All-Star Game's Loss of Relevance

Tuesday night was baseball's All-Star Game. The 83rd edition of the midsummer classic was a thrashing, with the National League coasting to an 8-0 win. It was 5-0 by the middle of the first inning.

So, yeah, I can't imagine these ratings will be good.

It would be part of a trend. The 1988 game scored a 20 rating for ABC, but FOX hasn't seen a number in double digits since 2001. Last year's 6.9 rating/12 share was the lowest rating ever for the game. With this year's game being a total blowout from the start, it's not a stretch to suggest the number will be worse this time around.

Why has this happened?

There are easy targets. For starters, there's interleague play, which has allowed fans to see more players they wouldn't normally get to see. However, I don't think it's a huge problem. Interleague play started in 1997, and the All-Star Game was already suffering from a ratings downturn.

Using the same Baseball Almanac source already linked, you can see the number go from a 17.4 on CBS in 1991 to a 14.9 the next year. 1993 was a 15.6, followed by a 15.7, 13.9, and a 13.2. 1997 saw another drop, to 11.8, but that was the first year of the game being on FOX, a network not as widely available then as it is now. The number jumped for the next two years, peaking at a 13.3 in 1998, before falling back below the 1997 number and eventually into single digits.

People blame the players for not showing enough willingness to play the game. I don't buy it. If you look at the NFL Pro Bowl, there is more roster turnover than any other all-star game in any sport. There is usually more turnover in hockey than baseball, too. Baseball is in a different spot because of the every-day nature of the season and the number of games in a season, but its players generally seem to understand the need to be at the All-Star Game and be visible.

There are two huge problems, in my view. They are issues the sport is not going to overcome. Instead, baseball has to figure out the best way to deal with them and generate interest in the mid-summer classic once again.

(Or, it could continue to let it flounder in the ratings and become a bit of a laughingstock in that regard.)

For starters, the lure of seeing the game's big stars is gone. On practically a nightly basis, the game's big names are available on television. ESPN carries games. MLB Network carries games. Local regional sports channels have games. If you have DirecTV or a good internet connection, you can purchase the right to watch any game you want, most in HD. If you're a dedicated baseball fan, you likely have access to one or more of these things.

Want to see Stephen Strasburg pitch? Well, there's a good chance you'll have the opportunity eventually. That sweet swing of Prince Fielder? He's on television at least once every couple weeks, even if you don't live anywhere near Detroit or an AL market.

You don't have to wait for the All-Star Game to see the out-of-market stars anymore. They're on TV all the time.

The other issue is just that.

They're on TV all the time, because every game is televised.

FOX gets low ratings for its Saturday Game of the Week because the Game of the Week isn't what it used to be. The Game of the Week -- even when I was growing up -- was the only time during the week that baseball was on television. Yeah, playoff games were on TV, and so was the All-Star Game. Other than that, it was almost exclusively Saturday games for us.

Now, every game is on. There is no motivation to watch a game that doesn't count when you can watch dozens that do every week.

And, no, putting home-field advantage for the World Series on the line hasn't helped. You can blame FOX for the fact it still happens, and that FOX hasn't looked at it and thought it was a really stupid way to decide such a thing is just illogical to me.

It isn't helping make the game better. It isn't helping ratings. It isn't helping interest.

Getting rid of it won't fix anything, but they should get rid of it anyway. Just for the sake of common sense.

The End of FanHouse

Since 2006, I've been a part of a project at AOL called FanHouse. It started as a group of sports bloggers coming together under one roof. Yes, we got paid for our work, but it wasn't about making gobs of money or working a full-time job.

Started by Jamie Mottram, FanHouse slowly gained traction, and with traction came traffic. With traffic came growth.

The FanHouse of today is not something that any of us who were on the initial conference calls in August of 2006 can really identify with. It became a legitimate sports news site, one that broke stories, employed some big-name columnists and analysts, along with top-notch writers who could break news, and we also had Jay Mariotti.

Some of us stuck around. Others, like Mottram, moved on to bigger and better things. Jamie now runs Yahoo's highly successful blog network, and former FanHousers like MJD, Greg Wyshynski, and Shane Bacon work there.

Needless to say, it was a shock on Jan. 13, when AOL announced they were entering into a content arrangement with The Sporting News, an arrangement that would bring on the unofficial death of FanHouse.

Yes, FanHouse will continue on, but the brand is all that remains. The writers you've come to know from the site are generally no more. Many have found gigs, and will be ready on Tuesday to take their talents elsewhere.

I already moved back into my old Red Rock Radio office, and I'm not leaving it anytime soon.

The fact that so many of my colleagues and friends haven't yet found work is troubling. There are some great writers who are free agents -- sorry for the sports vernacular -- as of March 1. Many of them have nothing right now, so I consider myself very lucky.

In the end, it's sad for so many reasons, including the fact that AOL burned bridges with so many talented people over money they could have gotten elsewhere, and if they had done that, many jobs would have been preserved.

Farewell, FanHouse. It's been a hell of a ride.

Pole Vaulter Disqualified Due to ... Yes, Really ... Friendship Bracelet

The things people who coach kids will do to gain a competitive advantage just make me sick sometimes.

A prime example of that is this story out of California. At a high school track meet, with the league title on the line, the deciding points were determined by ...

A friendship bracelet.

I swear I'm not making this up.

A high school senior was disqualified from this meet in Pasadena because she wore a friendship bracelet while she did the pole vault.

... the visiting girls team from Monrovia High was seeking its first-ever Rio Hondo League title against longtime powerhouse South Pasadena High.

With the teams separated by a few points and only the pole vault remaining, Monrovia needed a second-place finish in the event to secure the victory and obtain the title. Both teams gathered around the pole vault pit, loudly celebrating and agonizing over every clearance and miss. Although South Pasadena's Rachel Ma led at 7-feet-6, two Monrovia girls had cleared 7-feet to give their team the lead.

But South Pasadena's best vaulter, Robin Laird, had not competed yet. Now she stood at the top of the runway, preparing for her first vault of the long day -- an attempt at 7-feet-6 that could win the event, the meet and the league title. The crowd fell silent. A crosswind was blowing. Laird began to sprint down the runway through the gauntlet of spectators, but suddenly stopped; something didn't feel right.

"I was feeling nervous," she would later say, "because the whole league championship was on the line."

Laird walked back to the top of the runway, gained her composure, then took off again. This time everything was in sync. She planted the pole, lifted herself into the air and soared easily over the bar to give her team a 66-61 victory. While half the crowd cheered and the other half groaned, Monrovia coach Mike Knowles reacted by pointing to his wrist and gesturing toward Laird, who was wearing a thin, colorful string bracelet.

Knowles justified his decision to tattle by pointing out that he's coached the sport for 30-some years and knows the rules.

Opposing coach P.J. Hernandez doesn't dispute the ruling, but he seems to think there was some gamesmanship at work here.

"Mike Knowles was down by the pole vault pit, kind of waiting and sitting there, keeping an eye on our girl, waiting for her to attempt the vault and then make the call, " said Hernandez. "I am upset that he wanted to win so badly that he would do it that way. We feel sportsmanship is important, too, and that it is in question with him in this situation."

When is it okay for a drive and desire to win to take over for common sense and good sportsmanship?

No one argues that this rule doesn't exist or wasn't properly applied.

(It can be argued, however, that this is a really stupid rule. A blanket rule about jewelry probably is the easy way out for a high school sports league, but reality is that there are no competitive or safety concerns involved with a piece of string on someone's wrist. The blanket rule is understandable, but about as necessary as a batting glove for a tee-ball player.)

Later in the article, Knowles is quoted as insisting he didn't notice the bracelet until after the gal had cleared the meet-winning jump, and he "didn't want to have to do it."

Only in your warped, over-competitive mind, Coach Knowles, did you have to do anything. There was no obligation to "do the right thing" and tattle on Laird. In fact, the right thing to do would have been to keep your mouth shut until you had a chance to shake the winning coach's hand.

At that point, you kindly mention something like:

"I noticed your last pole vaulter jumped while wearing a friendship bracelet. I just want you to know that any jewelry on a competitor is grounds for disqualification as per Section 3, Article 3 of the National Federation of State High School Associations. I didn't have the heart to do it, but understand that even in high school sports, some coaches are over-competitive jackasses who will stop at nothing to win, even if it means tattling on a teenager for wearing a piece of string on her wrist. Congratulations to you and your team on a well-deserved win today."

That way, you address the issue without breaking the hearts of a bunch of people who had no clue.

Everyone learns a lesson, and your team learns the most important rule of all:

Just because you have a chance to gain a competitive advantage doesn't mean you should do it.

Why the Rooney Rule Doesn't Work

For many years, teams in the National Football League did a terrible job of considering minorities for high-level football positions, whether it were on the coaching staff or in the front office.

Call it whatever you want (coincidence, racism, overblown, etc.), but it gave the league a bit of a black eye. After all, a good chunk of NFL players are minorities, and many of them had the desire and smarts to get into coaching.

The league's well-intentioned way of getting more opportunities to deserving minority candidates was something called the Rooney Rule. Named for Steelers patriarch Dan Rooney and his family, the rule requires NFL teams to interview minority candidates for head coaching and major front office positions. The teams aren't required to hire any minorities, but must interview them before moving forward.

In many ways, the rule has done a lot of good. No one will ever know what opportunities would have been available for guys like Raheem Morris, Mike Singletary, Jim Caldwell, Perry Fewell, and Lovie Smith were this rule not in place, mandating that they at least get a chance to interview.

However, the rule has its flaws, as evidenced by a few hires over the years, as well as one that took place on Thursday.

The Washington Redskins finally made a change atop their football food chain. Executive vice president Vinny Cerrato stepped down Thursday morning, and he was replaced by former Buccaneers and Raiders executive Bruce Allen.

Allen is white, and while ESPN's Adam Schefter reported that the team interviewed two minority candidates to comply with the Rooney Rule, there is an issue with Allen's hiring.

The issue is that it's likely the Redskins had no intention of hiring a minority candidate. Allen, who is the son of legendary former Redskins coach George Allen, is the guy they wanted, and they simply conducted two token interviews to make sure they were in compliance.

Given Allen's history with former NFL coach turned commentator Jon Gruden, it seems a slam-dunk that Gruden will join the franchise as head coach next season.

Of course, the Redskins will face a heavy fine from the NFL if they go through with that hire without conducting any other interviews.

However, why would you agree to be interviewed for a job you have no chance at? Sure, you could blow the organization away, but what are the odds that it would matter? 100-to-1?

The Lions were fined for hiring Steve Mariucci, but they only hired him after two minority candidates turned down interviews. They turned them down because they knew the Lions wanted local boy Mariucci to coach the team.

Listen, I'm all for more diversity in football management. It's a problem, and it needs to go away. The NFL can do without the perception of racism in its franchises.

That said, the Rooney Rule goes too far. There are teams that go into a hiring process with an open mind. Others aggressively pursue one desired candidate from the start, and that's okay. There is no exact science on hiring the right coach, because both the open- and closed-minded approaches have worked and failed.

The league has made a lot of advances in this area, but it needs to get back to allowing teams to make hires they want, if that's how they want to roll.

After all, no one whined when the Colts hired Tony Dungy and Jim Caldwell without conducting any other interviews, did they?