Hey Now, You're An All Star
- Wade
Atlanta Falcons QB Michael Vick, the NFL-anointed "Michael Jordan of football," announced yesterday that he will miss the Pro Bowl in Honolulu next month. He will remain in the contiguous states to have a bunion removed from his foot. I'm no podiatrist, but a bunion sounds too much like an onion for me to want to leave it on my body for too long.
Vick's announcement followed a similar announcement from Chiefs running back Priest Holmes. The NFL's offensive player of the year will miss the game because he is still recovering from a hip injury. Holmes joins Randy Moss, Walter Jones, Orlando Pace, Brett Favre, and Ahman Green as players who were supposed to play in the Pro Bowl but have withdrawn due to injury. This list will no doubt increase in length as we get closer to the game.
Are some of these withdrawls legitimate? Of course. They all are. If I were an NFL player, I'd withdraw if I had the sniffles. Why? These games DO NOT matter. Do you remember who won the Pro Bowl last year? Of course not. (The AFC won. If you got it right, good guess.) Why would a player risk injury, and future lucrative contracts, by playing a game that doesn't affect anything, and is watched by fewer and fewer fans each year? Granted, the level of play in the Pro Bowl would never be called aggressive-- but I believe the players assume an inherent amount of risk just by participating.
To that end, I'm (strangely) impressed by the efforts of Bud Selig and Major League Baseball owners to give meaning to their All-Star game-- proposing to give the winning league home-field advantage in the World Series. Granted, this is likely a move to save face after last summer's "no tying in baseball" fiasco, but it's still superior than the current method of alternating the home league every year.
Criticisms of this proposal are not hard to find. The most valid is that the risk of injury will actually increase by giving the game meaning. This cannot be denied; however, as with the NFL, there is risk inherent in going out onto the field; wouldn't you rather see Torii Hunter ripping up his knee catching a fly ball in a game that actually meant something? If this change is implemented, players will actually care about being on the team, managers will actually manage to win vs. not wanting to hurt anyone's feelings, and fans will watch the game with more excitement than the home run derby.
This won't pass the players' union. Who would be in favor of eliminating a 3-day vacation? But it's a step forward in reforming the All Star game. Because, if there's no meaning attached to these games, why even have them? Give the players time off to relax, instead of making them think of complex excuses as to why they don't want to risk injury in a pointless exhibition game.
What do you think? Drop us a line at webmaster@simpleprop.com and give us some
feedback. Maybe we'll even run your letters in future Gambits. 'The Daily Gambit' is updated every weekday.
