new Bain Capital fund)!" is really horrendous investment advice for most people.
If memory serves "private equity" was like 50% of the usual expenditures and 5-10% of the recommended portfolio--I should have been more specific about what I meant by "big chunk" but I think that 10% in McDonald's franchises, etc. is probably way too much for most investors who are full time professionals in non-investment fields with assets in the high six or seven figures (and I'd include dentists, lawyers, doctors, etc. in this category along with the Dan Connolly, Nick Punto type athletes ).I thought the model portfolio had a very small segment of private equity and was focused on most securities, while the "usual expenditures" graph had the huge private equity number.
Most people are legally unable to follow that advice. You need to be an accredited investor to each all of the filling in two of the pie slices that they threw up.The model portfolio they quickly threw up on the screen at the end of the documentary undermined the whole thing. "Invest 20% in alternatives and put a big chunk into "private equity" (presumably various franchise-type businesses and not some new Bain Capital fund)!" is really horrendous investment advice for most people.
Not only that, but it didn't really address the biggest issue that plagues many of these guys, out-of-control spending habits. Sure, there are some guys who are broke because they did not make smart decisions with their investments. But the issue for many of these guys isn't knowing how to properly invest their money, it is knowing what percentage of their take-home pay they should be investing, rather than buying the mansion or the 2nd Bentley. Especially for guys who have short careers, even though they might be pulling down significant coin while they are playing, it is not really enough to retire on when you are in your mid to late 20s and your career ends. They did adress that issue, but the pie-chart was just so randomly out-of-place as it related to the rest of the story.
Go Lexxi, go. Solid piece of news there.Insult to injury: Kosar's daughter apparently does porn.
http://network.yardbarker.com/nfl/article_external/lets_see_what_bernie_kosars_porn_daughter_lexxi_silver_is_up_to_these_days/10866560
No fucking shit. And I thought the documentary was as even handed as humanly possible. As a viewer I thought we were allowed to make our own conclusion.I don't think Carl Lewis could come across as more unlikable
I dunno. Lewis made it easy for them because he's such a diva, but I thought it was clearly slanted in Johnson's favor.No fucking shit. And I thought the documentary was as even handed as humanly possible. As a viewer I thought we were allowed to make our own conclusion.
I thought they gave Lewis, and his camp, every opportunity to explain themselves. Same with Johnson. Just about everyone in the documentary other than Lewis admitted to PED use. Thats why he came across bad, and not because of fancy editing and such.I dunno. Lewis made it easy for them because he's such a diva, but I thought it was clearly slanted in Johnson's favor.
I'm guessing Simmons wrote that himself, since the original, hand-written rules of soccer (which is only eleventy billion times more popular than basketball) also exist and were recently bought at auction.A story of the most important document in sports history -- James Naismith's original rules of basketball -- and the quest to return it home
I'm with you, but is soccer that much more popular than basketball? I know I've read that basketball is the fastest growing sport in the world in terms of popularity. I think eleventy billion times is (other than the obvious hyperbole) a bit much. I agree, though, that calling Naismith's rules the most important document in sports history is more than a bit presumptuous.I rolled my eyes at the blurb.
I'm guessing Simmons wrote that himself, since the original, hand-written rules of soccer (which is only eleventy billion times more popular than basketball) also exist and were recently bought at auction.
The journalistic ethics are, also, um, questionable.I'm about 15 minutes into this and so far I'm bored. This is one of the biggest or most interesting sports stories of the last 30+ years? It's just a Kansas fan trying to buy something, I'm not sure why I'm supposed to give a shit.
Edit: God, this is just terrible. When he goes to Naismith's grave, holy cow, that was bad. And he's a terrible salesman.
Soccer needs rules written down?I rolled my eyes at the blurb.
I'm guessing Simmons wrote that himself, since the original, hand-written rules of soccer (which is only eleventy billion times more popular than basketball) also exist and were recently bought at auction.
There is maybe one country in the entire world where basketball is the most popular sport: the Philippines.I'm with you, but is soccer that much more popular than basketball? I know I've read that basketball is the fastest growing sport in the world in terms of popularity. I think eleventy billion times is (other than the obvious hyperbole) a bit much. I agree, though, that calling Naismith's rules the most important document in sports history is more than a bit presumptuous.
This is the crux of why the show wasn't very interesting. The original rules of hoops? Who gives a shit.I've never really thought of the original rules of soccer as the most important document in the history of sports, because I've never thought of anything as the most important document in the history of sports because why should I?
I'm actually going to argue that Naismith's rules are more important, regardless of the fact that soccer is the most popular sport in the world. The difference as I see it, is that soccer developed organically. The Cambridge rules and Sheffield rules and other similar documents merely codified the rules of a sport that already existed. Even if no one had bothered to sit down at Cambridge in 1858 and write down the rules, soccer still probably would've developed in much the same way.I'm guessing Simmons wrote that himself, since the original, hand-written rules of soccer (which is only eleventy billion times more popular than basketball) also exist and were recently bought at auction.
I'm half way through this right now and I was confused, so I came here. why should we really care? This is one step away from an Internet Petition. A sports writer campaigns to have the original rules of basketball at a place where it didn't even originate but where he thinks it really came to life? Does anyone really care but him?This is the crux of why the show wasn't very interesting. The original rules of hoops? Who gives a shit.
BTW, was it SI writer Steve Wulf who pretty much said that basketball began in Springfield but tried to cover his tracks by saying the game's teenage years were spent in Kansas? That didn't help his theory.
Not a trailer. That was the whole thing.If I were in charge of ESPN, and some filmmaker proposed making an hour-long documentary on the origins of a non-alcoholic mixed beverage named after a golfer -- even one of the greatest golfers in history -- I'd have laughed in their face.
But holy crap if this isn't one of the most enjoyable 30-for-30 trailers I've seen. And that, ladies & gentlemen, is why I'm not in charge of ESPN.
The Arnold Palmer
Yet another reason why I'm not in charge of ESPN.Not a trailer. That was the whole thing.