You raise an excellent point about transparency Chris - this initiative doesn’t appear that it will help much at all. It’s interesting how they throw “fans” into the group being connected to in the second paragraph, but in the third paragraph there is no real indication of how fans might be connected - but rather focused on security staffs and umpiring crews. By “connecting fans” I guess they mean only cutting down on counterfeit memorabilia, which is a bit of a stretch.

I find the officiating issue interesting from two perspectives:

1. Given the referee scandal that has emerged in the NBA, a need for the leagues to be more transparent is becoming abundantly clear (even if the commissioners continue to ignore). Opening up some of the data they are collecting for public viewing would go a long way in this direction, if the league chose to pursue it - but I’m not holding my breath.

2. Paragraph 5 talks about giving umpires more advanced insight into player tendencies (etc.). Given that umps are supposed to be totally neutral, what is the risk that this increased information could actually make them more biased? In theory, a player’s tendencies should not matter in terms of a given call. Given that much of the criticism directed towards umps and refs is that they do favor certain players/ stars, I could see the problem actually getting worse here, depending on how well the training is done.

You’re right - it’s hard to make the connection between this software and steroids. I referred to this issue in an earlier post talking about the infamous Buzz Bissinger panel - it appears that both the people employed by the league, and the reporters that were supposed to be scrutinizing them, willfully chose to turn a blind eye. As we see in many cases, I believe a cultural transformation will have to occur here, in terms of accepting transparency, before the technology proves to be beneficial in addressing such challenges. Again, I’m not holding my breath.

Cheers,
Denis