Another Taxing Argument

A few things about this recent outrage over Olympic medal winners paying taxes on their winnings (American athletes are given prize money of $25,000 for gold, $15,000 for silver and $10,000 for bronze):

1. This is not a new tax. According to Dara Torres, while sitting in with Fox & Friends, athletes weren't given prize money for winning medals before 2000, so they weren't taxed. When they started getting paid at the 2000 Olympics, they started paying taxes on the winnings. So, this isn't a new "Obama tax".

2. The numbers cited for the taxes an athlete would pay ($8,986 for gold, $5,385 for silver and $$3,502 for bronze)  are based on the athletes earning over $388,350 a year, which would put them in the highest tax bracket (35%). That's probably not the case for most of these athletes. And, if it is, like for returning athletes who have already made millions in endorsements, paying taxes on their winnings (just like they pay taxes on their endorsement money) isn't going to cause much discomfort.

3.  The dollar amounts cited above also assume the value of the medal itself is taxed.  But, according to Mark Jones, the communications director for the U.S. Olympic Committee, there is no value to the medals and there is no tax associated with them.

4. Training and travel expenses are tax deductible, so writing off the amount of money they are taxed in their winnings won't be hard to manage.

5. Taxing Olympic winners on their prize money may seem outlandish at first blush, and it pushes our patriotic buttons, but consider this:  Our military personnel serve overseas, putting their lives on the line, and their income is taxed. If we're going to exempt Olympic athletes from paying taxes on their winnings, shouldn't we first exempt our military? And do we only exempt Olympic athletes? What about our athletes who participate in the World Games? The World Championships?  What about our golfers who play in the Ryder Cup? What games are "patriotic" enough to be worthy of exemption? Where do we stop?

I think this story is much ado about nothing, brought up to draw attention to those who want to beat their chests and claim their patriotic superiority.  If this was truly such an outrage, why no mention of it during the 2000 Games?  2004?  2008?  Might this be a politically motivated argument?

Most of these athletes are going to cash in big time for winning their medals. And, as great as that is (them winning), and as much as we all enjoy the patriotism we feel while watching our athletes succeed, I'd worry more about how we treat our military than I would these athletes.

Pacers' Playoff Chances 2012

I love the narrative that the talking heads are buying into that the Pacers, while they've had a nice year, just don't have the experience to get to the ECF. Oh sure, the West pick up was nice, bringing in Hill from the Spurs was good, Granger has improved his overall game, Hibbert has gotten better, Paul George is a talented young player, their 2nd unit is dangerous... but they lack that oh-so-elusive "experience" quotient.

Full disclosure: I would have been fine with the Pacers missing the playoffs last year in order to have a chance at a higher draft pick, but I was wrong about that. The experience they got in that Bulls series is going to serve them well this year. That experience, coupled with Vogel's constant preaching that anything is possible with this team, has this team in position to make a run this year.

Now, another argument I've heard, and the one that concerns me the most, is that not having a go-to-guy, a superstar, could be their downfall. The NBA is a superstar driven league, and the Pacers don't have a bonafide star. (All due respect to Reggie Miller, but that was the missing piece in those 90's Pacer teams, too.)

Because of that, I've seen them struggle getting a last second shot off at the end of games. Someone ends up dribbling the ball around until they're forced to chuck something up.  That's when you need a superstar, a Rose, a Durant, who can blow past people and drive the lane or find a way to get an open look. I'd like to see Paul George get that mentality and not settle for a fall away 3 in that situation.

But, if this team gets into a rhythm offensively (i.e., Granger doesn't go 3-15), those last second shots won't even come into play. They've shown they can grind out games and figure out ways to win during their 12-3 April. It's time to continue that into the playoffs.

I predict they beat the Heat in the 2nd round and make it to the Eastern Conference Finals.

Jim Caldwell Deserves Much More Of The Blame

I was talking with my brother about the revelation that Peyton Manning had a 4th procedure done on his neck that hadn’t previously been reported, and how that’s not going to help his stock in the free agency market.

We were talking about what the Colts’ record would have been with Manning last year, and he said Manning would have thrown for 5,000 yards, they would have won 9-11 games and maybe have made the playoffs. I can’t disagree with any of that. Three guys threw for over 5,000 yards last year, so it’s not crazy to think Manning would have, too.

I was thinking, though, how it’s been talked to death about how Manning was SO valuable to this team that his not being there plummeted them to a two win season. And, of course, Manning is incredibly valuable to the Colts. No doubt at all about that.

But, I go back to a point my brother made when the question was asked: How many Super Bowls would the Patriots and Colts have won had Brady and Manning been switched? He suggested the most important variable in that equation might actually be Bill Belichick, not Brady or Manning.

Which leads me to my question: How many games would the Colts have won without Manning last year if Belichick was the coach, and not Jim Caldwell? Why does the fact that the Colts plummeted to a two win season rest solely on the fact that Manning wasn’t there? Why doesn’t Caldwell get some, or at least more, of the blame? Yes, he was fired, but you don’t hear the argument that Caldwell was the reason they went 2-14. No, the reason they went 2-14, according to most people, was the absence of Manning, not the incompetence of Caldwell.

Caldwell just happened to be an innocent bystander who was taken out by the loss-of-Manning shrapnel. Poor fella.

Is Caldwell a good guy? By all accounts yes. But, was he a guy who could lead a team through a tough situation and keep them afloat? Obviously not. He made a desperate move by starting Kerry Collins when he should have started the year with Painter. He then stuck with Painter way too long after it became painfully obvious that Painter’s tenure with the team wasn’t going to translate to real world success.

The defense continued to flounder all year, which had very little to do with Manning. We saw no creativity, no imagination from Caldwell. Throughout it all, he stood there like a lump on a log while everything crashed down around him. Not a lick of fire. Not a bit of spunk. Not a moment of obvious leadership.

Meanwhile, Belichick had Julian Edelman, a wide receiver, returning kicks, playing on special teams and playing defensive back. He was running Aaron Hernandez, a tight end, out of the backfield for 66 yards versus the Broncos in the Divisional Playoff round. Belichick was making things happen with the guys he had, not standing on the sidelines letting the world pass him by.

The loss of Manning was huge. There’s no getting around that. But, no way would a quality coach like Belichick have let that team devolve into a 2-14 team. Let’s hope Chuck Pagano is a major step up from Caldwell and is prepared to lead this team, not just go along for the ride.

Go for four, Brady

I just read an article by a local Indianapolis writer, Bob Kravitz, in which he talked about Tom Brady possibly putting himself up there with Montana and Bradshaw as the only quarterbacks with four Super Bowl wins. Even though I'm a devoted Colts fan, there's a part of me that would take perverse pleasure in Brady getting that 4th Super Bowl and cementing himself in the upper, upper echelons of NFL QB-dom, and here's why... It has to do with where the Colts are in their progression from a Manning-led team to a Luck-led team.

For whatever reason, regardless of all the regular season success the Colts have had with Manning (and it's been historic), Manning's post-season performance and record doesn't match his regular season efforts. His QB rating goes down (97.4 to 88.3), he throws more interceptions, they lose more games. When it was time for him to step it up (or at least keep it level), more times than not he would get rattled and fall short of his regular season excellence. He'd end up walking off the field sporting the "Manning Face" as his team lost yet again to a team they should not have lost to (damn you Chargers!).

Meanwhile, Tom Brady was winning. He wasn't choking in the playoffs, he was advancing and winning multiple Super Bowls...not eeking out one Super Bowl victory and being given the Super Bowl MVP trophy when every knows it should have been shared by Rhodes and Addai, if not Rhodes by himself, because Manning had an average game...247 yards, 1 TD, 1 INT.

So, here we are at this crossroads. Do we move on from the Manning era and embrace the new reign of Luck? Well, for me, if Brady wins his 4th Super Bowl, it will make it just a tad bit easier to finally shut the door on Manning and move on. Kinda like ripping a band aide off with one quick yank. I've held on to the hope that Manning would one day at least tie Brady for Super Bowl wins, but if Brady gets four that dream will be effectively shattered and strewn across the turf at Lucas Oil Stadium.

It will hurt, but it will be final.

Manning has had more than his fair share of chances to win multiple Super Bowls, but he didn't get it done. If he couldn't do it at 27 or 29 or 31, why should I believe he's going to do it at 36 coming off three neck surgeries?

No, let's just move on. Say our goodbyes, appreciate this glorious (though ultimately not fully satisfying) run, and start afresh. Brady has had his chances and has, for the most part, taken advantage of them. Manning has had those same chances, if not more, and has not.

My hat is off to you Tom Brady. As for the Colts... Next!