The leaders of politics starting five

Barack Obama – President of the United States – Point Guard

Height: 6-foot-1

The easiest roster move is putting United States President Barack Obama at point. Barry-O can ball: he constantly played pick-up games with his staff on the campaign trail and has coached his daughter Sasha’s team. He has a high basketball intelligence and will be a great leader on the floor.

Jigme Khesar Namgyel Wangchuck – King of Bhutan – Shooting Guard

Height: unknown

I’ll take Jigme Khesar Namgyel Wangchuck—the King of Bhutan—at shooting guard. The fourth King of Bhutan used to play soccer, but no one would touch the future leader of their country, so he switched to basketball—a good move for the king. Wangchuck played varsity basketball at Wheaton College in Massachusetts and a U.S. political officer described him as “a natural two-guard.”

Justin Trudeau – Prime Minister of Canada – Small Forward

Height: 6-foot-2

At small forward, I’ll take newly-elected Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. Trudeau is the son of late Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau—considered by some to be as charismatic as U.S. President John F. Kennedy. This means that Trudeau grew up in the spotlight. You want him to have the ball with 10 seconds left, down by two points.

Henri – Grand Duke of Luxembourg – Power Forward

Height: 5-foot-10

Grand Duke Henri of Luxembourg is my choice for power forward. Henri went through the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst in England—that alone takes athleticism. Now, he’s a member of the International Olympic Committee and he has been very healthy since undergoing an angioplasty in 2011.

David Cameron – Prime Minister of the United Kingdom – Center

Height: 6-foot-1

Unfortunately, there is a significant lack of height among world leaders. That’s why I’m putting six-foot-one United Kingdom Prime Minister David Cameron at center. Not only is he one of the tallest world leaders, but he’s also an athlete. He’s been seen jogging around London when he’s not taxing Americans without representation—or whatever the Prime Minister of the U.K. does now.

Barack Obama – President of the United States

Height: 6-foot-1

Weight: 180 pounds

Obama played high school basketball in his native state, Hawaii. His above average height—as well as leadership skills in and out of the White House—would lead me to believe that he can lead this team to “change” and maybe a championship.

Kim Jong-un – Supreme leader of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea

Height: 5-foot-8

Weight: 242 pounds

At only 5-foot-8, Kim is one of the smaller members of the squad, putting him at the point guard spot. As highlighted in the popular movie The Interview, Kim has a full court in his house, which means he has plenty of time to practice his long-range attack … from behind the 3-point arc.

Dave Bing – Former mayor of Detroit

Height: 6-foot-3

Weight: 185 pounds

A standout star for the Syracuse Orange and the Detroit Pistons—as well as a National Basketball Association Hall of Famer—Bing would be the go-to player on this team. His ability to drive past any defender will be key for the success to this team. After all, he picked up that driving ability from spending years in the Motor City.

Arne Duncan – U.S. Secretary of Education

Height: 6-foot-5

Weight: 215 pounds

As the center on this rather small team, the former Harvard star will dominate the low post with an array of moves and finishes. As a player in the 2012-2014 NBA All-Star Celebrity Game, Duncan is no stranger to the spotlight—he was named the Most Valuable Player of the 2014 contest with 20 points, 11 rebounds and six assists.

Kevin Johnson – Mayor of Sacramento, California

Height: 6-foot-1

Weight: 180 pounds

Johnson is one of the most skilled players this team has to offer—known for his highflying dunks and unparalleled passing ability. A three time NBA all-star and one of three players in NBA history—in addition to Oscar Robertson and Isiah Thomas—to have three consecutive seasons averaging 20 points and 10 assists, Johnson will provide a much needed spark to this team.

College football brings excitement to traditional game

Between the thousands of fans, competition and school spirit, college football has been popular for ages. With the high level of talent in the National Football League, however, the question of why people care so much about the college game surfaces. A few different reasons emerge. Many people who prefer college football have said that they find the NFL boring. This could be because they find everyone who plays at the professional level to be so good that the game becomes less of a display of athleticism and more of a reserved, fundamental display of experience.

In a sense, college football’s sloppy, fast-paced style of play is appealing to a large number of viewers. The average football game lasts about three hours and, within that time, the ball is in play for about 11 minutes. It makes sense for people to want those 11 minutes to be as full of action and excitement as possible. Many spectators feel that there is more action in college football than in the NFL.

There is also the alumni point of view. Many people have a lot of pride in where they attended college and for good reason—it’s where they spent years learning and bettering themselves. For this reason, it makes sense for a lot of people to continue to follow their college’s football team after they graduate. There is still a sense of pride that is rewarded with a team’s success.

This can be difficult if someone graduated from a small school, however. Only Division I games are televised for the most part and even then it only the most popular teams have their games broadcasted nationally. This leads one to believe that alumni pride is most likely not a large factor in college football’s appeal over the professional game.

As much as people love college football in its own right, it is mostly viewed as a gateway to the NFL. This being said, college football’s upbeat and risky style of play, overwhelming amount of spirit and amateur charm make it different from the NFL.

With this, it draws a lot of fans that seem to enjoy football for what it is: a great sport played at a high level.

The Writearound: Should fans be held accountable?

Oklahoma State guard Marcus Smart was punished for his actions involving a spectator, but little attention has been directed toward the fan. What is acceptable behavior for fans at sporting events? Joe Leathersich: So we all know about what happened with Smart recently against Texas Tech. He was suspended for assaulting the fan, which is an appropriate punishment. In my opinion, however, the narrative has been too much about Smart and not nearly enough about the 50-plus-year-old fan harassing a 19-year-old kid.

Mike Eisinger: I would agree with that. The fact that he felt he had the right to personally call out and insult Smart, one of the better and more well-known players in college basketball, is just not right. I watched the [Syracuse University vs. University of Pittsburgh] game the other night, and after Tyler Ennis made his game-winning shot, Pittsburgh fans who, before the game, had been taking pictures with Jim Boeheim, were yelling and flipping off the celebrating Orange players just a few feet from them. Thankfully, no one responded.

Doug Parks: Brings up a point that has been raised on and off over the past couple years. How do you all feel about fan proximity to the court? When the fans are close enough to players where they could physically reach out and touch the players – for example, Cameron indoor stadium – you invite these kind of situations. On the flip side, moving fans away from the hardwood would affect the home-court advantage teams have.

Kevin Frankel: Fans have historically shown a contempt for athletes that doesn’t exist in other arenas of entertainment. When an athlete underperforms, fans have no qualms about berating athletes, even going so far as to make personal attacks on them. Such conduct would be utterly inexcusable at a play or a live music performance, for example. Taken in concert with the physical proximity fans have to athletes, this is a recipe for disaster. The onus should be on the fans to behave civilly, not on the athletes to not react when provoked.

JL: I agree with that last sentence. We love it when these athletes are passionate about their sport, but as soon as they carry that behavior to a place where it is not as commonly accepted – even directly off the court, for example in basketball – we scrutinize them and wonder why they behaved the way they did. It immediately becomes about the athlete’s character and who they are off the field.

ME: So, we all agree that there is something wrong with the way some fans act toward players. How about this: What is the ideal fan behavior? I don’t think we all want to see sports turn into some sickeningly nice thing where there’s never a critical word or harmless taunt thrown. What is acceptable here?

KF: As long as the crowd’s feedback stays away from the vitriol that Jeff Orr directed at Smart. Orr claims he called him a “piece of crap,” while there have been rumblings that Orr actually called Smart a racial slur. Neither of these is acceptable. As for the alleged racial slur, it speaks volumes that Smart was punished more stringently for reacting to racism than Orr was for being racist.

JL: I am not necessarily upset when fans do make personal attacks on an athlete; I don’t ever get personal when I cheer and recognize it is wrong when others do it, obviously. I’m more concerned with the fact that fans think they can say anything and assume that, since they’re at a sporting event, they are absolved of any verbal wrongdoing. So, to me, the conversation can be as simple as, “Say what you want but know you are not protected by the boundaries of the playing field.”

The way I put it in perspective is to imagine myself seeing that athlete on the street. Am I going to say something from the comfort of my 300-level seat? Maybe. Am I going to say that same thing while in line at the grocery store? Not a shot. It’s similar, in a sense, to commenting on the Internet. Everyone has comfort from the keyboard but not in person. And there have been lawsuits against some things said on the Internet, just like fans being kicked out for being unruly at a game.

ME: I’d like to see fans that cross the line truly punished by the institutions that they cheer for. There are ushers and security guards at every game. I realize that they have other duties, but they can definitely see a good amount of bad behavior and take steps to eliminate it. We as fans need to realize that we are accountable for our actions, and just because we’re watching something that we love does not give us free passes to act like jerks.

The Writearound: Are young baseball stars helping or hurting the sport?

Joe Leathersich: So, I want to talk about the affinity baseball has with “tradition.” This is a game that has not changed significantly compared to other sports. What makes me bring it up is how upset everyone got over Yasiel Puig’s celebration - sort of saying that this kid needs to earn his keep and that he’s cocky. What do you guys think of the new wave of athletes? Taylor Frank: I think the problem goes beyond some ill-founded hatred for kids being arrogant.

Nick Preller: I personally love Puig. But is having a young cocky star new to baseball? Every generation has one, so I don’t see why people are freaking out over Puig.

TF: I agree. Even if that star isn’t necessarily cocky, they are always polarizing. Look at guys like Ty Cobb, Babe Ruth and Mickey Mantle, just to name a few. People either loved them or hated them for the way they played the game, but regardless they brought attention to the sport. In that sense, all publicity is good publicity.

Nate Joseph: Players like Puig are hated by the older crowd. Younger people who love baseball and know the game realize that players like him do not hurt the ratings or anything, but he hurts the clubhouse. Players like Mike Trout are more liked because he is all baseball unlike Bryce Harper. Players like Harper and Puig add excitement. Trout is a team player.

TF: From baseball’s beginning until 1919, the game was constantly changing, and it was good for the game. Since then, there has been very little change to speak of. If baseball wants to keep up with the NBA and NFL, they need to go the way of Harper and Puig.

Rebecca Fitzgerald: I think this topic brings up the argument about whether sports are about the actual competition or entertainment, and it’s not one or the other, but rather, how much?

 JL: That is interesting. But it’s hard to distinguish the difference, I think. I agree it’s not one or the other, but doesn’t better competition bring more entertainment?

RF: I think it depends on the fans. Personally, I don’t find mixed martial arts entertaining, but it’s still competition. The exception is with the young athletes who naturally bring that excitement to the game, regardless of the sport.

NJ: The real thing is how much flash each player brings. In every sport you have players who play for themselves and others who play for their team. This is why Puig has gotten such negativity. Also, when looking at the NFL, you see that players show off more than any other league. Why is that? Is it their nature or the sport?

TF: I would argue that baseball is suffering from a lack of competition. The [St. Louis] Cardinals are going into their fourth World Series in the last decade, and many fans are not happy about this. Ratings will suffer even more than usual. I think the reason you see players in the NFL and NBA show off more is that those are more individualized sports. In baseball, unless you are the pitcher, you have four or five chances to be in the spotlight per game, and the best of all time only take true advantage of that spotlight a third of the time.

JL: I like this point. There is [more] “pretentiousness” to baseball than the NBA or NFL. I think about this kind of thing when I watch tennis. Why can’t the fans be going buck wild and screaming their heads off when they’re at a match?

NJ: The thing with baseball and tennis is that they are traditional sports that have stood the test of time, and the majority of fans don’t see anything wrong with the way that they go about. This being said, the times have changed. Players in baseball and even tennis are becoming flashier and doing more “modern” things you would not see in the past.

NP: I love seeing these nontraditional guys excel in their sports. It’s what everyone wants to see, even if they don’t agree with their actions. People want to be entertained, and these athletes do just that. Even if it is controversial, there is a case to be made about going against the grain and being as flashy as possible. It really only helps them in the long run, as they will become a polarizing figure for their sport leading to endorsements and bigger coverage.

The Writearound: Did Tiger Woods have a strong 2013 season?

Leathersich: I absolutely consider this year a success for Tiger [Woods]. He has five wins on the Tour, and he is the money leader at $8.5 million. He finished top 10 in two of the four majors. It is not the “old Tiger” everyone wants, but that guy is gone. This is the new Tiger and he is still head and shoulders above the rest of the field. Frank: I agree it would be a success for anyone else, but this is arguably the greatest golfer to ever play the game. He didn’t perform well by any means at the PGA or The Open, and he severely underperformed in the playoffs. For him, that is a failure, no matter what he says about it.

Preller: He hasn’t won a major in five years, so until he wins another one, there will always be people doubting his ability to perform in big situations like he once did.

Rhodes: For me it is more about his upward trending than tournament wins. He has returned to a form where he is in the hunt in almost every tournament he participates in. The last few years have been a downward slope, and I finally think that he has changed his trajectory.

Eisinger: With the sheer amount of stress that Tiger’s been through, even if he did bring it on himself, the fact that he has been able to put most of it behind him and play well at all is pretty remarkable.

Frank: But now that it is behind him, he should be able to win at least one major. He is currently with Lindsey Vonn; he should be currently winning majors.

Preller: He was just awarded the Vardon Trophy, which goes to the player with the lowest stroke average on the Tour. So clearly his game is still there, and his ability to play well hasn’t gone away. That said, he looked very tired at the end of the Tour and really struggled late in rounds.

Leathersich: The whole scandal took a lot out of him, needless to say. The fact that he is back in the hunt is remarkable, as [Eisinger] said. Only the greatest in the world could do that. Another point, too, is that since he came on Tour and set the standard, the field has significantly improved, which is another reason why I don’t think we will ever see him blowing away the competition.

Eisinger: I completely agree. While perhaps the younger players aren’t quite as good yet as Phil Mickelson was, there are a lot more people who are able to challenge Tiger on any weekend.

Rhodes: Is it possible that Tiger’s career is simply winding down? His first money title came 16 years ago. That is a long time to maintain his status as the world’s best golfer.

Frank: Regardless, it is still not a success for him. Just because he’s getting older and the competition is getting better doesn’t mean that he has an excuse to not outperform himself. When you’re the best at something, you need to beat yourself to achieve success. I do agree that he may be in the twilight of his career though.

Preller: I think Tiger is in a very comfortable place right now. While there is some great young competition, there seems to be a lack of a single star emerging. Everyone thought Rory [Mcllroy] would be one a couple of years ago, but he has struggled since. Right now Tiger is still the king of golf and should be for at least a few more years.

Eisinger: And let’s not forget, arguably the greatest golfer of all time, Jack Nicklaus, won his last major title at age 46. If he can do it, Tiger definitely can.

Leathersich: He absolutely is the best of all time. I can comfortably say that I would not be into golf if it were not for Tiger. His time on Tour is deemed the “Tiger era” for what he did to the game.

Preller: General consensus seems to be that he had a great year, and we know he can do even better.

Rhodes: I would agree that after the past few Tour seasons, one can deem this a “good” year. But for a golfer of Tiger’s caliber, there will always be questions surrounding his status unless he wins another major.

Frank: I agree that Tiger had a “good” year, but I don’t think “good” is successful for Tiger. I don’t think he will be happy until he has another major win.

Eisinger: This year was a definite improvement over the past few, so I would say that it is a success. However, if the same thing happens next year, it will not be.

Leathersich: I think this year was a success for him relative to the field, his success in recent seasons among other things. I agree that he needs to build off of this year and come out to take a major next year. If he does that, I think it goes without saying that [this] year could be considered a success.