Rating the candidates

Conspicuous by its absence in discussions with the extremely active senatorial candidates is their stand on sports. It’s so quiet, it’s deafening. Has so far been the only one to even ask them about it, and most of them have staff who don’t even respond to requests for interviews when it regards sports. (Note to voters, if they don’t care about your health and well-being, then think twice about voting for them.)

How would we rate the promising senatoriables? I have some suggestions on a plausible ratings system that I will be applying (assuming the majority of candidates eventually respond, so far, only candidates Miguel Zubiri, Tito Sotto, Nikki Coseteng and Sonia Roco have granted interviews).

No Relevance. (In the vernacular "NR".) This means the candidate couldn’t care less about physical activity, and is probably so concerned with looking good, they would be deathly afraid of breaking into a sweat. You can tell by those who have a battery of nannies (male or female), and are averse to being even out in the sun. They’re at the bottom of our scale.

Former Athlete (FA). This candidate probably played a lot in school, starting with intramurals. But, in the last few years, this politician has probably never seen the inside of a gym, except perhaps to watch a PBA game or a Pacquiao fight. You can tell this person’s reaching when they try to relate to present-day athletes by saying they also played sports decades ago. Their greatest claim to fame is hitting an accidental game-winner in high school or college, probably coming off the bench, too.

Retired Varsitarian (RV). An athlete who gave it up after college, or perhaps at the end of a brief commercial career. These former players had the option of not representing the country or using sports as their main source of livelihood, which either means they are from a wealthy family, or have a rich patron or mentor who took them under their wing. Ironically, many good businessmen were often second-stringers who spent more time watching their coaches up close than playing.

Trainer/Coach (TC). Very rare in the field of politics, since coaching usually leads to a lifetime of patroling the sidelines. This usually means that a candidate spent many years as a coach, then, in their old age, decided to spread their gospel through politics.

National Athlete (NA). This candidate represented the country in international competition, and eventually parlayed it into a career or business using any fame or notoriety gained by the experience. Depending on the sport, the athlete was either well-provided for, or eventually did well in business. Be cautious, though, they tend to lean more on the popularity of past achievements than actual accomplishments.

NSA Official (NO). This candidate was either a team manager, regional head or higher-up in a paricular sports organization. This means an advanced level of understanding not just of the team’s organization, but the business and chemistry of sport. Unfortunately, it may also mean an advanced exposure to the corrupt side of intra-team politics, or abuse of authority.

Benefactor/Investor (BI). This person selflessly gives to the development of either grassroots development or a neglected sport. They are near the top of our scale because they are sincere, generous and lovers of sport. They often ask for nothing in return, except perhaps for advertising exposure which they could have easily placed somewhere else.

Policy Maker (PM). The most advanced sports politician, who has actually spent some of his or her time trying to change the way sports is run in the country. They are either veteran politicians or businessmen who have made sure that the team or sport they support has the best of everything, or try to draft laws to change the very infrastructure of sports in the Philippines.

How would you rate the candidates: PM, BI, NO, NA, TC, RV, FA, NR, or something else? You may writer [email protected].

* * *

Catch tomorrow’s episode of The Basketball Show: Upgrade over Basketball TV at 3 p.m.