Appearances Matter

Appearances matter. Period.

In the movie Hancock starring Will Smith, Ray (Jason Bateman) informs Hancock (Smith) that he needs to put on a uniform. Of course, Hancock objects to the idea. Ray explains that a uniform represents purpose. Wearing a uniform was not just a practical joke employers started implementing to make their employees look silly (except for maybe Hot Dog on a Stick). Uniforms are the appearance of the company, and the company wants to communicate a message instantaneously with that appearance.

So whether you want to believe it or not, communication takes place by what you choose to wear. If it didn't, then why do we dress certain ways for certain events? I bet everyone knows the answer to these questions:

To a job interview, men wear a: _______________
To their prom, men wear a: ___________________
To their prom, women wear a: ________________
Lawyers wear: _____________________________
Doctors wear: _____________________________
Policemen wear: ___________________________
Firemen wear: _____________________________
Professional sports teams wear: _______________

See how we know most if not all the answers to these questions? It's because in these industries or events, people want to communicate messages. Each message is different. Policemen communicate that they are here to protect and serve you, to fight crime. Firemen wear a uniform not only to protect them, but to say that they are trained and willing to risk their lives to save yours. Lawyers want to convey that they are professionals who know how to handle your case. How much business would a firm do if they all wore t-shirts around their office and polos to court? Not as much.

It's not just clothing, either. Appearance has to do with everything: how you cut your hair, whether or not you shave, whether you use glasses or contacts, etc. Everyone accepts the fact that body language says a lot about you. Well, appearance works the same way. In both instances you're communicating a message to others. So don't get upset when people don't hire you for a job because you came in wearing shorts, a t-shirt, and sandals. "Oh, but they shouldn't judge me... I can do the job, I'm qualified, they shouldn't judge me based on what I wear." No, YOU told them that this is what you deem your level of professionalism to be. You think either so much of yourself or so little of them that you fully expected to obtain a job position based on your unknown qualities, at least to the employer, already expecting them to ignore the fact that you're not willing to convey the message to them that you will do your best for that company. You couldn't even dress your best for the interview!

I bet when you go out on a date, you look a little bit nicer, don't you? Why is that? Because (guys) you don't want to communicate to your date that you're a slob, that you don't know how to dress (although that may be communicated anyway), and that you're not willing to look nice just for her benefit. Granted, a lot of guys don't actually do this very well, but women are fine enough creatures to overlook certain things (not everything). Don't believe me? Show up, without informing her, to her house on prom night in sweat pants and a wife beater. Look at her face when she opens the door. Better yet, look at her parents faces when they first see you. Hopefully you're not dating a girl whose dad is a drunken gun owner.

Ladies? If you go out on a date showing the guy everything he wanted to see later that night anyway, don't be surprised if he only talks to you in the future when he wants a booty call. That's what you told him on your date; it's not really his fault. You communicated the idea that you're easy, and you're not willing to make him wait for something that's worth the waiting. One sign of maturity is that you're willing to delay pleasure. When it comes to dating, sometimes guys need help with that. Guys don't want to marry the hooker; they don't bring her home to meet their parents. So give him a small preview on your date, but don't let him see the whole movie. Plus, you can probably get some more free dinners and drinks out of him first, anyway.


I'm not really a fan of art, but I think fashion can be thought of as human art. You get to live in it. You get to show your creative side. I don't really have one of those, but I do appreciate those who try to share that with others, like Lady Gaga. She looks crazy and weird and dresses beyond absurd at times, but she does that with a purpose. She wants you to see her art, her creativity, her idea of what fashion can look like.

For a really cool explanation on fashion and why that matters, watch the Devil Wears Prada and listen to Meryl Streeps lecture to Anne Hathaway as well as Stanley Tucci's comments to her. Changed my view on fashion.

I used to think people shouldn't judge me by what I wear. I was wrong. In fact, people aren't judging me by what I wear: I'm telling them! So really, people just internalize what you already tell them by your appearance. Make sure you communicate the right message to them, especially for a job interview, especially in this economy.

When Happiness is Bought

"Money can't buy happiness...that phrase should end with 'just kidding.'" - Daniel Tosh

This is a fun topic. There are a lot of people who say money CAN buy happiness while many others who say it can't. What do you think??

I believe it can. Why not? Does eating make you happy? Money can buy food. Does attending a sports game make you happy? Money can buy that.

How about marriage? Would marriage make a woman happy? A nice ring? All of that requires money. Even if you wanted to just get married in a park with no decorations or fancy dinners or anything, a marriage license still requires money.

I think a lot of people feel happiness is that deep, dark, penetrating feeling that can only be reached intangibly. I don't think that's true. I think there are different levels of happiness. For example, I'd take my wedding day over a bag of chips even though both make me feel happy. The happiness of marriage runs deeper in me. For some people, it may not. They may choose the chips!

There is one little caveat. Some people PUT their happiness into money. So when the money runs out, the happiness does, too. This isn't healthy, and it's not only done with money. Some people put happiness into food. When the food runs out, they're no longer happy. Same with clothes, or music, or movies. That's different. Money is now renting them happiness, not giving it to them. When people buy things that they love that they're not controlled by (the problem with addictions), it can buy them happiness. Vacations, birthday surprises, Christmas presents, cars, homes...all of these things make people happy and all of these things cost money.

So the next time you're walking down the street and think that money can't buy happiness, imagine what you'd do if you had $100,000. Think you wouldn't be a little happier?

The Truth About The Truth

For my 12th grade AP English class, we read 'The Things They Carried' by Tim O'Brien. This is a book about the Vietnam war as well as war in general. It plays on several issues, including this contrast between story-truth and happenings-truth. The happenings-truth is what's really going on; it's the truth as we know it. Story-truth, on the other hand, can be a made-up story as long as the principle of the story is felt. That's what makes it true.

Truth is a difficult concept for adults to vehemently say they have a handle on. What is true? We have a lot of beliefs about religion, politics, sports, and other controversial items. Whose to say what is true? We can only say what we believe to be true.

Since truth, then, is often based on belief, it can be very subjective. But isn't that the exact opposite of what truth is actually supposed to be? You want truth to be solid, a rock, a foundation that can never move. My mousepad is black. That's the truth, no matter if you think it's a different color or not. My wife would chime in with the deep, philosophical question, "what if everyone sees a different color and that color they identify as black is really what looks green to you?" That's a different topic for a different day.

Let's suspend the idea that truth is subjective. That's not the point of this post, either. I think that people oftentimes want the whole truth right now. If you're hiding anything, then it's not completely true. I want to show you that truth is still truth, even if it's not given in a complete form.

This topic was born yesterday as Jodi and I were discussing Joseph Smith and polygamy. I think many people feel it's not honest of the Church of Jesus Christ of LDS to "hide" the fact that Joseph practiced polygamy until after they're baptized. The 'truth' is this information is available publicly, so anyone at anytime can see it. You may want to stay away from places like exmormon.com, though. I don't think I want to learn about the Catholic church through a place called excatholic.com.

The reason missionaries don't go around answering this question, or all investigators questions for that matter, is because those questions don't matter; they're not important. One of the purposes of an LDS missionary is to teach about the gospel of the restoration, provide the investigator with the fruit of its prophet, Joseph Smith, and have them find out for themselves if all of this is true. If that person receives a personal witness of the divinity of that book or that prophet, then it must mean that this is the true church. If not, then it must mean it's not. But either way, that is the only important question. Questions pertaining to polygamy don't matter if you come to know that the LDS church is true in its beliefs.

So missionaries are accused of hiding the truth from investigators. This isn't true. No one is hiding anything, really. The fact is that, as someone newer to this religion, you don't need to know everything all at once. It's the same for anything. If I'm learning how to do a new job, I don't need to know a lot of things yet. I'll learn them over time.

When you're little, you're taught that making sentences rhyme is called poetry. Later you learn that some of the best poetry doesn't rhyme at all. As a little kid, you don't yet have the capacity to understand complex poetry structure; so teachers have you create sentences that rhyme. It's not that teachers are evil and want to hide the truth from you; you're just not ready for it yet. YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!! (hence my picture of Jack)

As a child, you're not taught a lot of things. When you're ready, parents are willing to teach you. Truth should be given line upon line, little by little. So if I don't tell you everything you think you need to know about something, that doesn't mean I'm withholding truth. It means I'm waiting until you're ready. Sometimes people misjudge that. They tell people things they aren't ready to hear. Or they don't tell people things when really they are capable of handling it. That's a gauging problem, not an integrity problem. And that's the truth.

No-Pa

When the news of Jerry Sandusky first broke, I was one of those people who thought, "Joe-Pa couldn't have possibly had any wrong-doing in this. I'm sure he did everything he could." Nope.

Unfortunately I was wrong. The Freeh report on the late Jo Paterno and Penn State University illuminated some of the things going on there and how they were covered up to protect an image. Not a great image now, is it?

I wish this would've happened to someone else. I respect Joe-Pa for everything he did on the football field. I am usually pretty good at seperating out the sport from the person, too. I'm really rooting for Tiger to not only break but shatter all golf records. Some may still hold ill feelings towards him, but I don't. First of all, do you know how many PGA golfers are out there having affairs?! A golf insider estimated about 2/3 of pro golfers have had affairs while on the tour. Tiger isn't the only one who did this; he's just a big name who got caught. Jordan was having affairs at the height of his success, yet no one cared to report about it. Kennedy was well-known for his affairs. Nobody knew about them, though, so they didn't get the backlash that Tiger has gotten.

I'm a fan of Michael Vick. What he did was horrible, and he served time for it. He also had his bank account pretty much emptied for it. He paid the price. But it's been paid; can't we move on? Unless your dog was one of the ones he killed, you should be willing to forgive him. Everyone deserves a second chance.

So despite not agreeing with their personal decisions, I support these men as athletes. I don't want my kids to think of them as role models; just sports examples. Play like Jordan. Golf like Tiger. Idolize someone else. Hopefully I'll be the one my kids idolize...that's the goal, right?

However, I can't seperate what Joe-Pa did because it was covering up on and off the field. He did a lot of good for kids, people, the university, and that small town. But he did an even bigger disservice in ruining the lives of many individuals when it could have been prevented several times. This goes well beyond sports.

So in light of that, there is an ongoing discussion as to whether the statue of Joe-Pa in front of the stadium should be taken down. Should it be taken down? Yes. Would it be okay to be placed in another part of the campus, preferrably less frequented? Absolutely. You can't erase the last 60 years of good-doing with 15 years of wrong-doing. Keep the statue, just move it somewhere it won't be seen as often. You're not erasing the memory; just shifting it to a place where it's not such a prevalent one.

With that, I hope Penn State and their community can move on. I do enjoy my Buckeyes beating the snot out of them, but it will feel better when they're not grieving like this.

Help! SOS - Strength of Schedule

I occasionally listened to the Bill & Spence sports talk show in the afternoons. Then Spence left, so it was just the Bill show. I like Bill. Now they've added Hans Olsen. I think adding a BYU guy to the U of U sports station was a bad idea. Especially if that guy is Hans Olsen.

He gets on today to excitedly brag about BYU's strength of schedule. It took me back to the days of the U of U moving on to the Pac-12 (See this post). He mentioned some of the teams BYU is slated to play in 2013. Teams like Wisconsin, Notre Dame, Boise State, Texas, and (gulp) Hawaii. I don't know their whole schedule, but I'm assuming teams like Idaho, New Mexico State, and Weber State will be rounding it out.

Let's address the 5 supposedly big-name teams. First off, Hawaii? Really? They finished 6-7 in the WAC conference. Why are they even mentioned in the same sentence as Wisconsin? This is a typical small-team fan base who wants to make their schedule seem more impressive. Adding Hawaii to that list tells me more of where BYU fans are at mentally with what it means to have a tough schedule.

Texas is the second team on this list. Historically, Texas is a strong program. Lately, they suck. They're a middle-of-the-road team in the Big 12. Not the same draw as 4 years ago.

Boise State is a strong team. They're a little overrated but a nice team to put on your list.

Notre Dame is a tough team, and Wisconsin is a top 10 team.

Now let's take a look at some other schedules.

I'll start with my team, Ohio State. BYU is bragging about these 5 teams, let's see if I can find at least 5 better. Last year, OSU started off its conference play with Michigan State. They then played 3 consecutive teams ranked in the top 25 in Nebraska, Illinois, and Wisconsin. They finished it off with 2 ranked teams in Penn State and Michigan.

All of these games are conference games. This what OSU goes through every year. Let's take a look at Florida, the team OSU played in their bowl game last year (add that to the pile).

Florida played 4 straight ranked teams: Alabama, LSU, Auburn, and Georgia. Two games later they played another ranked team in South Carolina, and they finished it off with Florida State.

This is what teams who play in big conferences go through EVERY year, not just one year. Ute fans are quickly finding that out, even though they had the softest Pac-12 schedule last year. They won't be so fortunate when Oregon and Stanford are on their schedule, but they know now what it's like to go through the grind of tough games week after week. BYU still doesn't know.

Sorry Hans, you still need SOS.

The Terrible Towel

I must be bored... I can't believe I'm even commenting on this story.

Dwight Howard has thrown in the towel. He no longer wants to be on the Magic. He's had enough of Orlando. I don't really blame him. They haven't been able to put much of a team around him. Even with a great location in Florida and no state income tax, all they've gotten is an old Jason Richardson, overrated Glen Davis, Chris Duhon, and a beat-up Hedo Turkoglu. They also acquired Gilbert Arenas...that didn't work out well. They couldn't even keep hometown-hero Vince Carter, although he was past his prime.

In an age where big three's and four's are becoming more and more prevalent, the Magic have failed to put together a big two. Jameer Nelson was a nice point guard but amount the same level as Mo Williams was to LeBron. Boston has done it...a big 4. Miami has, the Lakers have, the Clippers, Nets, Knicks, Mavs, Bulls, Hawks, Spurs, Thunder, Grizzlies, and T-Wolves have all done it.

Want to hear about some teams who couldn't? At the top of that list sits the Cavaliers....couldn't keep their hometown-hero in his prime. That is a different discussion for a different day, but the fact remains that LeBron didn't stay in Cleveland in part because he didn't have much talent around him. The Nuggets are on that list...couldn't keep Melo. The Jazz couldn't keep D-Will. New Orleans...Chris Paul. The Suns...Nash and Amare left. Soon to be added to that list: the Magic.

Orlando has a chance to do what Denver did, though: rebuild. Cleveland got nothing for LeBron. The Suns didn't get anything for Nash or Amare. Orlando can actually get something for Howard.

If they don't make a trade for him before the season starts, they'll take a hit for having waited so long. The same teams will be in play for Howard come January: Nets, Mavs, Rockets, Lakers. Other teams simply don't have the firepower. But since the new team would either get Howard for a very short period of time or demand he sign an extension as part of the trade, teams will not be willing to offer as much as the Nets did. This means not only will Orlando not get much in return, they're basically throwing away this season.

I get it. As a Cleveland fan, I had to watch LeBron humiliate the city of Cleveland on national tv. But with LeBron, he gave no indication that he wanted to leave Cleveland; just that he wanted to explore other options. Melo came out and said he wanted to leave. Same with Chris Paul. And you know who else has verbally expressed his desire to leave? Dwight Howard.
If he's not going to stay in Orlando, why not take the best package available? That package won't be there in January. And if the Magic don't trade him at all, they lost out on getting some valuable pieces back. Take it from a Cleveland fan: make a trade, get something in return.

A Post on Military Trending

I saw this post on Facebook and wanted to comment on it, but I plan on using more characters than Facebook will allow:

Salary of the US President ...................$400,000
Salary of retired US Presidents .............$180,000
Salary of House/Senate .......................$174,00​0
Salary of Speaker of the House ............$223,500
Salary of Majority/Minority Leaders ...... $193,400
......Average Salary of a Marine or Soldier DEPLOYED IN Afghanistan...$38,000
I think we found where the cuts should be made! If you agree...RE-POST

Now there has been a new trend for Americans over the past few years to overly appreciate our military. I want to state that this is not an attack on our military nor our government; this is my opinion on a new trend. My mom works for the VA and I love and appreciate our soldiers giving their lives to serve our country. They deserve our respect, and every time someone sees a soldier, active or retired, they should at the very least thank them.

That being said, I don't agree with this post. The purpose of it is to show that there's such a difference in salary from the average marine/soldier to certain political offices (not the people in them, just the office itself), assuming that the $38,000 figure is correct. While we're making a running list of salaries for different occupations, let's throw in some other average 2010 salaries for a few other jobs, just to get a bigger picture:

   

• Accountant: $60,000                                    
• Doctor: $180,000
• Lawyer: $129,000
• High School Teacher: $60,000
• NBA Player: $5,500,000
• NFL Player: $1,900,000
• MLB Player: $3,340,000
• Nurse: $72,000
• CEO: $422,000
• Construction Worker: $40,000
• Actor: $51,000
• Fast Food Manager: $52,000
• Secretary: $38,000
• Salesman: $35,000
• Fireman: $55,000
• Cafeteria Attendants: $19,000
• Elementary Teacher: $44,000
• Security Guard: $36,000

  

There's also something else you need to take into consideration when analyzing this. These are the averages, not starting wages. That means these numbers includes those lawyers, doctors, and accountants who have been working for 30 years and are at the top of their pay scale. It includes those teachers and construction workers who have earned raises for 15 years. The military salary (again, if it's correct) is $38,000 on day 1. If we're talking about an elementary school teaching job from day 1, it looks more like $30,000.

Pilots start out at less than $20,000. Most principals start out as administrative interns who earn less than the average teacher. And there are a lot of other jobs out there that pay extremely low to start and a lot at the end of the career, making service in the military a better financial decision than a lot of other jobs.

Now I've done payroll for a lot of different types of companies including law firms, police units, construction companies, restaurants, and sales companies. I've paid everyone from the CEO and CFO to waitresses. The benefits vary greatly from company to company, and no one can beat the benefits the U.S military offers. Here are some of them:

• Tuition - up to $50,000 for undergraduate degrees while partially supplementing for advanced degrees. Spouses receive $6,000.
• Housing - Free on-base housing & monthly housing allowance for families
• Insurance - Free medical/dental insurance for personnel and families with major discounts on life
• Vacation - 30 days paid vacation

Other benefits include traveling, training, military discounts, banking/loan rates, VA resources, job preferences (especially within institutions such as the VA), and free/discounted stuff all over the place. Over the course of 8 years, the total compensation rises enormously due to all of the benefits received.

 While I'm all for cutting the salary of our politicians, I don't think we need to raise the salary for our soldiers. It's one of the best jobs available for an entry-level worker. Name an entry-level job that offers more than this. It's also a job in that after you leave it, you and your family continue to receive military benefits the rest of your life. Most jobs that pay this much and offer this much in benefits require an advanced degree. To take someone who doesn't have any skills, training, or advanced education and start them out with this kind of pay and benefits package is very generous.

Well, Aaron, what about the soliders who get deployed over to Afghanistan? What about those who fight in wars?

First of all, our soldiers know that this is a possibility the minute they enlist in the military. That's the whole point of the military: to defend the country. That risk factor is built into their salaries. It's my understanding that if you're deployed, you also receive additional pay. And what about all of the other occupations whose lives are put in danger by the very nature of the job? Fireman ($55,000), security guard ($36,000), construction worker ($40,000). Salesman might be on this list because I know a lot of people who wouldn't mind shooting them on their doorstep. These guys are all paid about the same and they are all guarenteed to be put in dangerous situations. A lot of our military servicemen spend their entire military career in training, not ever being put in a life-or-death situation. If the argument is being made for soldiers pay to increase, it should also be made for all classifications of jobs whose lives are put in danger to protect citizens.

Again, all of this is contigent upon the fact that the post on facebook is accurate (or near it). My uncle served in the military for many years and my brother for a month until he was discharged. My mom works for the VA. Aside from some internet research, this is what I'm going off of. If anything is incorrect, please let me know.

So I'm in line for decreasing salaries for people such as politicians and greedy corporate CEO's, but that doesn't mean we should automatically increase the pay of our military.

Must Be Dreaming

There has been some debate lately as to which Olympic U.S.A basketball team is better: the Dream Team of 1992 or the still-nameless team of 2012. Really? That's sad... I think Kobe just decided to get some attention for his team, which was a really good PR move. I won't even address this topic really other than to say this: Michael Jordan was 6-0 in his years of really competing for championships once 1991 hit. I wouldn't put any bets against him in his prime.

The Dream Team would crush Kobe's team.

With that being said, I wanted to present an argument while we're still comparing teams of players over a span of 20 years. I will take 12 players who were left OFF the Dream Team and show how that team is better than the 2012 team.

First, let's take a look at the 2012 team:

• Kobe Bryant
• LeBron James
• Kevin Durant
• Carmelo Anthony
• Chris Paul
• Deron Williams
• Russell Westbrook
• Kevin Love
• Tyson Chandler
• James Harden
• Andre Iguodala
• Anthony Davis

After the D-Will/Westbrook area, I'm not seeing any hall-of-famers with the exception of Anthony Davis. We don't know how he'll be in the NBA because he hasn't played a single NBA game yet.

Granted, most teams would only go about 7-9 players deep, so let's not put too much stock into Harden, Iguodala, or Davis. That way you can concentrate on your best players. I think this argument should have been made with the 2008 team. I think the Redeem Team of 2008 could beat the 2012 team (keep the top 6 except Durant and add in Dwayne Wade, Dwight Howard, Chris Bosh, and Jason Kidd). Starting 7 of the 2012 team:

• Kobe - PG/SG
• LeBron - SG/SF/PF
• Durant - SG/SF/PF
• Carmelo - SG/SF/PF
• Chris Paul - PG
• Deron Williams - PG/SG
• Tyson Chandler - C

Now, for the Dream Team 2! I actually think if the U.S would have submitted 2 teams in 1992 to go to the Olympics, we would have taken 1st AND 2nd place. Here is the roster:

• Isaiah Thomas - PG
• Dominique Wilkens - SG/SF
• Shaquille O'Neal - C
• Joe Dumars - SG/SF
• James Worthy - PF
• Tim Hardaway - PG
• Dennis Rodman - PF
• Reggie Miller - SG/SF
• Shawn Kemp - PF
• Gary Payton - PG
• Brad Daugherty - C
• Steve Smith - SG

I actually left off Hakeem Olajuwon (not born in U.S although he did play on the 1996 USA team), Dikembe Mutombo (same reason), Larry Johnson (too crowded at PF), Derrick Coleman (same reason), and Glen Rice (interchangable with Steve Smith). With Hakeem on that team, they easily take the 2012 team. Here's the top 7 for that team, although looking at it they're a lot deeper:

• Isaiah Thomas - PG
• Shaq - C
• Dumars - SG/SF
• Kemp - PF
• Wilkens - SG/SF
• Miller - PG/SG
• Rodman - PF

DT2 would play Payton and Worthy some good minutes, with Daughtery and Hardway possibly seeing some playing time. Payton would pick the pocket of at least 2 of 2012's PG's.

The knock on 2012 is defense. They'll throw up a lot of points, but other than LeBron on the wing and Chandler down low (once he's in foul trouble, btw, they have no center at all), they have no elite defenders. DT2 is gonna be a physical team; that's the era they come from. Dumars was Jordan's worst match-up on defense, according to MJ. He could shut down Kobe and handle LeBron fairly well. Rodman was also a defensive/rebounding beast. The Shaq on this team was the one we saw early in his career running up and down the floor. He's a great defender and would easily shut down Tyson or Kevin Love. Neither of them are great offensive post players. They would have a hard time shutting Shaq down, though. With Nique and Kemp flying around the rim and running the floor and Miller shooting the lights out when other players like Isaiah drew double-teams from dribble penetration, this team would rock 2012.

I think it's unfair to say who would win a single game, but I think out of 10 games played, DT2 would win 7 of them. The original Dream Team would win 9 if not all 10. Here's the original DT:

• Michael Jordan
• Scottie Pippen
• David Robinson
• Patrick Ewing
• Charles Barkley
• Karl Malone
• John Stockton
• Chris Mullin
• Christiaen Laetner
• Clyde Drexler

Oh yea... and two guys named Magic Johnson and Larry Bird. I'll give you that Larry was past his prime, but Magic was not.

This Dream Team had both size and athleticism. Stockton, MJ, and Drexler are the only true guards on here. Magic and Pippen could get some guard time as well, though. How do you even compare anyone to this team!? So many historically great players and hallf of famers. I wonder how many records are held between these guys.

Sorry Kobe, your team isn't even in the same hemisphere as the Dream Team.

Millionaire Minds

How many of you think athletes getting paid millions and millions of dollars isn't fair?? If you just slightly pressed your lips or yelled out, "ME!!" then hopefully this article will allow you to see a different perspective on why they should get paid what they're getting, if not more.

What most people first think of when it comes to athletes and money is the large amount athletes get paid. We forget that athletes are actually the employees, not the owners. Sure, they make a lot of money off endorsement deals, TV commercials, and other advertisements. This is only a select few, though. I'm referring to the money being made from playing a sport.

Each sport is different which is why athletes get paid differently. According to NBA.com, the average salaries for the four most prominent sports are:

• NBA:   $5.5 million (2010-11)
• MLB:   $3.34 million (2010)
• NHL:   $2.4 million (2010-11)
• NFL:    $1.9 million (2010)

Those seem like really big numbers, and they should because they are! In a years time, these athletes on average make anywhere from $2-5 million per year. Some of us won't make that much money in our lifetimes! So how is this justified?! It helps to look at sports for what it is: entertainment. And entertainment is merely a business.

Let's take the NBA. A typical NBA roster has 12 players, 4 coaches, a GM, and a president of the team. There's also the staff of workers such as ball-boys, trainers, physicians, marketers, and event workers. An NBA team probably has close to 80 people on their payroll at any given time. Now most of the staff workers make very little, but the athletes, coaches, and professionals usually make good money.

Out of the 80 workers, 12 make on average $5.5 million per year. That number is actually going to go down because of the recent CBA agreement. Coaches usually makes a few million, doctors and trainers combined probably make that much as well even though there are more of them. The GM and president make several millions of dollars, too. All in all, that's about $80 million the owner is responsible for, and that's just the payroll aspect! (Don't forget the taxes, either)

Owners have very large expenses. Meals, per diem, entertainment, hotels, arena supplies and maintenance, travel accomodations, and the payment for the stadium itself all take out a huge chunk of money. At 82 games a year, half of them at home and half away, I'd venture to guess that expenses are about twice as much as the salary that is paid out.

So that brings us up to $240 million. This is just one year folks. There are probably other expenses I'm neglecting, such as advertising, food, equipment, and other team personnel. Let's round it up and make it an even $300 million.

So now that you know how much it costs to run an NBA team, let's look at the flipside of it: the revenue.

As someone who works in the accounting field, I can tell you that most people are concerned with revenue and don't realize the expenses a business requires. Taxes, payroll, supplies, advertising... these things basically eat up a lot of the owners profit. The reason ticket prices are as high as they are is because the owners know that we'll pay it. We'll pay for tickets then go to the arena and buy food. While we're there, we may get some t-shirts or a basketball. This is the primary source of revenue for owners.

There are 42 home games (typcially) and then any playoff games. Expenses are increased (including player bonuses) if a team makes the playoffs. So from ticket prices to sales of merchandise and food, this is the revenue an owner collects to help foot his $300 million bill. Owners also receive revenue through TV networks and through companies like ESPN. Owners take on a lot of risk because if something goes wrong with the team, it is usually tied back to the owner who is at risk of losing it all.

So let's say that an owner brings in $350 million from everything. He gets to keep the extra $50 million (which he'll be taxed on, and if it's a corporation, the owner will pay taxes twice on basically the same money) and that's his salary. Not a bad income, right? Let's get back to the players, because justifying the owner is a whole different ballgame.

Let's start at the top of the employee chain: your star player(s). The owners pay their stars more money because they're less replaceable (look for a future article on the replaceability factor). People will come to see Kobe Bryant (I refuse to use LeBron James as an example) because he's a superstar. Not as many people show up to watch the Washington Wizards. Why? Because they suck and their stars aren't as popular. Stars also win you games, which goes over very well with fans.

Keeping in mind the Lakers-Wizards example, how many people show up to Laker games? It's a full house - that's 18,000 seats. The Verizon Center (the Wizards arena) holds just about the same but is usually only half full. That's 9,000 seats. It's safe to say that if Kobe Bryant came over to the Wizards, those 9,000 empty seats would quickly become filled at probably a higher price per seat. According to Forbes.com, the average ticket price at the Staples Center is $113. Multiply $113 by 9,000 seats by 42 games and you get an additional $42.7 million per year NOT counting the playoffs and without raising ticket prices. So paying your star player $20 million per year, $15 over the average, is justified because he brings in an EXTRA $42.7 million JUST from ticket sales! That's also extra hot dogs, beer, t-shirts, basketballs, etc. which would quickly add up in additional revenue.

So when you calculate how much great NBA players bring in as a whole, they're actually paid just about right. See the problem isn't them, it's us. WE buy season tickets, WE watch them on TV, WE buy their jerseys, shorts, and other merchandise. The problem is us. We are essentially upping their salaries with every game we attend or jersey we purchase.

Athletes will stop making millions of dollars when we stop buying billions of dollars of products.

Straight to the Point

There is an idea sweeping across the U.S that more and more people are jumping on board for. It's the idea that being tactlessly blunt is the best policy. Obviously they confused this with honesty.

People just want to "say it like it is" and "just be honest; it's not your fault if someone else takes offense at what you said because it's the truth, and the truth hurts." So people say hurtful things that may be true while disregarding how the other person will feel when they hear them.

Now I was a basketball coach. It was my job to hurt other people's feelings when they needed to be hurt on the basketball court to help them improve. This article isn't to say you shouldn't be honest, or you should ALWAYS care about what other people think or how they feel or the way they may take what you say. We can't always worry about people getting offended, but we can worry about offending people. Most of the time being tactlessly blunt is situational.

That was my problem with the movie 'The Invention of Lying" with Ricky Gervais. They were honest in that movie, but they didn't have to say EVERY little thing that popped into their minds. Some days my wife may think I'm dressing horribly, but she doesn't tell me that because she knows I like my outfit and doesn't want me to feel bad. If we were to always be brutally honest, how many times would guys respond with an emphatic "YES!" when asked by a woman if a certain dress makes her look fat. Is that what you really want, ladies?

Like most things in life, the best answer usually lies somewhere in the middle, yet some people like to take to extremes. Chiropractors vs. MD's, republicans vs. democrats, obesity vs. anorexia, etc. The debate is on the outsides, but the answer is usually right in the middle: a mixture of both sides.

Same thing goes for being blunt. There are times when you need to be blunt, but there are times when being blunt and hurtful isn't a good mix. Be honest, but know when to avoid doing emotional damage to someone by saying something that may be true.

Super Freaks

NBA free agency has started! More and more, NBA players are realizing that they can join any team they want, and most are opting for the choice to put them in the best position at winning a championship. Right now, the superteams are listed as such:

1. Miami Heat
2. Oklahoma City Thunder
3. Los Angeles Lakers
4. Los Angeles Clippers
5. New York Knicks
6. San Antonio Spurs
7. Boston Celtics

There are a couple teams who could turn into superteams:

1. Chicago Bulls
2. Brooklyn Nets (accidently started with New Jersey but erased it)

There is really only 1 outlier here, and that team is the Indiana Pacers. They have a star player in Danny Granger, but aside from him, there isn't much star power. They're just a very good team. So if you're a basketball traditionalist hanging on for dear life, this is the team to cling to.

I'm sure Minnesota T'Wolves fans will argue that with the acquisition of Brandon Roy to compliment Kevin Love and Ricky Rubio, they are now a superteam. Not quite. And hopefully Orlando fans are learning humility now so they'll be prepared when Howard bolts. The Mavs just lost Jason Kidd, but even if he was there, they'd still only have Dirk. Hawks and Grizzlies fans...please. You're not anywhere near that elite tier.

So that leaves 7 superteams, possibly 9. We have some teams mentioned in the middle, which we can throw in some other teams like the Jazz, Nuggets, Rockets (assuming they acquire someone for Lowry), and the emergence of the Sixers.

We also have some young teams building, which I'm excited about being a Cavs fan. Irving is a legit all-star and with the addition of 2 top 15 picks this year, the Cavs may have built a team through the draft that will have a big 3 or 4 of their own. New Orleans is also building through the draft as are the Warriors.

So with 7 superteams, 2 teams on the brink of becoming superteams, 6 teams in the middle, and 3 up-and-coming teams rebuilding from the draft, that's a total of 18 teams. Out of those 18 teams, 10 are mid-market teams. So while a lot of the top teams are big cities, it's not a requirement. Out of the top 7 superteams, at least 2 are small-mid market teams. Miami can even be argued as a mid-market team, too, and they won it all. They played OKC who is also a small market team.

So are a couple superteams good for the NBA? No. Are 7 with 2 on the edge? Yes! Not to mention it only takes the moving of a few players to make your own powerhouse team. This is a fairly transient area. Cleveland, Orlando, and the Knicks used to be powerhouses. Now they're not. Same with the Nets and Kings. Things change over the course of a few years. I don't think anyone is at a disadvantage. Draft well, get a couple free agents, and pay your stars. It's a simple formula that few teams choose to follow.