Robert from Butte, Montana asks, "Is Kellen Winslow, II the biggest idiot you've ever seen?"
I'll reserve judgment on Winslow's idiocy momentarily, but I must say I can't fault him for wanting to drive a motorcycle; I do fault him for his lack of driving ability. Did he not crash in a parking lot? If you buy yourself a 750cc motorbike, you should know that it's going to accelerate just a bit quicker than the Fisher-Price Big Wheel you had when you were five. I'm not Valentino Rossi, six-time MotoGP world champion, but I think I know how fast a crotch rocket can get away from you. Apparently, Winslow didn't know — that's why he totaled his bike and nearly ruined his career.
Sure, what he did was stupid, but at least he was injured crashing a motorcycle. That's a noble injury. I'm sure Winslow feels no shame answering the question "How did you get hurt?" with "Motorcycle crash."
Some athletes can't say as much. Do you think Sammy Sosa was proud to say he missed games because he injured his back sneezing? Or that Chuck Finley missed a start on the mound because his wife, Tawny Kitaen, beat him up? Sure, Kellen, your injuries are much more legitimate than Sosa's and Finley's.
But then, what if someone asks you the follow-up question: "How fast were you going, and where did you crash?" This is where you start looking not so cool. You could always lie and say you were doing 160 trying to elude the cops on the interstate. They make hit rap songs about that, you know. Unfortunately, for your sake and your reputation, your were cutting through the wind at a 35 mph clip ... in a parking lot! Awesome! Maybe they make country songs about that.
I can't fault you for not having your helmet properly strapped on. After all, you were only doing 35. I'm sure you didn't expect to crash at such a low speed. Heck, I don't wear a life jacket when I go wading, so I know what you were thinking. Anyway, what were you doing with a motorcycle anyway? You make millions every year to play football, and you might even make a few bucks not playing this year. Shouldn't you be driving a Hummer, a Benz, a Lexus, or some other status-mobile?
Let me guess. You didn't have a bike until a few days ago, when you realized, "Damn, I bought all the homies in my posse a bike, and they're having so much fun, I need to get myself one." That's it, isn't it? You fell victim to what we regular people call peer pressure. In your situation, and in the situation of many young, rich, and impressionable athletes/millionaires, you got bit by "posse pressure."
Look, your livelihood is your degree from the University of Miami ... wait, who am I kidding? Let's face it, you majored in football at Miami, and minored in academics. Your livelihood is football, and your livelihood is based on the speed and strength of your arms and legs. That's your investment, an investment that pays a pretty good dividend. To protect your investment, you should stay away from anything remotely hazardous to your body. And if you just can't resist living dangerously, at least do your homework. You failed your written driving test the first time you took it, and you only passed your driving test five days before your wrecked. Not to mention, you refused to take driving lessons.
Now, I know lessons would have looked whack in the eyes of your crew, but you could have done it on the sly. As it is now, you've ruined motorcycle riding for all other athletes now. Now, no other athlete can get on his motorcycle without thinking of your crash, or having someone remind him of it.
Remember this, K2. If your father's brilliant career could be defined by one moment, it is the image of the exhausted Chargers' tight end being helped off the field by teammates after the epic Chargers/Dolphins playoff game of 1982. As of now, your "career" is defined by you being carted away on a stretcher from your bone-headed parking lot accident. I'd say pops has you beat, and then some, and then some more.
So, yes, Winslow is an idiot. Just a few simple precautions would have prevented his accident. Luckily, for him and many other pro athletes, it helps to have the fall cushioned by cold, hard cash.
Ray from Spartanburg, S.C. asks, "Should the NCAA increase the distance of the three-point shot line?"
The NCAA has made their decision, at least for the 2005-2006 season, to keep the three-point line at its current distance of 19 feet, 9 inches. Had they chosen to increase the distance, I think, ultimately the results would be the same. In other words, the players would adjust and, within a few years, would probably be making the same percentage of threes.
In the eyes of many, the three-point shot plays too much of a role in the college game. Many players, and teams, neglect the easier two-point shot in favor of the more difficult three. Thusly, players are working less on inside shots and passing has taken a smaller role in the game. As a result, scoring in Men's Division I was the lowest since the inception of the three-pointer in 1986.
To me, scoring is not that important of a statistic. What is important is close games. The availability of the three-pointer makes the comeback more likely, and therefore, increases the chances of a close game. The 326 teams in Division I averaged 69.2 points per game. Yes, that's low, but that's only an average. That means that some teams had to average in the 80s to compensate for the teams scoring less than 69.2 to reach that average. These high-scoring teams are generally the ones we see on a regular basis. In this year's NCAA final, North Carolina and Illinois both passed the 80-point barrier, and Illinois' comeback from a double-digit deficit was mostly accomplished with successful three-pointers. So, basically, the three-pointer is fine where it is.
If the NCAA does decide to expand the three-point line, nothing will really change. Let's say, theoretically, the three-point line was moved to 24 feet. Sure, three-pointers taken and made would decrease, at first, but I don't think it would be long before players adjusted their range and were making 30% of these shots. Good shooters probably have that range in their arsenal right now; they just don't need to shoot that far out, right now.
In all likelihood, if the NCAA moves the line, it will be one foot at the most. Today's gunners would barely blink an eye at that change. As in all sports, athletes are becoming better shooters, and athletes in general. It makes sense to make the game more difficult. If the distance of baseball fences can be lengthened because players are hitting the ball farther, naturally the three-point line can be farther from the rim when players are making longer shots.
For the 2005-2006 season, the NCAA rules committee announced that an experimental line of 20 feet, 9 inches will be used on a limited basis. Statistically, you will see differences in the shooting percentages and scoring with the extended line in use. But I doubt it will be a major difference. Players are just too good and so able to adapt that we won't notice much of a change in the game, if any.
Get Your Questions Answered!
Do you have a question or comment? Need a weapon of mass destruction planted in a foreign country? Have a kidney you're willing to part with? Need an alternate use for that newly acquired college diploma? Then send your question/political affiliation/blood type/college major to [email protected]. You may get the answer you're looking for in the next column on Friday, May 27th.
Leave a Comment