random thoughts and thoroughbred selections

Thursday, January 22, 2004

Whatever�

I saw a quick blurb from a news article linked on Google News today that said that the ex-wife of Sean �Puffy� Combs is claiming her child support payments should be $30,000 a month for the child they had together, which would equal the child support payments he is making to a woman he had an out of wedlock child with.

This crap infuriates me like you wouldn�t believe. Having sex with a rich and famous person has turned into some sort of female version of the lottery. If you get pregnant, you hit the jackpot. That�s such bullshit.

I believe as much as anyone that a father should have a responsibility towards his children. But does that mean that the child is entitled to the father�s lifestyle? Moreover, does it mean that the mother is entitled to that lifestyle?

I�d like to see the courts start to inject some reality into the circumstance. Now, assuming divorce/alimony and child support are two different things, here�s what I�d do if I were a judge, and a rich celebrity was being hit with child support by an ex-fling (let�s say the kid was 1 year old):

What the woman would be entitled to:

- Reliable transportation: The woman would get half the purchase price of, or half the monthly payments towards a reliable automobile. She must provide a receipt to prove she didn�t use his money to buy herself a mink coat.
- $250 a month for food groceries: There is no child on the planet who can�t be fed for $150 a month, let alone $250.
- Health insurance for the child, including payment of all deductibles, and all other reasonable medical expenses (including orthodontics and such)
- Education: The cost of schooling paid 100%, even for private school. A college fund set up to provide enough funds when the child turns 18 for four years tuition, room, and books at a top end college. College fund money cannot be used for any other purpose, and is returned to the father in the event that college isn�t attended, is cheaper, or all the funds are not used.
- $500 a month reimbursable for clothing: Again, if you can�t dress your child for $6,000 a year, you�ve got serious problems of your own.
- $1,000 a month sent to the mother for housing or other expenses incurred.
- Extras: Expenses such as diapers, strollers, car seats, baby bottles, and cribs shall be reimbursable with receipt. Any reasonable request for reimbursement (i.e. graphing calculator for school, soccer cleats, hockey equipment for a youth league) shall not be denied.
- $1,000 a month shall be put into an interest bearing account in the child�s name alone, which the child cannot access until he is 18. The mother of the child shall have no legal claim on this money.
- $5,000 a year shall be set aside as a �special events� fund for reimbursement on events such as the child�s expenses on a vacation, prom night, soccer camp, and other unique events. Not one penny of this money shall pay for any expense that does not directly benefit the child, and it cannot be used to pay the mother�s expenses for herself in any way, shape or form. This fund cannot be used to buy things, only for special events (tux rental is OK, buying a Playstation is not) Any unused funds at the end of the year revert to the father�s account.
- Receipts must be provided on all expenses (that�s why it�s reimbursable), and any evidence that items are purchased, then taken back for cash to benefit the mother after the fact will cancel all incoming money due from the father (put a penalty in there for the women).

The way I look at it, I just took a $30,000 child support payment down to about $6,750 a month at worst, but often better if the allotment of reimbursables isn�t maxed out every month.

And it prevents the woman from treating a child like a cashed lottery ticket.

Another news blurb I read was in reference to an article that claims that parity is going to kill the popularity of the NFL. Although I can�t read the article from my desk, I know where this one is going.

Because of parity and the era of free agency, today�s NFL fan is essentially rooting for a team of mercenaries that has only a short window in which to parlay excellence into a Super Bowl victory. The salary cap has been, and will continue to be the death knell for the teams at the top, who cannot afford to continue to pay their superstars, and must make tough financial decisions often resulting in the unceremonious release of players that twenty years ago would have been longstanding pillars of the franchise. The NFL wants you to root for the helmet, not the player inside. The problem with that is that with parity the way it is, your favorite helmet is, on average, only going to be average forever. There might be a few years of having a good team, and a few years of having a bad team, but overall, NFL fans will learn to lower their expectations to 8-8 on a yearly basis, because that, by definition, is what parity is due to cause.

I think what he really means to say is this:

I�m looking at the rosters for Carolina and New England and quickly realizing there isn�t one mega-star on either roster that my newspaper can hitch its wagon to. As a matter of fact, I don�t know anyone personally who�s a fan of either team. Can the league survive if the Super Bowl doesn�t involve Brett Favre, Peyton Manning, a glamour team like St. Louis, the Dallas Cowboys, or one of the New York teams?

I know the media has to find some sort of football related content to publish for us ravenous fans over the next week and a half of hype, but this is one viewpoint that I simply can�t agree with.

How could parity possibly be bad?

Take the NFL�s diametric opposite, Major League Baseball. Spring training used to be a season of hope for fans. It used to be that almost every team�s fans could say, �This could be our year� on the day the pitchers and catchers report. That was great for the game. Now, unless you�re a fan of one of the seven or eight clubs that has a realistic shot at the pennant, you don�t have anything to hope for. The sheer lack of parity in baseball is what is killing that sport. Not some strike that happened ten years ago. If I�m a Detroit Tigers fan, and I used to be, I would have to acknowledge a few things every spring. First, we�re going to stink. Second, our good talent will be traded to a top team for prospects at some point. Third, the future that the management seems to be building for with all these trades for prospects will never come, as once these players prove to be valuable commodities, they will be traded to a team with deep pockets rather than re-signed.

So why have hope if you�re not a Yankees fan?

As a Detroit Lions fan, I had a miserable season this year. But I still had hope in training camp. �These guys can win nine games. If Dre� Bly is a player, if Charles Rogers catches ten touchdowns, if Joey Harrington stays healthy, and if they manage to find a running game, these guys could surprise some people.�

I�ll say the same things this coming August.

In football, you really never have a great idea until the season�s underway who�s going to be great, and who�s going to be terrible. Granted, sometimes you can make a good guess, but how many commentators had the 7-9 Buccaneers going back to the Super Bowl? How many saw Carolina coming out of the NFC South?

For me, this is what makes the NFL season the most compelling regular season in professional sports. It�s shorter than the rest, so every game matters. And there are always some surprises.

So parity is bad because I don�t know in July that the Broncos are going to be the AFC�s Super Bowl team? Parity stinks because the Jacksonville Jaguars might get on a roll and play spoiler in the playoffs?

Hardly.

The only part about parity that is remotely awful is when teams have to make tough financial decisions in regards to their high priced veteran players. Warren Sapp should be a Buccaneer for life. Robert Porcher should retire a Lion. Unfortunately, these aren�t the realities in today�s NFL.

But losing Porcher isn�t going to influence how hard I root for the Lions. I don�t care who they cut, they�re still my Lions.

There are millions of fans who would absolutely agree with me, and would never stop rooting for their teams.

Parity is the right thing for the NFL. It keeps things fresh, prevents wild spending to create dynasties, and gives every team hope for the future. What�s wrong with that?

[>>]posted at 5:53 PM by BG - click to email
-----------