Changing The Rules

During the spring of 2008, on my SeeingBlack.com blog, I wrote about how it doesn't work when people try to change the rules in the midst of a contest.  Fortunately, the worst outcome I forecast as an '08 possibility did not occur...but now in '09 the topic bears revisiting.  So read the piece (which follows), and I'll resume on the other side.

____________________________________________________________________________

One day I was at the gym with one of my college friends, who challenged me to a one-on-one game in the presence of a certain young lady. I told him that I could not stay long, given that I had somewhere to go, and as a result we settled on a game of three baskets. 

I should mention that he was a varsity player, and a much better ballplayer than I, but given the adrenaline rush the young lady's presence provided, I proceeded to knock down my first three shots - which made me the winner, 3-0. 

But before I could walk out the door, my friend insisted that we go up to five baskets. Despite the fact that I had another engagement, I consented, after which he blocked my next shot and scored five straight hoops. To this day, we have a running joke about that game, with me saying I won, 3-0 - and him saying he won, 5-3. 

We have differing views of what happened because the parameters changed in midstream, which really doesn't work well in contested situations. For instance, when the NBA began to consider using the ABA's three-point shot, they experimented with it during a preseason period, and then added it to the game's rules at the beginning of the following season. In retrospect, the three-point shot represented a fantastic addition and has increased the level of excitement in NBA games - but can you imagine the chaos if the league had made the change at 8:37 one evening, in the midst of all of the games being played that night? Should the 1970 Los Angeles Lakers demand the championship trophy for that year because Jerry West's game-tying buzzer-beater from three-quarter court would have been a three-pointer 10 years later, and as such they would/should have won that game (which they went on to lose in overtime) by one point - which would have won them the championship series? 

I am reminded of the sweet reverse layup I dropped in during my one-on-one game, and all of these things for that matter, when thinking about the campaign of Sen. Hillary Clinton. Like my friend, she sees a situation where she is losing and wants to adjust the parameters. At the beginning of the Democratic presidential campaign, the winner was to be the candidate who emerged from the primary process with the most delegates. When that wasn't going well, her camp suggested that the "popular vote" in the various primary states should have equal weight with the delegate count. When that didn't work, they suggested that Sen. Clinton had won the primaries in the biggest states, and that we ought tally the November electoral votes from the states she won and the states Sen. Obama won, and declare the winner that way. Or maybe the "superdelegates" can provide her game-tying shot. 

The problem is that one can certainly change the rules next game, next year, next time - but not in the midst of the contest at hand. And while my friend and I look back and laugh about our game, I should note that nothing of substance was at stake, with the exception of looking good in front of the aforementioned girl. I would hate to see a situation in which the acrimonious nature of this primary campaign leads to a unwelcome result - in a far more important contest this November.

_________________________________________________________________________________

Since this was written the rules have changed in New York City, where the mayor was previously limited to two terms, as per a vote of the people.  As the economy worsened last year, two-term billionaire Mayor Michael Bloomberg engineered a change in the term limitations governing the mayor and city council members, essentially saying that he was uniquely qualified to steer the city out of this financial crisis.

So Bloomberg now seeks a third term, and given his billionaire status, no opponent will be able to "be like Mike" in terms of available resources - which means he's the prohibitive favorite.  I happen to say all of this as an opponent of term limits; in my opinion, we have term limits already built in, which are known as elections.  If your representatives aren't doing the job, vote them out and send them home.

But there's something rather unsettling and overly egotistical about someone implying he's the only one - out of eight million people - who can address the city's problems.  I truly hope nothing tragic occurs with Mike Bloomberg, but what does he think would happen if he dies?  Would New York literally fall off into the Atlantic, or figuratively fall off our collective radar? 

Well, let's examine this through a New York sports prism.  Lou Gehrig, Babe Ruth, Elston Howard and Mickey Mantle are dead, but the Yankees continue on.  Tommie Agee is dead, but the Mets continue on.  Red Holzman and Dave DeBusschere are dead, but the Knicks continue on. 

I might add that Elvis is dead and unable to do any more concerts, but Madison Square Garden continues on.  And Martin Luther King is dead, but his dream continued on.  So I have a feeling that New York City would continue on even if Mike Bloomberg is denied a third term.  Might be worth a try to see.

Why?

Got a few items for a prospective remix of Jadakiss' hit song, "Why":

Why can't I get my June wish?  I mean, nothing against King James, Big Baby, Big Dwight, Mr. Big Shot, or big scorer Kobe - but oh, how I'd love to see David Stern forced to stand at halfcourt and present the NBA Finals MVP trophy to Ron Artest!  The only thing better would be if the championship game were at the Palace at Auburn Hills...which brings me to -

Why didn't A.I. mesh with the Pistons?  Bro, you've got all the individual accolades and all of the numbers...now put a ring on it, by any means necessary.  Of course, the next question is why we didn't realize how good that trade would be for the Nuggets.  Big up to Chauncey Billups!

Why is it that the first time T-Mac ever sees a second-round game - other than from the stands like us - he's out injured?

Maybe it's the natural feeling of wishing success to the overwhelming underdog, but why am I sort of pulling for the Celtics again?

Why are some folks surprised that the Knicks weren't much better - at least as measured in the win/loss column - under Mike D'Antoni than they were under Isiah Thomas?  Mike brought his style of play to New York - a style which I totally love - but unfortunately he didn't bring Nash, Barbosa and Diaw along as well.

I know most of us did not forecast the economic problems being that which they are, and yes, it's easy to be a Monday morning quarterback, but why did the Nets tell their Jersey fan base they were moving to Brooklyn years in advance, which then had an adverse effect on attendance?  Now what happens if the Brooklyn arena doesn't happen?  I know, they'll move to the Prudential Center in Newark, which is there waiting for them and where they probably should have gone all along, but then you gotta go back to the NJ fans with your tail between your legs.

Speaking of quarterbacks, why is that judge insisting that Michael Vick be able to provide evidence that he can be employed?  During the first week that he is released from jail, I'm certain he will become employed, and at a salary that dwarfs that of the judge, for that matter...unless NFL commissioner Roger Goodell steps in, which brings us to the following mixed-sports metaphor -

Why is Roger Goodell so off base?

Why is Goodell saying that he has to determine that Vick has repented, so to speak, in order to gain reinstatement to the NFL?  In case those that want Vick to remain out for some as yet undetermined length of time haven't noticed, we have a legal system in this country which is in place to penalize people for violations of societal laws.  On occasion, the penalty involves imprisonment - but that said, once you have done your time, you have theoretically "paid your debt to society."

So when ex-prisoners in Florida find themselves unable to vote, that is wrong.  When companies make it tough for them to find gainful employment, that is not only wrong, but in many cases a factor which leads some to return to a life of crime.

In Mike Vick's case, a quarterback job or two - or twenty-two, for that matter - may be available to him - and upon the completion of his sentence, he should be able to seek employment in his chosen profession.  Given his talent level in comparison to his peers, that should not be a problem - so if it becomes a problem, that's Roger Goodell's fault, and he will be wrong.