NBA Officials Call Fouls On Black Players More Than White Players - NY Times

This is a terrible revelation, but logical considering the nature of prejudice.

May 2, 2007
Study of N.B.A. Sees Racial Bias in Calling Fouls

By ALAN SCHWARZ
An academic study of the National Basketball Association, whose playoffs continue tonight, suggests that a racial bias found in other parts of American society has existed on the basketball court as well.

A coming paper by a University of Pennsylvania professor and a Cornell University graduate student says that, during the 13 seasons from 1991 through 2004, white referees called fouls at a greater rate against black players than against white players.

Justin Wolfers, an assistant professor of business and public policy at the Wharton School, and Joseph Price, a Cornell graduate student in economics, found a corresponding bias in which black officials called fouls more frequently against white players, though that tendency was not as strong. They went on to claim that the different rates at which fouls are called “is large enough that the probability of a team winning is noticeably affected by the racial composition of the refereeing crew assigned to the game.”

N.B.A. Commissioner David Stern said in a telephone interview that the league saw a draft copy of the paper last year, and was moved to do its own study this March using its own database of foul calls, which specifies which official called which foul.

“We think our cut at the data is more powerful, more robust, and demonstrates that there is no bias,” Mr. Stern said.

Three independent experts asked by The Times to examine the Wolfers-Price paper and materials released by the N.B.A. said they considered the Wolfers-Price argument far more sound. The N.B.A. denied a request for its underlying data, even with names of officials and players removed, because it feared that the league’s confidentiality agreement with referees could be violated if the identities were determined through box scores.

The paper by Mr. Wolfers and Mr. Price has yet to undergo formal peer review before publication in an economic journal, but several prominent academic economists said it would contribute to the growing literature regarding subconscious racism in the workplace and elsewhere, such as in searches by the police.

The three experts who examined the Wolfers-Price paper and the N.B.A.’s materials were Ian Ayres of Yale Law School, the author of “Pervasive Prejudice?” and an expert in testing for how subtle racial bias, also known as implicit association, appears in interactions ranging from the setting of bail amounts to the tipping of taxi drivers; David Berri of California State University-Bakersfield, the author of “The Wages of Wins,” which analyzes sports issues using statistics; and Larry Katz of Harvard University, the senior editor of the Quarterly Journal of Economics.

“I would be more surprised if it didn’t exist,” Mr. Ayres said of an implicit association bias in the N.B.A. “There’s a growing consensus that a large proportion of racialized decisions is not driven by any conscious race discrimination, but that it is often just driven by unconscious, or subconscious, attitudes. When you force people to make snap decisions, they often can’t keep themselves from subconsciously treating blacks different than whites, men different from women.”

Mr. Berri added: “It’s not about basketball — it’s about what happens in the world. This is just the nature of decision-making, and when you have an evaluation team that’s so different from those being evaluated. Given that your league is mostly African-American, maybe you should have more African-American referees — for the same reason that you don’t want mostly white police forces in primarily black neighborhoods.”

To investigate whether such bias has existed in sports, Mr. Wolfers and Mr. Price examined data from publicly available box scores. They accounted for factors like the players’ positions, playing time and All-Star status; each group’s time on the court (black players played 83 percent of minutes, while 68 percent of officials were white); calls at home games and on the road; and other relevant data.

But they said they continued to find the same phenomenon: that players who were similar in all ways except skin color drew foul calls at a rate difference of up to 4 ½ percent depending on the racial composition of an N.B.A. game’s three-person referee crew.

Mark Cuban, the owner of the Dallas Mavericks and a vocal critic of his league’s officiating, said in a telephone interview after reading the paper: “We’re all human. We all have our own prejudice. That’s the point of doing statistical analysis. It bears it out in this application, as in a thousand others.”

Asked if he had ever suspected any racial bias among officials before reading the study, Mr. Cuban said, “No comment.”

Two veteran players who are African-American, Mike James of the Minnesota Timberwolves and Alan Henderson of the Philadelphia 76ers, each said that they did not think black or white officials had treated them differently.

“If that’s going on, then it’s something that needs to be dealt with,” James said. “But I’ve never seen it.”

Two African-American coaches, Doc Rivers of the Boston Celtics and Maurice Cheeks of the Philadelphia 76ers, declined to comment on the paper’s claims. Rod Thorn, the president of the New Jersey Nets and formerly the N.B.A.’s executive vice president for basketball operations, said: “I don’t believe it. I think officials get the vast majority of calls right. They don’t get them all right. The vast majority of our players are black.”

Mr. Wolfers and Mr. Price spend 41 pages accounting for such population disparities and more than a dozen other complicating factors.

For the 1991-92 through 2003-4 seasons, the authors analyzed every player’s box-score performance — minutes played, rebounds, shots made and missed, fouls and the like — in the context of the racial composition of the three-person crew refereeing that game. (The N.B.A. did not release its record of calls by specific officials to either Mr. Wolfers, Mr. Price or The Times, claiming it is kept for referee training purposes only.)

Mr. Wolfers said that he and Mr. Price classified each N.B.A. player and referee as either black or not black by assessing photographs and speaking with an anonymous former referee, and then using that information to predict how an official would view the player. About a dozen players could reasonably be placed in either category, but Mr. Wolfers said the classification of those players did not materially change the study’s findings.

During the 13-season period studied, black players played 83 percent of the minutes on the floor. With 68 percent of officials being white, three-person crews were either entirely white (30 percent of the time), had two white officials (47 percent), had two black officials (20 percent) or were entirely black (3 percent).

Mr. Stern said that the race of referees had never been considered when assembling crews for games.

With their database of almost 600,000 foul calls, Mr. Wolfers and Mr. Price used a common statistical technique called multivariable regression analysis, which can identify correlations between different variables. The economists accounted for a wide range of factors: that centers, who tend to draw more fouls, were disproportionately white; that veteran players and All-Stars tended to draw foul calls at different rates than rookies and non-stars; whether the players were at home or on the road, as officials can be influenced by crowd noise; particular coaches on the sidelines; the players’ assertiveness on the court, as defined by their established rates of assists, steals, turnovers and other statistics; and more subtle factors like how some substitute players enter games specifically to commit fouls.

Mr. Wolfers and Mr. Price examined whether otherwise similar black and white players had fouls-per-minute rates that varied with the racial makeup of the refereeing crew.

“Across all of these specifications,” they write, “we find that black players receive around 0.12-0.20 more fouls per 48 minutes played (an increase of 2 ½-4 ½ percent) when the number of white referees officiating a game increases from zero to three.”

Mr. Wolfers and Mr. Price also report a statistically significant correlation with decreases in points, rebounds and assists, and a rise in turnovers, when players performed before primarily opposite-race officials.

“Player-performance appears to deteriorate at every margin when officiated by a larger fraction of opposite-race referees,” they write. The paper later notes no change in free-throw percentage. “We emphasize this result because this is the one on-court behavior that we expect to be unaffected by referee behavior.”

Mr. Wolfers and Mr. Price claim that these changes are enough to affect game outcomes. Their results suggested that for each additional black starter a team had, relative to its opponent, a team’s chance of winning would decline from a theoretical 50 percent to 49 percent and so on, a concept mirrored by the game evidence: the team with the greater share of playing time by black players during those 13 years won 48.6 percent of games — a difference of about two victories in an 82-game season.

“Basically, it suggests that if you spray-painted one of your starters white, you’d win a few more games,” Mr. Wolfers said.

The N.B.A.’s reciprocal study was conducted by the Segal Company, the actuarial consulting firm which designed the in-house data-collection system the league uses to identify patterns for referee-training purposes, to test for evidence of bias. The league’s study was less formal and detailed than an academic paper, included foul calls for only two and a half seasons (from November 2004 through January 2007), and did not consider differences among players by position, veteran status and the like. But it did have the clear advantage of specifying which of the three referees blew his whistle on each foul.

The N.B.A. study reported no significant differences in how often white and black referees collectively called fouls on white and black players. Mr. Stern said he was therefore convinced “that there’s no demonstration of any bias here — based upon more robust and more data that was available to us because we keep that data.”

Added Joel Litvin, the league’s president for basketball operations, “I think the analysis that we did can stand on its own, so I don’t think our view of some of the things in Wolfers’s paper and some questions we have actually matter as much as the analysis we did.”

Mr. Litvin explained the N.B.A.’s refusal to release its underlying data for independent examination by saying: “Even our teams don’t know the data we collect as to a particular referee’s call tendencies on certain types of calls. There are good reasons for this. It’s proprietary. It’s personnel data at the end of the day.”

The percentage of black officials in the N.B.A. has increased in the past several years, to 38 percent of 60 officials this season from 34 percent of 58 officials two years ago. Mr. Stern and Mr. Litvin said that the rise was coincidental because the league does not consider race in the hiring process.

Mr. Wolfers and Mr. Price are scheduled to present their paper at the annual meetings of the Society of Labor Economists on Friday and the American Law and Economics Association on Sunday. They will then submit it to the National Bureau of Economic Research and for formal peer review before consideration by an economic journal.

Both men cautioned that the racial discrimination they claim to have found should be interpreted in the context of bias found in other parts of American society.

“There’s bias on the basketball court,” Mr. Wolfers said, “but less than when you’re trying to hail a cab at midnight.”

Pat Borzi contributed reporting from Minneapolis and John Eligon from East Rutherford, N.J.

Carolina Panthers Cut Keyshawn Johnson

Carolina Panthers Cut Keyshawn Johnson
By MIKE CRANSTON
AP Sports Writer

CHARLOTTE, N.C. -- When the Carolina Panthers drafted Southern California receiver Dwayne Jarrett in the second round Saturday, Keyshawn Johnson was ecstatic.

"This is a great pick. We need another wide receiver," Johnson gushed while working as a draft analyst for ESPN. "This guy is much like me. I'm going to teach him how to play from the point of attack."

He won't get the chance.

The Panthers deemed their older former USC receiver was expendable Tuesday. Johnson, the 6-foot-4 possession receiver and 1996 No. 1 overall pick, was released to make way for a younger 6-foot-4 possession receiver taken with the 45th pick.

"We appreciated the contribution of Keyshawn in his season with the Panthers," coach John Fox said. "He brought us high production, but at this time, we are in a situation in which we have a number of young receivers and thought this was the right time to make the decision."

The Panthers also selected receiver Ryne Robinson in the fourth round of the draft. While he will likely be primarily used as a punt returner, he did catch 91 passes at Miami of Ohio last season. The Panthers also have receivers Drew Carter and Keary Colbert -- plus star Steve Smith.

Johnson, who will turn 35 in July, had 70 catches for 815 yards and four touchdowns last season and became the 16th player in NFL history with 800 career catches. The Panthers signed Johnson last year after he was released by Dallas in a salary cap move so the Cowboys could sign Terrell Owens.

It was hoped Johnson would take pressure off Smith, who was Carolina's lone option in 2005 and was shut down in the NFC championship game by Seattle. But the Panthers, plagued by injuries, stumbled to an 8-8 record and missed the playoffs.

Numerous calls placed to Johnson on Tuesday were not returned. Panthers general manager Marty Hurney said he had a couple of phone conversations with him.

"I don't think he agreed with the decision. I think he feels like he could have come in and helped us in our goal of trying to get to the playoffs and win the championship, but I think he understood our thought process," Hurney said. "I would just say he didn't agree with it."

Johnson has said in the past he would like to work in television after his career his over. Recently he indicated he'd be interested in becoming a general manager of a team someday.

However, Johnson said late last season he wanted to play at least two more years and get to 1,000 career receptions. Johnson didn't appear to be slowing down last season and several teams are in need of receivers.

Johnson was taken by the New York Jets with the No. 1 overall pick in the 1996 draft. He's always been productive, but has also clashed with coaches and teammates while earning the nickname "Me-Shawn." He wrote the famous tell-all book, "Just Give Me the Damn Ball" after his rookie season that ruffled feathers.

Johnson later helped Tampa Bay win the Super Bowl in the 2002 season. But a year later, Johnson was deactivated for the final six games after a feud with coach Jon Gruden.

Still, Bill Parcells, who coached him in both New York and Dallas, called Johnson one of the best players he's ever coached, and there was no apparent rift between Johnson and Fox in Carolina. When Johnson signed with Carolina, he said he was content being the No. 2 receiver behind Smith.

Johnson did express strong support late last season for offensive coordinator Dan Henning, who was eventually fired. After the final game, Johnson said he might retire if Henning was let go, but later backed off that statement.

"I think all you have to do is look at the timing of this decision to figure out that there was nothing more to this than the fact we made the commitment to develop our younger wide receivers," Hurney said. "The decision was made that we had a big enough group of young wide receivers that we were going to commit in that direction."

Jarrett, who had a school-record 216 receptions and a Pac-10 record 41 touchdown catches, will be in town Friday for Carolina's minicamp. It was expected Johnson would spend the weekend razzing him.

Instead, Jarrett could be working with the first team.

"We feel the young guys will step up and fill the roles behind Steve Smith," Hurney said.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Guess Key Thought he'd be there for one more year to Train the Young-uns...Give Credit where it's due,.Like T.O, Key can sometimes have a big Mouth. Unlike T.O. there is no Hubris when Key screws up. He just owns up to it. when he was here in NY he wasn't always the most Likable Guy around Jets camp...But he always worked Hard....Maybe he'll return to Dallas if T.O. doesn't see eye to eye with Coach Phillips... or not...
Bill(Draftnik)

2007 NFL Draft Moves that Didn't Make Sense

The top of the first round didn’ t live up to the hype. The swirling rumors of multiple team trades and top three upheaval never happened. The first eight picks went by and the only eyebrow raisers were Brady Quinn’s notable descent, and Adrian Peterson falling out of the top five. But, even those weren’t too crazy. Peterson was still taken in the top ten and surely the Dolphins, with huge questions at quarterback would take the highly touted Notre Dame quarterback off of the board.

Then, with the ninth overall pick in the 2007 NFL Draft, the Miami Dolphins select Ohio State wide receiver Ted Ginn, Jr. My jaw hit the floor. Is Cam Cameron much more comfortable with Daunte Culpepper or Cleo Lemon than ANYONE could possibly believe?

I have said in the past that if anyone can bring Culpepper back to top form, a guru like Cameron can. But Cameron likes his quarterback to be quick, confident, decision makers. Culpepper hasn’t made a quick decision since Randy Moss exited Minnesota. However, talk of Cameron being disenchanted with Culpepper had to be premature. Given the status of Culpepper’s rehab, Cameron has yet to see Culpepper in action - at least from the perspective as Culpepper’s head coach.

And what of Cleo Lemon? Sure, Cameron made no secret that he liked the kid when the two were in San Diego. But does he have enough confidence in a kid who’s yet to prove anything on the field that he would pass up a top prospect like Quinn?

The passing up of Brady Quinn aside, why Ginn, Jr.? Forget for the moment that the Dolphins have issues at quarterback. Forget the question of drafting a receiver when you have no one to deliver the football. Look at the Ginn selection in its own right. The Dolphins selected a receiver who shows inconsistency catching the football and will likely be nothing more than a replacement for Wes Welker in the return game. Sure the return game is important and Ginn Jr. has the potential to be an even better returner than Welker but do you address the return game with a TOP TEN PICK? The Dolphins weren’t so stacked that they had no other needs that could have been addressed here. I certainly can't believe that they passed up a player who would touch the ball on every offensive down for one that would probably only touch the ball around 7 times a game.

Thirteen picks later, the Dallas Cowboys take advantage of how the Mighty Quinn hath fallen and engineer a trade with Cleveland. The Cowboys take the #36 overall (4th pick of round 2) in this year’s draft and Cleveland’s first round pick in the 2008 NFL Draft to allow the Browns to grab Quinn at 22 before the Kansas City Chiefs have a chance to take the clock at 23. Dallas appears to have made off like bandits with no immediately pressing needs. But then the Cowboys negate the move by handing the #36 overall pick they wrangled from Cleveland to division rival Philadelphia along with their 3rd and 5th round picks to move back into the first round and take Perdue defensive end Anthony Spencer.

Now, Anthony Spencer is a great player who is NFL-ready. He’s got the tools and the ability to make an immediate impact at outside linebacker in Dallas’ 3-4 defense or at defensive end in their 4-3 nickel set. I recognize this. But did Dallas really need to trade away THREE picks for a player at a position where they are already very strong? With DeMarcus Ware, Greg Ellis, Kevin Burnette and Bobby Carpenter all playing well at outside linebacker and Ellis, Ware, and Burnette already great options in nickel, why did Dallas give up so much? If Dallas had an absolute NEED to get back into the first round, you’d think they would at least address positions where they had questions or lack of reliable depth. Auburn guard Ben Grubbs, Central Michigan tackle Joe Staley, Texas tackle Justin Blalock and Arkansas Guard Tony Ugoh all come to mind. Blalock and Ugoh were all available when Dallas would have picked at #36.

Dallas got a great player in Spencer. Dallas did a pretty good job with the picks they had left overall. But that trade back into the first round to take a player in a position that they did not have need surprised me.

Speaking of the #36 overall pick … Kevin Kolb? Kolb was a four-year starter at the University of Houston. He has a strong arm and is very intelligent. I don’t know that he was the best value for the Eagles who have Donovan McNabb and just resigned back up AJ Feely. Even if they wanted to start grooming a player for life after McNabb, Michigan State’s Drew Stanton, Stanford’s Trent Edwards, even BYU’s John Beck and Ohio State’s Troy Smith were still available.

But the Eagles overall draft - as always with Andy Reid at the helm - was very good. Taking Penn State running back Tony Hunt in the third round was an absolute steal. Hunt will be a perfect compliment to Westbrook. I just thought the selection of Kolb - not because he is not good - that high was perplexing.

Quite possibly the second biggest reach, right behind the Dolphins taking Ginn Jr., was the selection of Arizona running back Chris Henry by the Tennessee Titans in the second round. Obviously banking on Henry’s smokin’ time in the 40 yard dash at the combine, the Titans grabbed him to give underachieving LenDale White a run for his money. The Titans allowed Travis Henry and Chris Brown to exit via free agency.

The problem I had with this pick in the second round wasn’t because the Titans didn’t need a running back. But with Tony Hunt and even Rutger’s Brian Leonard still on the board, they had guys they could have picked who had actually carried the load at running back. Henry didn’t get much playing time at all his first three season. His senior year, off-the field issues resulted in a suspension. He didn’t actually start a game his entire NCAA career until the final four games of his senior season. Hunt carried the load at Penn State showing he could move the pile, had excellent hands, and while he didn’t exhibit Henry’s blazing speed, his 4.57 40 time is good enough. Leonard has sub 4.5 speed and has shown the ability to be a tailback and fullback. Henry was a risk in the second round that I did not expect any team to undertake. I am especially surprised that the Titans overlooked his off the field issues given recent events surrounding Titans CB Adam "Pacman" Jones.

Gator LB Brandon Siler, Auburn CB David Irons Among 2007 NFL Draft Late Round Steals.

Anyone can say Louisville RB Michael Bush and Ohio State QB Troy Smith were second day steals. Let’s take a look at some of the prospects that dropped to the final two rounds, and one that went undrafted.

Brandon Siler, a 6′2″, 238 pound linebacker from the NCAA National Champion University of Florida was easily the steal of round seven by the San Diego Chargers. Siler is fast and agile with 4.59 speed. He has fluid hips, flows to the ball well, can knife through gaps to stop the run and drop into coverage. The only knock on Siler is that he sometimes has trouble shedding blocks. He will sometimes try to avoid bigger blockers instead of taking them on and shedding them. With his speed and tremendous work ethic, Siler’s fall to the seventh round is more incredible than Brady Quinn’s drop to the 22nd overall. Siler was picked 240th overall (30th pick of round seven).

Auburn CB David Irons got much less hype than his brother, Auburn running back Kenny Irons. But at the senior bowl, David Irons’ nose for the ball and flat out speed popped a lot of eyes. He showed that he could excel against very good receivers in bump and run and zone coverage. He picked up schemes well and had a knack for finding the ball. At 194th (29th pick of round 6) overall to Atlanta, Irons is a great deal.

Oklahoma linebacker Rufus Alexander was taken by Minnesota 174th (2nd in the 6th round). Alexander is agile and rangy. Possessing 4.62 speed at 6′1″, 227 pounds, Alexander has a knack for being in the right place on the field to make plays. He plays hard against the run but is a bit undersized. He is a bullying pass defender with game speed that surpasses his 40 time.

Undrafted Notre Dame running back Darrius Walker should make a roster somewhere. at 5′10″ 212 Walker isn’t quite big enough to be a mauler but lacks the elite burst and break away speed that would make him a feature back. However, in today’s era of the short yardage specialist, Walker will make a perfect compliment to a team like Tampa Bay who will lose Mike Alstott to retirement sometime soon.

The First Debate of the Caucus

Well, the first democratic debate has come to an end, and as the political pundits over at MSNBC interview each other and talk about who looked the best, I’ll make the call to arms – bloggers: start your fingers!

For starters, to those of you who don’t know exactly where Hillary, Barack, and John Edwards stand on the issues: don’t feel bad. None of us do. The three front-runners coming into the debate have continued their firm stances of not having any firm stances. Hillary is roughly in favor of leaving some people in Iraq, Barack is more or less in favor of leaving no residual troops, and John Edwards is definitely from a poor, southern family. That’s about all they gave up in their continued campaigns to sound passionate without offering real solutions. Oh, and they’re all Christian. That matters to some people, I know.

If you want to know what their stances are – please just check their official sites, because there’s no point in going through a middleman when the information is so readily available. I’ll put the links at the end, if I can figure out how.

Now, to those of you who don’t know where the lesser-known candidates stand: shame on you! For the first time in a very long time, we have a great cross-section of democrats that are all ready to lead our country into a renaissance of peace and understanding. Any one of these candidates would be an unprecedented leap forward from our current administration, and every one has ideas that are both novel and refreshing. But as is the case with so many things in life, the best ones are flying under the radar. So here they are: the candidates without $20 billion….

Not that my opinion should mean anything to anybody other than myself (please just read about the candidates and make a decision on your own), but I’m officially stating that I feel Bill Richardson (Governor of New Mexico) is the best candidate for president of the United States Of America that we’ve had in decades. For virtually every question he was asked, he had a well thought out and decisive answer prepared, even if he wasn’t asked the same questions as the other candidates. He had multiple-points that he attempted to get to in the 1 minute allotted to him per answer. Admittedly, he doesn’t seem to have mastered the art of being concise with his speech, but that just tells me that he was more prepared than anybody else and he knows that there isn’t a quick, 1-minute answer to these difficult questions. His speech was honest (admitting once that he was the last of the candidates to call for Alberto Gonzales’s resignation, partially because Gonzales is Latino) and his opinions were clear and well stated. The moderator once mentioned that Richardson has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize four times, and he was the only one to propose a way to give universal health care without raising taxes (which correlates with his track record in New Mexico, but again – check his site for facts. Blogs are for opinions.)

However, I’m not here to blow smoke up Governor Richardson’s ass, as every candidate is worth mentioning. Standing out from the crowd was former Alaskan representative and senator Mike Gravel. His speech was loud and often accusatory with radical ideas and an aggressive style, but frankly: that’s what we need. He was the most vocal against the Bush administration, but was also opposed to the other candidates that would pander to said administration by trading more money for a long-term timetable of withdrawal and taking any action that wouldn’t result in immediate change. The only other candidate looking for such quick action is Richardson whose timetable is “the end of this calendar year” but Gravel offered a virulent path to that end: a call to congress to make a law that would make it a felony for President Bush to continue the war in Iraq. His idealism may be a bit far-fetched, as he would need 67% of congress to over-rule the President’s obvious veto, but the idea is the sort of progressive thought that liberals are looking for.

Another stand-out in the field of candidates is senator Joe Biden, who came across as the most intelligent and professional of the group, even if his opinions are less radical than Gravel’s. Also, despite his great track record he doesn’t have the diplomatic experience that Richardson does. Biden is a very well spoken candidate who advocates a complete withdrawal from Iraq and a quick end to the war. Unfortunately, he has a similar approach as Hillary, Barack, and Edwards in that he seems fine with a slow withdrawal and has no brilliant new ideas to make the changes we all want to see. He does have the intelligence, passion, and experience to run the country though.

Dennis Kucinich, like always, stands out as a passionate and intelligent individual. I’ve been a fan of Kucinich for years, and it’s a shame that once again I see him picking the wrong fights and choosing the wrong places to make a stand. When not one of the other 7 candidates would endorse his plan to impeach Vice President Cheney (this caucus is all about uniting, not further dividing) he pulled out a pocket-sized copy of the Constitution and held it up while explaining that Cheney was going against what the country stands for and needs to be held accountable. A great point, and a good picture that we’ll likely see again during this race, but it certainly didn’t help his popularity. Richardson was right to say that the American people want an honest candidate, but a level of discretion is advisable to somebody involved in a popularity contest. And make no mistake: this is the grandest of popularity contests.

Senator Christopher Dodd also came across as both intelligent and well spoken, but his opinions were little more than regurgitation of everybody else’s stances. He was neither controversial nor particularly memorable, so his presence is more that of a strong benchwarmer than anything else. He reminds me that even the least memorable democratic candidate is infinitely better than the options that the other side has, and we would be lucky to have Dodd as a president, even though I don’t see him making many waves this year. But it’s still early, and we may hear from him yet – he certainly has the capacity to lead the democrats, and we could all rejoice if he were our next president.

As for the three front-runners, they don’t need more press, so I won’t spend as much time talking about them. Hillary was very well composed and presented herself like a President. Her pearls were a bit extravagant (who cares about a $400 haircut when you’ve got a $10,000 necklace?), but I’m not one to make a decision based on superficialities so that’s the end of that. Barack wasn’t his usual self, but that’s not to say he isn’t still deserving of his large following. I was first made aware of him three years ago, and to this day I like the guy. My only problem (like most people’s problem with him) is the lack of experience: it’s more than signing bills and pulling the troops out, and his continued reluctance to take any firm stances would keep me from voting for him. I’d love to see him take the vice-presidency, and then take over after 8 years of internship. That’s a distinct possibility. As for John Edwards: he’s the cookie-cutter candidate that we get at least one of every four years. Just like Al Gore before him and countless others that I won’t waste my time mentioning, he’s got the key phrases (“my Lord” was mentioned, of course) and his look is both clean-cut and conservative (appropriate, considering his approach). He doesn’t represent change – just a solid step away from the current regime.

So what should we all take away from this debate? Hope - tons and tons of hope. Every single candidate up on that stage was a good remedy to the bunch of stubborn misfits that we have in place right now, and no matter what happens – we’ll be much better off in 2009 than we were before. These candidates all represent more than a change of primary color in the executive branch: they represent a change in philosophy and approach. Every single one agrees that war has to be 2nd to diplomacy, not the other way around. They are all more willing to talk about the issues than to give each other grief (even if only one of them was willing to sign Governor Richardson’s agreement not to sling mud during the caucus), and they are all qualified leaders. We are terribly lucky to have this group vying for our votes, and 2009 will prove to be a great year in American history.

So do yourself a favor, and watch the future debates, keep track of the candidates, and know that whatever happens: voting democrat in 2008 is going to be a good decision regardless of your usual party affiliation.


Official sites/candidacy sites:

Bill Richardson

Mike Gravel

Joe Biden

Dennis Kucinich

Christopher Dodd

Hillary Clinton

Barack Obama

John Edwards

Senator Barack Obama On U.S. Foreign Policy @ Chicago Council on Global Affairs - NY Times

Obama Outlines His Foreign Policy Views
NY Times | April 23, 2007

By Jeff Zeleny

CHICAGO, April 23 -- Senator Barack Obama said today that even though the global image of the United States has been sullied by the war in Iraq and a "foreign policy based on a flawed ideology," America must repair its standing in the world and resist the temptation to turn inward.

"America cannot meet the threats of this century alone, but the world cannot meet them without America," Mr. Obama said. "We must neither retreat from the world nor try to bully it into submission - we must lead the world, by deed and example."

In a speech before the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, Mr. Obama presented himself as a presidential candidate "who can speak directly to the world." After a sharp critique of President Bush, Mr. Obama called for increasing foreign aid to developing countries, expanding and modernizing the military and rebuilding fractured alliances.

"This president may occupy the White House, but for the last six years the position of leader of the free world has remained open," Mr. Obama said. "And it's time to fill that role once more."

Mr. Obama, an Illinois Democrat elected to the United States Senate two years ago, delivered the first major foreign policy address of his Democratic presidential bid to hundreds of supporters in the ballroom of a downtown hotel here. It is the first of several policy speeches he is scheduled to deliver in the coming weeks as he works to define his candidacy with specific proposals an Obama administration would pursue.

"This election offers us the chance to turn the page and open a new chapter in American leadership," Mr. Obama said. "The disappointment that so many around the world feel toward America right now is only a testament to the high expectations they hold for us. We must meet those expectations again, not because being respected is an end in itself, but because the security of America and the wider world demands it."

He added: "This is going to require a new spirit, not of bluster and bombast, but of quiet confidence and sober intelligence, a spirit of care and renewed competence."

In the opening three months of his presidential race, Mr. Obama has solidified his role as one of the leading contenders for the nomination, raising more money than any of his rivals for the primary campaign. But Mr. Obama is also striving to expand his appeal beyond that of a best-selling author and political celebrity as he tackles questions of substance and policy.

The United States must build a 21st century military, Mr. Obama said, in addition to "showing wisdom in how we deploy it." He called for expanding American ground forces, adding 65,000 soldiers to the Army and 27,000 to the Marines. But less than 1 percent of the military can speak Arabic, Mandarin or Korean - a shortcoming he said needs to be corrected through training and recruitment.

"We know what the war in Iraq has cost us in lives and treasure, in influence and respect," Mr. Obama said. "We have seen the consequences of a foreign policy based on flawed ideology, and a belief that tough talk can replace real strength and vision."

The Bush administration, Mr. Obama said, "squandered that opportunity" to unite the world after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. The war in Iraq, he said, "was based on old ideologies and outdated strategies, a determination to fight a 21st century struggle with a 20th century mindset."

"And after all the lives lost and the billions of dollars spent, many Americans may find it tempting to turn inward, and cede our claim of leadership in world affairs," Mr. Obama said. "I insist, however, that such an abandonment of our leadership is a mistake we must not make."

If elected, Mr. Obama said he would lead a global effort to secure all nuclear weapons and materials across the world within four years. In addition to securing stockpiles of nuclear material, Mr. Obama said the United States should work to negotiate a ban on producing new nuclear weapons material.

To discourage countries from building weapons programs, Mr. Obama endorsed the concept of providing reactor fuel through an international nuclear fuel bank, proposed last year by former Senator Sam Nunn, a Georgia Democrat who now advises the Nuclear Threat Initiative. As president, Mr. Obama said he would provide $50 million to get the fuel bank started and urge Russia and other countries to join.

Mr. Obama also called for the United States to rebuild its alliances, reform the United Nations and strengthen NATO.

"We have heard much over the last six years about how America’s larger purpose in the world is to promote the spread of freedom - that it is the yearning of all who live in the shadow of tyranny and despair," Mr. Obama said. "I agree, but this yearning is not satisfied by simply deposing a dictator and setting up a ballot box."

Lisa Miller, a spokeswoman for the Republican National Committee, dismissed Mr. Obama's criticism.

"Senator Obama started his career with a tone of hope, but has quickly turned to one of blame," Ms. Miller said. "Obama has no foreign policy experience; therefore has no record of having done anything - wrong or otherwise. His comments today blamed others and failed to detail his own plan for success."

Signposts On The Zeitgeist - David Halberstam Passes - SF Chronicle

Signposts On The Zeitgeist - Paul Erdman Passes - SF Chronicle

I had the pleasure of meeting Paul Erdman only once, and was struck by his kindness and willingness to engage in conversation. He's one of those popular economists who's ideas and words were always part of popular culture and certainly a part of my intellectual awareness.


Paul Erdman -- expert economist and prolific writer

Carl Nolte, Chronicle Staff Writer

Tuesday, April 24, 2007

Paul Erdman, a world-class economist and banker who used his knowledge of economics and politics to write best-selling novels, died at his Sonoma County ranch Monday after a long illness.

He was 74.

Mr. Erdman was a renaissance man -- an expert on high finance who once was the CEO of a Swiss bank, wrote 10 novels and two non-fiction books, was an Internet and newspaper columnist, and was a man of charm and culture who could talk on nearly every subject.

His opinions on professional football were published in newspapers, he held baseball season tickets, and he admired the Georgetown University basketball team.

One of his greatest achievements, said his daughter Constance Erdman Narea, "was inspiring intellectual curiosity.''

"Knowledge was something very, very important to him,'' said Hernan Narea, his son-in-law.

Mr. Erdman had the rare gift of being able to communicate his knowledge in a clear and entertaining manner.

His first book, "The Billion Dollar Sure Thing,'' published in 1973, received an Edgar Award from the Mystery Writers of America. His second book, "The Silver Bears," was made into a movie starring Michael Caine and Jay Leno.

His books have been translated into 32 languages and spent a combined 152 weeks on the New York Times best-seller list. His other books include "The Crash of '79", published in 1976; "The Panic of '89" in 1987; "The Palace"; "The Swiss Account"; and his last book, "The Great Game," to be published this year.

His books were entertaining and got excellent reviews. "I gave 'The Palace' a read,'' San Francisco author Peter Delacorte wrote in 1988, "and I want to tell you, I was floored."

His genre was what reviewers called "financial thrillers,'' with complex plots and carefully researched settings.

"I never write about a place unless I've been there," he told Metroactive, an online book publication. His last novel -- "The Great Game'' -- is set in Uzbekistan, where Mr. Erdman traveled in 1991. He was intrigued at first by exotic places like Samarkand, but the book is a cautionary tale about power politics and oil in central Asia.

Mr. Erdman's books were more than entertaining -- "The Swiss Account," a 1992 novel, has been credited with triggering worldwide investigations into the role of the Swiss in connection with Nazi Germany during World War II.

Paul Emil Erdman was born in Ontario in 1932. His parents were Americans and his father was a minister. He was educated in U.S. prep schools and earned a degree from Georgetown's foreign service school. He later received a doctorate in economics with the highest honors from the University of Basel in Switzerland.

He was an international economist from 1957 to 1961 in Europe and at the Stanford Research Institute. Later, he founded and was the CEO of a Swiss bank.

Mr. Erdman visited San Francisco years ago and became enamored of the city.

"He could have lived anywhere in the world, but he chose San Francisco,'' said his daughter Constance. "He was a San Franciscan first and foremost.''

He lived on Nob Hill for many years, and also maintained his Sonoma County ranch, near Healdsburg, where he did a lot of his writing.

Mr. Erdman had strong loyalties. One was to Georgetown. He appeared frequently on campus and on the 75th anniversary of the foreign service school he was one of 12 alumni to be placed in the school's Hall of Fame. Another was former President Bill Clinton.

Mr. Erdman also made a point of always mentioning San Francisco or San Franciscans in his novels. One of his favorite spots, the Big Four restaurant on Nob Hill, appeared often.

Mr. Erdman is survived by his wife, Helly , of the family home in Sonoma County; two daughters, Jennifer Erdman of Healdsburg and Constance Erdman Narea of Greenwich, Conn.; and two granddaughters.

The funeral will be private.

Bush Greets Colts at White House

Bush Greets Colts at White House
By BEN FELLER
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON -- Even when football season ends, superstar quarterback Peyton Manning is hard to miss on TV. He has become such a marketable pitchman that his commercials -- a sports drink here, a credit card company there -- seem endless. Apparently, President Bush has taken notice while flipping the channels.

"So a lot of people here in the White House compound have been really looking forward to seeing Peyton Manning," Bush said Monday on the South Lawn. "They wanted to see a guy who gets more air time than I do."


The good-natured poke came as Bush welcomed another championship team to the White House: The Indianapolis Colts.

The Colts beat the Chicago Bears, 29-17, in a pounding rainstorm last February to become Super Bowl champs. On Monday, players basked in the sunshine below the South Portico, as Bush hailed them for ignoring naysayers and playing as a well-balanced team.

As he usually does at these events, Bush played up the theme of perseverance. He liked that the Colts fought through ups and downs.

"Isn't that what life is about, isn't it really?" Bush said. "Through the ups -- it's easy to fight hard in the ups. It's when the downs come that you've got to be a fighter."

The team's coach, Tony Dungy, became the first black coach to win a Super Bowl. Long one of the most respected figures in the National Football League, Dungy coped with the suicide of his son, James, in late 2005. Bush alluded to that.

"He is a man who has used his -- a position of notoriety to behave in a quiet and strong way in the face of personal tragedy that has influenced a lot of our fellow citizens," Bush said of Dungy, who stood next to him on stage. "And I want to thank you for your courage."

The Colts are used to getting showered with attention. More than 93 million people watched the Super Bowl. Yet the team's players and executives seemed awed to be at the White House, and they didn't hide it.

Players pulled out personal cameras to get photos with Bush. They did the same with another political star and football fan who showed up for the ceremony -- Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

Earlier, players visited injured troops at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. Manning, Dungy and a handful of others also got a 20-minute tour of the Oval Office from Bush.

"Winning the Super Bowl a few months ago was probably about as special as you could get," Manning told reporters after the White House ceremony. "But I'm not sure you could actually beat what's happened here today."

As for all those commercials, Manning said he's used to getting ribbing from teammates. All Bush did, he said, was provide "more ammo for the offensive line to have some fun with me."

CIA Should Get Eric Volz Out Of Prison - Falsely Accused Because He's White

I just saw a very disturbing CNN Anderson Cooper 360 segment on Eric Volz, an American doing business in Nicaragua who was arrested and then convicted of murdering his ex-girlfriend, even though ten witnesses, phone records, and other evidence have cleared him of being a suspect.

I could not believe the Nicaraguan kangaroo court came to the wild verdict and sentenced him to 30 years -- 30 years -- in jail! It's one of those television shows you've got to see to believe. It's shocking the injustice.

After watching this, I came to the conclusion that President Bush should send the CIA in to get him out of jail and bring him back home. The Nicaraguan crowd of poor people wanted him jailed because he's White apparently, even though evidence points to three other men, and not Volz.

There's website called "Free Eric Volz" that is up and a lot of articles written on this. But there is this moving post written by Eric after #134 days in jail (April 7th) that must be read:

April 4, 2007

Eric Update: Day # 134 in prison

A letter from Eric:

It has been some time since I have been able to get word out to tell everyone supporting me how I am doing and what is happening from my perspective.

I'm in a maximum-security prison about 20 minutes outside of the capitol city of Managua called "La Modelo." My mother has established a good relationship with the warden and he has been very kind, allowing me to visit with her and my step-father on a regular basis. As you can imagine, these visits have been invaluable in terms of being brought up to speed on all that is taking place as a result of my conviction. I have received a complete update on what is happening around the globe on my behalf. The amount of support and energy going into freeing me from this injustice is simply incredible. From a grass roots My Space campaign, letters to senators, international media, people praying and fasting, You Tube video, and all the awesome letters of encouragement and support, my sprits are greatly lifted and my strength has been miraculously restored. Your all are breathing for me! THANK YOU ALL FOR GETTING MY BACK ON THIS ONE!!! I'm eternally grateful and feel like the richest man on earth!

I have worn a small thread necklace with 2 small square ornaments for the last 5 years without every taking it off. A priest, in Jalisco, Mexico, in a very mystical experience, gave it to me. He told me as long as I took care of the necklace it would protect me. I grew superstitious of the piece and felt like it provided me with some sort of divine protection. I know it might sound silly to some, but I figured it was a harmless fantasy. It has survived 5 years of doing what guys do and the thing is still there as strong as ever. Needless to say, it really freaked me out when on my third day in prison after my arrest I noticed that one of the ornaments had fallen off. It was a sure sign that what lay ahead was not going to be pretty. After over 130 days in prison my necklace has taken a beating like never before. The water we have to bathe in seems to have somehow discolored the thread.

Last week after I was told about all that was being done on my behalf, I came back to my cell glowing, and decided I would restore the necklace. I utilized a combination of candle wax, the tag from my Nike gym shorts, some yellow thread and needle. It is not as 'stylee' as before, but it has taken on a new life, as have I, and symbolizes my life force in the face of this new chapter.

The best analogy I have come across for being locked up here is that it's like being buried alive. It is like having a cave collapse around you leaving just enough room to breathe and touch your toes. At first you are shocked and terrified. Time and space come to mean something totally different than before. You sleep a lot in the beginning. It is almost like a body function similar to hibernation that activates to deal with the extreme trauma. When you are asleep, you're not imprisoned.

The physical and mental claustrophobia sets in hard and never lets up. I reached a point where I had no choice but to turn and face it, let it cut deeply, let if ferment, and then I was able to transcend the new references of time and space. At this point it becomes a state of mind called "doing time."

I have buried myself in books, I meditate and pray, I live in my head and feel very centered. My spirits rise and fall. I refuse to join a gang. I maintain my independence and only socialize when I exercise and play soccer in the gallery. Despite the hardship and loss of freedom, I am developing. I'm developing in ways that would not be possible unless I was walking this path. I see this as a test; a rite of passage. I will not be defeated and I will see each and every one of you on the free side.

A friend asked in a letter, "Where are you pulling your strength from?" The answer is - all of you are my strength. The prayers, the campaigns, the letters, the movement - without you I would be lost.

I send my deepest and purest love to every person that had read these lines.

Eric V.

Get this guy out of the Nicaraguan grip. Send the CIA and the U.S. Army. One blogger has called for the US to stop lending to Nicaragua. I agree.

Here's an update on the appeal's process. I personally think Nicaragua's a joke at this point.

An Angry Taiwanese Man On The Heels Of Virginia Tech

The Virginia Tech tragedy shed light on the problem of guns, functioning psychotics, minority isolation in America, and the Angry Asian Guy.

What was that last one? The what?

Yep. Cho Seung-Hui was totally off his rocker, we all agree on that, but a number of people also believe that something made him snap over time. That something seems to be society itself. Cho comes off as a person who's envious of anyone White or rich, plus he seems to have a fixation with White Women and a dislike for Asian Women, even to the point of openly expressing this.

I have formed the view that some -- not all -- Asian Men who immigrate over to the United States are more likely to have a fixation on White Women and an idea that White Women -- and more specifically, blondes -- are to be the objects of their desire, and are more often of the view that Asian Women should date Asian Men and not want White Guys. (By contrast, American-born Asians don't have such issues on display and have no such fixation problem.)

I've observed this behavior from time to time and remember various examples from Grad School at UC Berkeley (like the Korean student who was PISSED that Korean women were dating White Guys and not him); today, there was someone at my gym who really fit the description and in a scary way.

(Now, as a momentary aside, one could echo Chris Rock and say that most Black men seem to make Blonde women the object of their desire, but since the rate of Black out marriage in America is actually less than that of Asians, it's not the "habit" people think it is.)

Ok, it all started with a short athletic Blonde woman who was working out on one of the machines and it happened to be one that I always use. Since she already beat me to the device, I curled dumbbells while waiting my turn. Ok, she was totally hot -- great athletic legs -- but not off the charts "hot" to be sure.

After a while, all of a sudden I hear this loud clanging not far from both of us but closer to me than her by far. I took a sideways glance and noticed someone lifting a barbell, but because I wasn't looking directly I could not see the person.

The person making the noise kept up the banging of weights and finally I did get a look at the noise maker. He was an Asian man with glasses who looked to be in his early 30s or so. But since I was concentrating on my workout and -- ok -- taking a look or two at the woman, I could have cared less about the guy.

Well, he continued the annoying act of letting the weight he was lifting hit its support frame hard, resulting in a loud bang. The more he did it -- and this was several times -- the more I moved away from him. I then realized he was trying to get the attention of the woman, and seemed real frustrated in the process, getting up from the weights, dancing around a bit as if to the tune on his iPod. So, what did I do?

I talked to her. I asked her if something was wrong with her back and about the way she was using the gym machine, as I could learn something.

Well, as this was happening I overheard the Asian man talk to a White Guy he obviously knew and who was nearby working out as well. But what he said to this man was not pleasant.

He said "Americans are stupid" and went on a general rant about people here and other matters I frankly tuned out from hearing because it was terrible. He sounded angry. He mentioned that he was from Taiwan and "We're different."

Great!

Then the hot Blonde White Chick moved on to another area, after showing me her way of using the machine, and then the Asian guy basically stopped being loud. He got up and looked for another place in the gym to workout another body part area. It was the most amazing display of what I contend is sexual frustration channeled to anger about America.

But it was also scary. In the dark light of Virginia Tech, I can't help but look at anyone fitting the behavioral profile of Cho Seung-Hui differently. That person does not have to be Asian, but does have to express, well, what I saw today.

Regarding what seems to be an wild focus on Whites on the part of Asians, I would hope that our diversifying society would make this less likely over time. It can be taken to dangerous extremes with unfortunate results.

Steve Bornstein, CEO Of The NFL Network

All a Part of Its Vision

On Thursday night, word will come from a production booth in one of those studios, a signal will be shot to the sky and Bornstein's NFL Network will broadcast the first of eight Thursday-Saturday league games. It's a bold new venture for the league and the network, though not one that is without its tribulations. The NFL Network is not on three of the country's largest cable companies as they resist what they see as the league's heavy-handedness.

"If somebody else had done it, it would be great," Bornstein said. "But no one has done it. Right?"

The world he oversees is changing every day, faster than anyone in sports could have imagined. And a television network is only a small part. While this year the NFL will bring in $3.73 billion in television deals alone, there is another potentially more lucrative universe out there still mostly untapped, and it involves the Internet, cellphones and iPods. For want of a better term, the NFL calls this "new media" and has pinned hopes on its money-making promise.

It is Bornstein who must take his new network, sift through the haze of this wired planet and find a way to intertwine it all.

In 1980, when Bornstein was in his late 20s, he was brought to Bristol, Conn., to help a four-month-old sports network named ESPN grow. For the next two decades, he oversaw much of the station's development, first in the programming department and ultimately as an executive at ESPN and ABC through the 1990s. It was a stunning rise, that in some ways left those around him agape as ESPN blossomed beyond their wildest dreams.

"Clearly, Steve was somebody for whom the status quo was unacceptable," said John Wildhack, ESPN's senior vice president for programming, acquisitions and strategy, who was with Bornstein for much of the company's surge. "He kept asking, 'How do we do this better? How do we take calculated risks? How do we differentiate ourselves?' "

Peace and Prosperity

When the NFL first approached Bornstein in 2002, after a brief run as president of ABC television, there was no network, just a vision of something the league's 32 team owners felt was necessary yet did not know how to do. To build it they wanted someone who had created a network before, someone who would make their place unique. Bornstein was the obvious choice.

He said he sees a lot of similarities between those early days at ESPN and this new venture. Both have that unrestrained feeling, where every idea is wrought with head-tingling excitement. "Everybody has that razor focus," he said.

And yet when you get past the thrill of starting something that has never been done before, this remains a football network. And a professional football network at that. Unlike ESPN, where the borders stretch from Australian rules football to Sunday morning fishing shows, the NFL Network must live in a more confined world. Even as Bornstein constantly tries to point out that they are a "lifestyle network," not a football network, there is only so much football you can show.

Bornstein points to the exorbitant amount of money CBS, Fox, NBC and ESPN have paid to televise NFL games, repeats some of the anecdotal evidence of how networks have struggled when they dropped football and promises that no matter what next year's top-rated TV show might be, its ratings won't exceed that of the Super Bowl.

"There's no league that's been more successful in any way you measure that success than the NFL," Wildhack said.

But part of the reason for the NFL's triumph is the fact it has been mostly untroubled by labor strife. While baseball, basketball and hockey have been hit with crippling strikes and lockouts, pro football has sailed along, making billions of dollars. That bliss was tested this past spring when an unusual development occurred in the latest negotiation with the NFL Players Association: the owners bickered more with themselves than they did with the players.

The owners of the smallest-revenue teams felt they had fallen far behind those of the biggest money-makers. And even though all the teams equally share the league's enormous television and licensing contracts in addition to being restrained by a firm cap on player salaries, the disparity was showing itself in other ways. Franchises in bigger markets could generate money from suite sales that smaller-market teams couldn't touch.

Ultimately, they came up with a compromise. The players would receive at least 60 percent of every team's revenue, which created a bigger pool for the salary cap. But it caused a problem for the lower-revenue teams like the Buffalo Bills and Jacksonville Jaguars, which might see 70 percent of their intake going to player salaries while the New England Patriots and Washington Redskins would be spending only 60 percent. So to try and make up the difference, they agreed that the 15 highest-revenue teams would pay equally into a pot totaling $30 million to be redistributed to the 17 poorest clubs.

It only adds up to a couple of million for each small-revenue franchise. But at the same time the owners agreed that the 15 larger teams would also give up their profits from the league's new media ventures and share that money with the smaller-market teams as long as those small-market clubs dedicate at least 65 percent of their revenue to player salaries.

This is a confusing, but potentially significant clause.

As it stands now, the owners may take an option that allows them to blow up this latest labor deal in 2009, in part because some of the small-market teams still feel left out in the new contract, unsure how a trickle of money from the richer clubs is going to help them catch up. A potential solution -- and it could be a bit of a long shot -- is if there were a sudden flood of money from new media.

"It could be if new media was something substantial," said Bill Prescott, the Jaguars' chief financial officer.

Yet how much is substantial? No one really knows because no one has a grasp on exactly what new media are going to bring in, partially because the league is only starting to cut deals in this world, signing contracts for podcasts and cellphone telecasts. Just last month, the owners voted to operate the league's Web site, NFL.com, themselves. Previously CBS SportsLine held the contract.

"We hope that that [new media] will be a real contributor and hopefully it will ameliorate some of that" big-market/small-market tension, Jeff Pash, the NFL's executive vice president, said recently after testifying before a congressional antitrust hearing. "And also by bringing it in house we can keep that revenue as a league asset and share it equally among the 32 teams as opposed to having yet another revenue source that exacerbates revenue disparities between teams."

Or as Broncos owner Pat Bowlen said, "If [the media money] is coming from a league-owned asset, then it will be easier to cut it up and give it to the smaller market teams rather than to just take it from the higher-revenue teams."

The burden of this hope falls on Bornstein. He scowls at the suggestion of new media as a solution for the league's future labor woes, partially because he is dealing so much with the unknown. He is fond of saying "my crystal ball is no better than anyone else's," but his expertise is in running networks, not solving league labor disputes. Maybe using cellphones as a way to broadcast games or deliver breaking NFL news is a great idea. Maybe it isn't. Time will tell.

Still he feels it's important to slowly collect these technologies, hire people to develop them and see what they have.

"The league has always been really prescient about getting this stuff right and not be the first one in," Bornstein said. "I think they got it right."

It's a delicate balance. The NFL needs its revenue quickly to try and fill some of the gulf between big- and small-market owners, yet its instincts say not to grab too fast.

"There's going to be peaks and valleys and some acceleration and deceleration [in new media]," said David Katz, the head of sports and studios at Yahoo!, which currently streams NFL games on the Internet overseas. "The NFL has proven to be the best at exploitation and management of their assets. I have no doubt they will continue to be good at what they do."

League Leverage

In a way, Bornstein and the NFL are perfect for each other. Both are audacious, assured and accustomed to getting their way. "With Steve you always knew where he stood," Wildhack said.

So it probably shouldn't come as much of a surprise that in the last television deal, Bornstein and the NFL pulled eight games from the Sunday afternoon lineup and said they were going to place them on Thursday or Saturday and put them up for bid. The Outdoor Life Network (now called Versus) reportedly offered $400 million for those rights. An outlandish sum, if you think about it. But rather than take the easy money, Bornstein and the league decided to put them on the NFL Network, a move that league officials believe drove up the price of the other network's bids.

By putting its own games on TV, the league has leverage, something it has never been shy about using. A few months ago, with the games in hand, it turned to the cable companies and reportedly said the price per customer for the network would rise from 20 cents to 70 cents. The cable companies balked and a fight ensued that has left the NFL Network off three of the country's major cable systems -- Time Warner, Cablevision and Charter, meaning almost all of New York City will not get Thursday night's Denver-Kansas City game, barring a last-minute deal. Bornstein said such a development is unlikely.

The dispute with Time Warner surrounds the company's insistence that it put the network and the games on an expensive sports tier of service that would cost extra for subscribers. The NFL wants to be on the standard tier.

"We would certainly like to carry the network, we have a number of football fans," said Time Warner spokesman Mike Harrad. "But because of the price it's a niche-type service."

What Bornstein won't say, but some league officials will confide, is that the NFL is sure it can win a stare-down with the cable companies. When Thursday night comes and New York can't get the game, the NFL figures enough fans will be so outraged that Time Warner will come crawling to the bargaining table.

Likewise, the two bowl games the NFL Network is showing (the Texas Bowl on Dec. 28 and the Insight Bowl on Dec. 29) are not part of a strategic plan to show college football in the future, a league source said. Rather, the hope is a school from one of the markets served by a holdout cable company will be in the game. And when fans find out they can't watch their beloved State U in its bowl game, the cable operator will be besieged with angry calls.

It's a gamble, but one the NFL is willing to take, figuring fans will have to take sides. Either they choose the league with the highest ratings or the local cable company that is often a monopoly. The NFL thinks it can win that fight every time.

Even if the crapshoot doesn't pay off, the NFL Network has already won. It has managed to take a piece of the lucrative market that its games produce, it has already forced itself onto many of the country's cable systems as well as both its top satellite providers and it has subtly forced football further into the American consciousness.

Rich Eisen, the NFL Network's main anchor who worked seven years at ESPN, knew the NFL Network had changed ESPN when he turned on his old station on the night of the NBA draft in June and ESPN was doing a program ranking the NFL's pass defenses -- just minutes before the NBA's draft.

"I had to look at the bottom of the screen to be sure it was ESPN," Eisen says. "When I was at ESPN, I would say in April, 'We should be doing something on the NFL,' and they laughed at me. Now on the night of the NBA draft, they were doing the best pass defenses in the NFL. We have definitely challenged them, no question."

In his office, Bornstein talks about the station he has built from nothing and about how it will help feed the Internet, cellphones, iPods and whatever else has yet to be invented. He calls these connections "pipes." And he knows these pipes, when filled, and under the NFL's control, have the real potential of making his bosses in the NFL very, very happy.

"I'm a guy that likes winning, right?" he said. "One way you can measure this is: can you make money? I've found personally that's where I can excel."