Hi. You remember me, right? I'm the guy that used to post here. As Ian graciously observes, I've been blogging, but just not at Beyond Boxscores. I hope to be back on a more regular basis soon, but I've got some unfinished work do to at the other place, so posting should increase here, but in rather sporadic fashion.
Let me take a moment to thank the both of you who continue to stop by here, either lost or patiently hoping for me to regain my senses and leave college baseball behind to post something of note at BB. I have to admit that I am surprised and a bit humbled that some of you persist in coming here even when I don't. Thank you.
I make only one apology--to those who have so kindly linked here. A number of bloggers have listed BB in their link section and to them, I am sorry for not maintaining my end of the bargain. I hate dead links and blogs that don't try to keep pace. BB has become one of those over the last thirty days and I apologize to you for providing your readers with, well, nothing.
I can't say that I'm sure what direction either blog will take, but I do want keep you informed. Please consider yourself informed, but enough about me. What have you guys been doing to the Pistons, while I've been gone?
I'll cut to the chase on this one. I think the Pistons have fallen prey to their own egos. I hate to even type that sentence, but I think it's true. This team believes it's better than it is. It believes it can win without it's "A" game. It believes it knows more than its coaches, past and present. I believe they are willing to blame anyone and everyone for their shortcomings but themselves.
This team may prevail this evening and give us hope, but all I see now is whining, finger-pointing and poor basketball with an unhealthy dose of self-confidence tossed in. It's not exactly the recipe for success.
Wednesday, May 31, 2006
Saturday, April 29, 2006
Lions Draft Recap, 2.0
I just erased about eight paragraphs giving a blow-by-blow recount of my perspective on the Detroit Lions draft. I got into paragragh nine when I realized I was spending far too much time talking about our Lions. We've seen all this Lions silliness before, so why ramble on? Here's my bottom line. The Lions draft, thus far, is mediocre. I expect the "experts" to give them a "C" grade.
My single biggest problem is first round choice Ernie Sims. Why did they take a linebacker with a history of concussions? This wasn't a value pick. It was the ninth pick in the entire draft. You want to shop for value? Please wait until round three. In the first round, especially in the top ten picks, I prefer healthy, productive players. Call me nuts, but I think it's a problem to have a guy with a history of brain trauma playing a position where his job is to run into people--often head-on.
As I stated at the start, I could go on for days. I won't. I will refer you to this fine post at Lionbacker.com. I'm not Matt Leinart crazy, but the overall point isn't lost on me. Trading down was clearly the best option, taking a d-lineman was the second best option, painfully enough, taking one of two uber-QB prospect was the third best option when the Lions were on the clock. Instead, the Lions chose: D) none of the above.
My single biggest problem is first round choice Ernie Sims. Why did they take a linebacker with a history of concussions? This wasn't a value pick. It was the ninth pick in the entire draft. You want to shop for value? Please wait until round three. In the first round, especially in the top ten picks, I prefer healthy, productive players. Call me nuts, but I think it's a problem to have a guy with a history of brain trauma playing a position where his job is to run into people--often head-on.
As I stated at the start, I could go on for days. I won't. I will refer you to this fine post at Lionbacker.com. I'm not Matt Leinart crazy, but the overall point isn't lost on me. Trading down was clearly the best option, taking a d-lineman was the second best option, painfully enough, taking one of two uber-QB prospect was the third best option when the Lions were on the clock. Instead, the Lions chose: D) none of the above.
Friday, April 21, 2006
There's A New Team In Town
The anti-soccer readers amongst you (that would be most of you, as you've told me) won't be happy, but I'm here to report that Detroit has a new soccer entity. The Detroit Ignition have joined the Major Indoor Soccer League. While we all know I enjoy soccer and follow far too many "B" list (and several "C" and "D" list) sports in America, I've met this announcement with mixed emotions.
I wish the Ignition all kinds of success, and I like their logo, but I don't consider the indoor version of the world's most popular sport actually soccer. Maybe I'm ill-informed about the indoor game. It's usually a pretty good bet that I don't know what I'm talking about. However, it just doesn't strike me that the indoor and outdoor games are remotely similar.
Boards? Boards in soccer? Don't they have penalty boxes, too? In soccer? Penalty boxes in soccer? It just isn't right. And don't even get me started on artificial surfaces. Comparing the two versions of soccer is like comparing Arena Football to the NFL. They just aren't close. They are so diverse that I must admit, I just can't embrace the indoor game (in either sport).
Now, veteran readers here can protest as I love the Canadian Football League. It's not the NFL, either, but I enjoy it for what it is. What's up with that? A solid point. One I can't argue. Maybe I'm just a soccer snob?
No, that can't be it, either. Because if I was a true soccer snob, I'd stick the leagues overseas that play at a much higher level than Major League Soccer. While I do watch the Premiership and other Euro leagues, I enjoy MLS (DC United fan here). As unlikely as it now appears, I would love to see Detroit get a MLS franchise. I'd even debate season tickets, if such an event occurred (and I had the cash). So, if I was a true soccer snob, would I embrace a Detroit MLS team? Probably not. I'd just hope for more EPL matches on television.
This is why I remain conflicted about the Ignition's arrival. I'd like to see Detroit become a bigger player in the pro soccer, but I'm just not crazy about the indoor version. I want to promote soccer on this blog (just as I do college baseball, curling, open wheel racing, etc....), but I'm not sure I'm going to watch the MISL with any regularity even with a Detroit team.
This said, how about we make a deal with our new team? We'll watch. Once. Ok, maybe twice, but only for as long as we can stand it. We aren't going to give up the Tigers, Pistons, Wings, Lions, Wolverines or Spartans to watch, but we'll find a time when we can sit through a game. Then, if we don't find it interesting, we'll politely move on.
If we like it, great. The team will have a new fan or two. I'll take credit for expanding your sports horizons. Maybe one of us can start an Ignition blog. (Stop pointing your finger at me. I'm one over my limit at two, thank you.)
I wish the Ignition all kinds of success, and I like their logo, but I don't consider the indoor version of the world's most popular sport actually soccer. Maybe I'm ill-informed about the indoor game. It's usually a pretty good bet that I don't know what I'm talking about. However, it just doesn't strike me that the indoor and outdoor games are remotely similar.
Boards? Boards in soccer? Don't they have penalty boxes, too? In soccer? Penalty boxes in soccer? It just isn't right. And don't even get me started on artificial surfaces. Comparing the two versions of soccer is like comparing Arena Football to the NFL. They just aren't close. They are so diverse that I must admit, I just can't embrace the indoor game (in either sport).
Now, veteran readers here can protest as I love the Canadian Football League. It's not the NFL, either, but I enjoy it for what it is. What's up with that? A solid point. One I can't argue. Maybe I'm just a soccer snob?
No, that can't be it, either. Because if I was a true soccer snob, I'd stick the leagues overseas that play at a much higher level than Major League Soccer. While I do watch the Premiership and other Euro leagues, I enjoy MLS (DC United fan here). As unlikely as it now appears, I would love to see Detroit get a MLS franchise. I'd even debate season tickets, if such an event occurred (and I had the cash). So, if I was a true soccer snob, would I embrace a Detroit MLS team? Probably not. I'd just hope for more EPL matches on television.
This is why I remain conflicted about the Ignition's arrival. I'd like to see Detroit become a bigger player in the pro soccer, but I'm just not crazy about the indoor version. I want to promote soccer on this blog (just as I do college baseball, curling, open wheel racing, etc....), but I'm not sure I'm going to watch the MISL with any regularity even with a Detroit team.
This said, how about we make a deal with our new team? We'll watch. Once. Ok, maybe twice, but only for as long as we can stand it. We aren't going to give up the Tigers, Pistons, Wings, Lions, Wolverines or Spartans to watch, but we'll find a time when we can sit through a game. Then, if we don't find it interesting, we'll politely move on.
If we like it, great. The team will have a new fan or two. I'll take credit for expanding your sports horizons. Maybe one of us can start an Ignition blog. (Stop pointing your finger at me. I'm one over my limit at two, thank you.)
Thursday, April 20, 2006
With The Ninth Pick In The NFL Draft The Detroit Lions Take....
If you are a Detroit Lions fan, don't you have one huge fear for NFL Draft Day 2006? The fear is that when the Lions are on the clock, one of the big three quarterback prospects remains available. If eight picks roll past, and I use the term "roll" very loosely as their is nothing about the NFL Draft that moves quickly (Mel Kiper's mouth being a notable exception), and the Lions find that Matt Leinhart, Vince Young and/or Jay Cutler have slipped down to them, aren't we all going to hold our collective breath?
A week from Saturday, when Commissioner Paul Taglibue steps away from the podium after announcing the Lions' fifteen minutes is underway and Leinhart, Young or Cutler is still around, aren't we all going to have the same set of notions? "They can't take a QB, can they?" "Millen can't take a QB. He can't." "Oh, they'll go in a different direction. They can't invest more money into the quarterback position. It makes no sense." "If they take a QB, I'm not rooting for them anymore." "Holy crap."
For roughly fifteen minutes, as few teams seem to take less than the maximum time allowed, every single Lions fan listening or watching is going to be nervous. Very nervous. No, it doesn't make any salary cap sense to take another signal caller. Yes, the Lions need help all over. Yet, if any of the three big name college QB's are still on the board, we are all going fear that when Taglibue comes back to the microphone he announces that with the ninth pick in the NFL Draft the Detroit Lions have selected..........a quarterback.
After drafting wide receivers in the first round for three straight seasons, would anyone really be shocked that Matt Millen opts to take a college quarterback even though he just signed two veteran free agents to replace the soon-to-be-Dolphin Joey Harrington? As soon as my laughter subsided, probably sometime in the midst of the first game of the year, I wouldn't be surprised at all.
Does anyone have great confidence in Josh McCown or Jon Kitna? The term retread would seem to apply to both. Kitna never took hold of the Seattle job and got bumped, rightly so, by Carson Palmer in Cincinnati. McCown, who to me appears to have more potential, for both success and failure, couldn't keep the signal caller duties in Arizona. Arizona. What does it say for the Lions' plight when they are taking on the Cardinals' failed projects?
Yes, Mike Martz could wave his magic wand and turn either or both into Pro Bowl caliber quarterbacks. (Again, McCown would seem more probable to me.) Couldn't the same be said of Leinhart, Young or Cutler? All of whom, at least so far, haven't failed as NFL throwers elsewhere. All of whom are younger. Any of whom could lead this franchise for a decade something I'm not sure we can say about any of the incoming veteran QB's.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not at all promoting this concept. I'd feel much better if the Lions traded down and got two later first round picks. I totally embrace the idea of trading up and taking a D'Brickshaw Ferguson or A.J. Hawk. I'm fairly comfortable with them staying put at nine and taking someone not a quarterback, as well. Although, if the draft plays out as some have predicted, I'm not overly excited about the Lions' potential choices at that spot.
It just happens that I think the scenario where one of these three elite quarterbacks falls into the Lions lap is possible. I also think it's plain frightening, in a football sense. The Lions can't intelligently justify selecting a quarterback, yet after spending fifty years searching for Bobby Layne's heir, can they be blamed for considering a highly touted college arm no matter who is on the roster currently? Every ounce of common sense tells you there is no reason for the Lions to draft a QB in the first round. Yet, what if a future Hall of Fame signal caller is staring at them when they are on the clock?
If the guy who slips down to the Lions choice turns into the next Dan Marino or Ben Roethlisberger and the Lions go elsewhere, Millen will get blasted for not making a good decision. Take the QB who slides to nine and get hammered for committing too much money in one position, for creating a three-headed QB controversy and, if the QB fails, for revealing your perceived lack of football smarts. Basically, take him and you're an idiot. Don't take him and you're, well, an idiot. Sounds like the proto-typical Lions scenario to me.
Now, all of this can be alleviated if Leinhart, Young and Cutler have found homes before the ninth pick. Then, we can just focus on the players at positions the Lions don't have millions tied into free agents. (That would be all the other positions, but that's a different post entirely.) Our worry can then be limited to the upside of whatever newcomer is chosen, instead of trying to figure out which QB camp we want to be in--Kitna's, McCown's or First Round QB's.
In light of his recent draft day decisions, I have serious doubts that Matt Millen would have the courage to take Leinart, Young or Cutler. For all the reasons I've previously mentioned, I believe Millen has to go in a different direction even if one of the top QB's is available when the Lions pick arises. He has to, right? Of course, isn't that what we thought a year ago when there was no way Millen would draft a wideout three years in a row?
A week from Saturday, when Commissioner Paul Taglibue steps away from the podium after announcing the Lions' fifteen minutes is underway and Leinhart, Young or Cutler is still around, aren't we all going to have the same set of notions? "They can't take a QB, can they?" "Millen can't take a QB. He can't." "Oh, they'll go in a different direction. They can't invest more money into the quarterback position. It makes no sense." "If they take a QB, I'm not rooting for them anymore." "Holy crap."
For roughly fifteen minutes, as few teams seem to take less than the maximum time allowed, every single Lions fan listening or watching is going to be nervous. Very nervous. No, it doesn't make any salary cap sense to take another signal caller. Yes, the Lions need help all over. Yet, if any of the three big name college QB's are still on the board, we are all going fear that when Taglibue comes back to the microphone he announces that with the ninth pick in the NFL Draft the Detroit Lions have selected..........a quarterback.
After drafting wide receivers in the first round for three straight seasons, would anyone really be shocked that Matt Millen opts to take a college quarterback even though he just signed two veteran free agents to replace the soon-to-be-Dolphin Joey Harrington? As soon as my laughter subsided, probably sometime in the midst of the first game of the year, I wouldn't be surprised at all.
Does anyone have great confidence in Josh McCown or Jon Kitna? The term retread would seem to apply to both. Kitna never took hold of the Seattle job and got bumped, rightly so, by Carson Palmer in Cincinnati. McCown, who to me appears to have more potential, for both success and failure, couldn't keep the signal caller duties in Arizona. Arizona. What does it say for the Lions' plight when they are taking on the Cardinals' failed projects?
Yes, Mike Martz could wave his magic wand and turn either or both into Pro Bowl caliber quarterbacks. (Again, McCown would seem more probable to me.) Couldn't the same be said of Leinhart, Young or Cutler? All of whom, at least so far, haven't failed as NFL throwers elsewhere. All of whom are younger. Any of whom could lead this franchise for a decade something I'm not sure we can say about any of the incoming veteran QB's.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not at all promoting this concept. I'd feel much better if the Lions traded down and got two later first round picks. I totally embrace the idea of trading up and taking a D'Brickshaw Ferguson or A.J. Hawk. I'm fairly comfortable with them staying put at nine and taking someone not a quarterback, as well. Although, if the draft plays out as some have predicted, I'm not overly excited about the Lions' potential choices at that spot.
It just happens that I think the scenario where one of these three elite quarterbacks falls into the Lions lap is possible. I also think it's plain frightening, in a football sense. The Lions can't intelligently justify selecting a quarterback, yet after spending fifty years searching for Bobby Layne's heir, can they be blamed for considering a highly touted college arm no matter who is on the roster currently? Every ounce of common sense tells you there is no reason for the Lions to draft a QB in the first round. Yet, what if a future Hall of Fame signal caller is staring at them when they are on the clock?
If the guy who slips down to the Lions choice turns into the next Dan Marino or Ben Roethlisberger and the Lions go elsewhere, Millen will get blasted for not making a good decision. Take the QB who slides to nine and get hammered for committing too much money in one position, for creating a three-headed QB controversy and, if the QB fails, for revealing your perceived lack of football smarts. Basically, take him and you're an idiot. Don't take him and you're, well, an idiot. Sounds like the proto-typical Lions scenario to me.
Now, all of this can be alleviated if Leinhart, Young and Cutler have found homes before the ninth pick. Then, we can just focus on the players at positions the Lions don't have millions tied into free agents. (That would be all the other positions, but that's a different post entirely.) Our worry can then be limited to the upside of whatever newcomer is chosen, instead of trying to figure out which QB camp we want to be in--Kitna's, McCown's or First Round QB's.
In light of his recent draft day decisions, I have serious doubts that Matt Millen would have the courage to take Leinart, Young or Cutler. For all the reasons I've previously mentioned, I believe Millen has to go in a different direction even if one of the top QB's is available when the Lions pick arises. He has to, right? Of course, isn't that what we thought a year ago when there was no way Millen would draft a wideout three years in a row?
Just Release Him, Already
I have some unsolicited advice for Matt Millen. Look, Matt, Joey Harrington is going to be a member of the Miami Dolphins. It's just a matter of when, not if. So, do us all a favor and just release the guy.
Oh, sure. You can try to make a trade, but you have zero leverage. You aren't going to get a first rounder (what Harrington was). You aren't going to get a second rounder. Third and fourth rounders seem pretty unlikely, too. To save face, you might plead with Miami and land a seventh round choice, but who are we kidding? That's window dressing, not a trade.
The problem is the Dolphins, and everyone else in the world, knows what's going on here. Harrington doesn't want to be here. Your new coaching staff doesn't want him here, either. You've already moved on by acquiring not one, but two guys to replace him. You also don't want to pay him his big bonus that comes due before camp opens.
Knowing this, as everyone in the world does, why on Earth would the Dolphins send you anything in return? They can just sit back and wait. Eventually, with your shiny new replacement quarterbacks already signed on the dotted line, you are going to have to cut Harrington to avoid paying out that bonus money. Then, the Dolphins can get their new back-up QB for nothing. No bonus. No old contract. No traded draft picks.
Stop the dog and pony show, Mr. Millen. Let Harrington walk. Don't drag it out just to land a draft pick that probably won't even play in the CFL, let alone the NFL. Try to do something with a degree of class and just release him. Cut your losses. Cut his losses. Start anew.
Oh, sure. You can try to make a trade, but you have zero leverage. You aren't going to get a first rounder (what Harrington was). You aren't going to get a second rounder. Third and fourth rounders seem pretty unlikely, too. To save face, you might plead with Miami and land a seventh round choice, but who are we kidding? That's window dressing, not a trade.
The problem is the Dolphins, and everyone else in the world, knows what's going on here. Harrington doesn't want to be here. Your new coaching staff doesn't want him here, either. You've already moved on by acquiring not one, but two guys to replace him. You also don't want to pay him his big bonus that comes due before camp opens.
Knowing this, as everyone in the world does, why on Earth would the Dolphins send you anything in return? They can just sit back and wait. Eventually, with your shiny new replacement quarterbacks already signed on the dotted line, you are going to have to cut Harrington to avoid paying out that bonus money. Then, the Dolphins can get their new back-up QB for nothing. No bonus. No old contract. No traded draft picks.
Stop the dog and pony show, Mr. Millen. Let Harrington walk. Don't drag it out just to land a draft pick that probably won't even play in the CFL, let alone the NFL. Try to do something with a degree of class and just release him. Cut your losses. Cut his losses. Start anew.
Saturday, April 15, 2006
TV Guide
Pro Beach Volleyball. That's what is on Fox Sports Detroit this moment. Pro Beach Volleyball. Did I mention the Tigers are playing the Indians right now? So, instead of seeing our local baseball team, the one with 100 years of history behind it and, oh by the way, has a winning record currently, our Fox Sports affiliate is broadcasting volleyball.
Of course, the game is being broadcast in Cleveland, so Indians fans can watch. It's also on the MLB Extra Innings package, so the rest of the U.S. can see it. And it's on MLB.tv, so the rest of the world can see it. Tigers fans actually in Detroit, however, cannot see it without a ticket. Does this make any sense?
Of course, the game is being broadcast in Cleveland, so Indians fans can watch. It's also on the MLB Extra Innings package, so the rest of the U.S. can see it. And it's on MLB.tv, so the rest of the world can see it. Tigers fans actually in Detroit, however, cannot see it without a ticket. Does this make any sense?
Monday, April 03, 2006
Opening Day Blogging
Having not subjected you to a post here in over a week, I've got a number of thoughts to pass along. However, it's Opening Day. Does anything else really matter? Oh, some might think so, but they would be horribly misguided.
This is going to be my first attempt at live blogging. O.k., semi-live blogging, but you get the idea. (Think NBC Olympic coverage.)
12:59 pm- The hot dogs are cooking and the Washington vs. New York Mets game is first up. I've got MLB Extra Innings again this year, so I'll be flipping channels. Hope that doesn't bother you.
1:01 pm- Do I have any Mets or Nats on my fantasy league teams? I'm in four fantasy leagues this year. One doesn't really require much brain power from me, as I'm running the Arizona Diamondbacks. I have all their players and I cannot acquire anyone not in purple and teal.
1:06 pm- Mets are starting Tom Glavine. I've always been a Glavine fan, he's one of my all-time favorite pitchers, but if he's the Mets second best starter, they might be in trouble. Glavine isn't exactly close to his peak. Which feed do I watch: Mets coverage with Keith Hernandez (another of my all-time favorite players) with some guy I don't know or the ESPN feed with Chris "Back, Back, Back" Berman and Jeff Brantley? Hmmm.
1:12- I've got Gary Majewski and Jose Guillen on different fantasy teams.
1:15- Glavine K's Jose Vidro.
1:17- Glavine gets Guillen to fly out. A flip of the channel reveals that we have three two o'clock starts--Red Sox @ Rangers, Pirates @ Brewers and Cubs @ Reds.
1:22- First hot dog of the season. Mustard only, thank you.
1:25- Second time I've seen the Lou Diamond Phillips PSA. Lou is wondering if we know what our children learned in math class. Nice of Mr. Phillips to care.
1:27- Mets 2B Anderson Hernandez makes a sparkling backhanded play.
1:28- I love those Washington road uniforms. Caps are even better.
1:30- Alfonso Soriano steals second proving I should have drafted him. Mets catcher Paul LoDuca drops his glove and the ball attempting to throw out Soriano. Strange.
1:33- Did Jeff Brantley just use the term "hisself" instead of "himself" about three consecutive times or is my hearing getting worse?
1:45- Flip on light in kitchen, blow fuse. It happens to be the same fuse the television is on. Uh oh.
1:50- All is fine. TV is working, light bulb in kitchen is replaced.
1:58- It looks like Glavine's batting helmet is two tone. The helmet appears to be primarly black with a large blue portion in front where the NY sits. The blue portion flares out towards the back and fades into the black. It almost looks like a Marvel superhero mask design. (I'm more a DC Comics man, myself.) Oh, Glavine singles.
2:00- Flip to Red Sox @ Rangers. No satellite feed as of yet.
2:01- Paul LoDuca singles in Xavier Nady. We have scoring! Soriano misses catching the ball on the hop as he tries, unsuccessfully, to grab the ball with his bare hand. No damage done as his centerfield is behind him. I think we can assume Soriano will commit nearly as many errors in the outfield as he did in the infield.
2:02-Back to Sox @ Rangers. MLB Extra Innings is having technical trouble with the feed. Pirates at Brewers is up and running as is Cubs @ Reds.
2:05- President Bush is in the Reds dugout. He's wearing a Reds jacket. His ceremonial toss is high and outside.
2:08- Sox @ Rangers is on ESPN2. Steve Stone is doing the game, which I consider to be a bonus. Finally, a game in bright sunshine! I'm probably all but done with Nationals at Mets.
2:15- David Ortiz flys out, channel flip follows. Carlos Lee misplays a flyball that nearly plunks him on the melon. Another channel flip. Todd Walker drives in Juan Pierre, Cubs, 1-0. I have to stay with Cubs/Reds game as Derek Lee is coming up. Yeah, I've got Lee on one of my fantasy teams. Hey, it's a sixteen team league. Lee is vital to my success. Anyway, his at bat is uneventful.
2:26- Back to Texas. Manny Ramirez is a blonde today. Seems appropriate.
2:30- A Roger Clemens sighting. The Rocket is in Arlington taking in the game between two of his rumored suitors.
2:32- Prince Fielder fans on three pitches. Did I mention I flipped over to the Bucs/Brew Crew game? No? Sorry.
2:40- Debating second hot dog.
3:00- Second hot dog? Long gone. Tampa @ Baltimore joins the fun.
3:05- Jason Varitek doubles in two Red Sox runs.
3:07- Pondering when to don my Tigers road jersey.
3:15- Tigers road jersey is on.
3:30- Flipping through Detroit Free Press Tigers Preview. There seems to be three repeating themes. Verlander, Zumaya and Leyland. Big Papi goes deep-Red Sox, 5-0. Schilling has looked good.
3:34- Channel flipping finds Johnny Gomes homering for Tampa. It's the D-Rays, 2-0.
3:45- Over to Tigers pre-game. The Detroit lineup is being introduced to the K.C. faithful. Pudge looks like he has lost more weight.
3:50- I wonder if I'll get the LA feed of the Dodgers vs. Atlanta game? I'd like to hear Vin Scully on Opening Day.
4:05- Tigers game heads to commercial break before first pitch. I may be gone for a while.
Ok, it's now 5:57 pm. The Tigers are up 2-1 behind two Chris Shelton homeruns. The Tigs have just chased Scott Elarton from the hill. Kenny Rogers has looked pretty good today. By the way, I still want to visit Kauffman Stadium someday.
In other things that happened while I was gone, I received an MLB.com catalog in the mail today. Nice timing on their part. I flipped through all the other games and found most to favor the hitters today. I did indeed get the L.A. feed, so I heard Vin Scully for the first time in '06. Red Sox won. Derek Lee has driven in two for the Cubbies. Did I mention I've got Shelton in a 12 team fantasy league I'm in?
I think I'm going to stop my plausibly live blogging here. I hope to stick with the Tigers game until the end and I've got about three other things I need to do today, so that will be it for this post. Thanks for reading.
This is going to be my first attempt at live blogging. O.k., semi-live blogging, but you get the idea. (Think NBC Olympic coverage.)
12:59 pm- The hot dogs are cooking and the Washington vs. New York Mets game is first up. I've got MLB Extra Innings again this year, so I'll be flipping channels. Hope that doesn't bother you.
1:01 pm- Do I have any Mets or Nats on my fantasy league teams? I'm in four fantasy leagues this year. One doesn't really require much brain power from me, as I'm running the Arizona Diamondbacks. I have all their players and I cannot acquire anyone not in purple and teal.
1:06 pm- Mets are starting Tom Glavine. I've always been a Glavine fan, he's one of my all-time favorite pitchers, but if he's the Mets second best starter, they might be in trouble. Glavine isn't exactly close to his peak. Which feed do I watch: Mets coverage with Keith Hernandez (another of my all-time favorite players) with some guy I don't know or the ESPN feed with Chris "Back, Back, Back" Berman and Jeff Brantley? Hmmm.
1:12- I've got Gary Majewski and Jose Guillen on different fantasy teams.
1:15- Glavine K's Jose Vidro.
1:17- Glavine gets Guillen to fly out. A flip of the channel reveals that we have three two o'clock starts--Red Sox @ Rangers, Pirates @ Brewers and Cubs @ Reds.
1:22- First hot dog of the season. Mustard only, thank you.
1:25- Second time I've seen the Lou Diamond Phillips PSA. Lou is wondering if we know what our children learned in math class. Nice of Mr. Phillips to care.
1:27- Mets 2B Anderson Hernandez makes a sparkling backhanded play.
1:28- I love those Washington road uniforms. Caps are even better.
1:30- Alfonso Soriano steals second proving I should have drafted him. Mets catcher Paul LoDuca drops his glove and the ball attempting to throw out Soriano. Strange.
1:33- Did Jeff Brantley just use the term "hisself" instead of "himself" about three consecutive times or is my hearing getting worse?
1:45- Flip on light in kitchen, blow fuse. It happens to be the same fuse the television is on. Uh oh.
1:50- All is fine. TV is working, light bulb in kitchen is replaced.
1:58- It looks like Glavine's batting helmet is two tone. The helmet appears to be primarly black with a large blue portion in front where the NY sits. The blue portion flares out towards the back and fades into the black. It almost looks like a Marvel superhero mask design. (I'm more a DC Comics man, myself.) Oh, Glavine singles.
2:00- Flip to Red Sox @ Rangers. No satellite feed as of yet.
2:01- Paul LoDuca singles in Xavier Nady. We have scoring! Soriano misses catching the ball on the hop as he tries, unsuccessfully, to grab the ball with his bare hand. No damage done as his centerfield is behind him. I think we can assume Soriano will commit nearly as many errors in the outfield as he did in the infield.
2:02-Back to Sox @ Rangers. MLB Extra Innings is having technical trouble with the feed. Pirates at Brewers is up and running as is Cubs @ Reds.
2:05- President Bush is in the Reds dugout. He's wearing a Reds jacket. His ceremonial toss is high and outside.
2:08- Sox @ Rangers is on ESPN2. Steve Stone is doing the game, which I consider to be a bonus. Finally, a game in bright sunshine! I'm probably all but done with Nationals at Mets.
2:15- David Ortiz flys out, channel flip follows. Carlos Lee misplays a flyball that nearly plunks him on the melon. Another channel flip. Todd Walker drives in Juan Pierre, Cubs, 1-0. I have to stay with Cubs/Reds game as Derek Lee is coming up. Yeah, I've got Lee on one of my fantasy teams. Hey, it's a sixteen team league. Lee is vital to my success. Anyway, his at bat is uneventful.
2:26- Back to Texas. Manny Ramirez is a blonde today. Seems appropriate.
2:30- A Roger Clemens sighting. The Rocket is in Arlington taking in the game between two of his rumored suitors.
2:32- Prince Fielder fans on three pitches. Did I mention I flipped over to the Bucs/Brew Crew game? No? Sorry.
2:40- Debating second hot dog.
3:00- Second hot dog? Long gone. Tampa @ Baltimore joins the fun.
3:05- Jason Varitek doubles in two Red Sox runs.
3:07- Pondering when to don my Tigers road jersey.
3:15- Tigers road jersey is on.
3:30- Flipping through Detroit Free Press Tigers Preview. There seems to be three repeating themes. Verlander, Zumaya and Leyland. Big Papi goes deep-Red Sox, 5-0. Schilling has looked good.
3:34- Channel flipping finds Johnny Gomes homering for Tampa. It's the D-Rays, 2-0.
3:45- Over to Tigers pre-game. The Detroit lineup is being introduced to the K.C. faithful. Pudge looks like he has lost more weight.
3:50- I wonder if I'll get the LA feed of the Dodgers vs. Atlanta game? I'd like to hear Vin Scully on Opening Day.
4:05- Tigers game heads to commercial break before first pitch. I may be gone for a while.
Ok, it's now 5:57 pm. The Tigers are up 2-1 behind two Chris Shelton homeruns. The Tigs have just chased Scott Elarton from the hill. Kenny Rogers has looked pretty good today. By the way, I still want to visit Kauffman Stadium someday.
In other things that happened while I was gone, I received an MLB.com catalog in the mail today. Nice timing on their part. I flipped through all the other games and found most to favor the hitters today. I did indeed get the L.A. feed, so I heard Vin Scully for the first time in '06. Red Sox won. Derek Lee has driven in two for the Cubbies. Did I mention I've got Shelton in a 12 team fantasy league I'm in?
I think I'm going to stop my plausibly live blogging here. I hope to stick with the Tigers game until the end and I've got about three other things I need to do today, so that will be it for this post. Thanks for reading.
Saturday, March 25, 2006
Tiger Optimism
I think I've mentioned this before, but I have a general rule about the Detroit Tigers. On January 1 of each year I attempt to let last year go and focus in on reasons to look forward to the upcoming baseball season. (Beyond better weather, hot dogs, sausages and my life long love of the game, of course.) I try to find reasons, no matter how difficult they may be to uncover, to be optimistic about our local baseball club. This attempt to rejuvenate my Tiger interest almost never fails. Somehow, though, this year the positive vibes took much longer to arrive.
Truth be told, I became optimistic about the 2006 Tigers sometime in the middle of this past week. I can't say there was a specific moment when my '05 negativity relinquished it's control, but I have unquestionable made the transition from the disappointing end of last year to being upbeat about the '06 season. Four months tardy, I admit. But, hey, I made it, right?
Now, I could continue to opt for the traditional sky is falling routine. You know the bit. It goes like this: Dave Dombrowski is a moron, the Tigers farm system still stinks, the big league club is filled with overpaid, injury prone veterans and Jim Leyland isn't going to help. That's an easy and, perhaps, accurate assessment. However, from now through Opening Day, I'm going to take the opposite approach.
Even if Pudge Rodriguez, Magglio Ordonez and Dmitri Young don't produce up to their full potential, couldn't they still contribute significant numbers? If Carlos Guillen and Placido Polanco produce close to their potential, wouldn't the Tigers offense be rather formidable? What of Chris Shelton and Curtis Granderson? Couldn't full seasons from them be better than what the Tigers got out of their firstbase and centerfield spots a year ago? The potential for a strong offense is there and I'm not even tossing in Craig Monroe who had his best season ever in '05. (I honestly just take any offense Brandon Inge provides as a bonus. I like the guy, but an offensive force, he's not.)
Then comes the wildcard in all of this--pitching. No, I'm not crazy about Kenny Rogers. However, he does seem to win games. Sometimes lots of them. No, Jeremy Bonderman hasn't lived up to the hype yet, but how many other big leaguers have his stuff at his age? It's a very short list. Mike Maroth is steady, if unspectacular and Nate Robertson isn't horrible, either. In fact, I'm not quite sure what Robertson's upside is. Let's just assume that Rogers gives Detroit 15 or more wins and the younger arms make normal progress, is it that hard to figure the staff could be very much improved?
Then toss in the just promoted Justin Verlander. You've read the articles. You've heard the Tigers' brass fawn all over him. You know the guy's got (if I may borrow Sam's terminology) wicked stuff. Sure, Verlander could have a typical up and down rookie season. Or he could be in the running for Rookie of the Year. If it's the latter, just how much improved would the staff seem then?
This rotation has three lefties. Two of them--Maroth and Rogers--are the soft tossing variety. Robertson has more velocity and then there's the righties. Bonderman and Verlander just throw nasty hard stuff. Come on, admit it. They might not end up as terrible as we think.
The bullpen is a tad scary. Todd Jones is your basic "Smoke three packs of cigarettes per batter" type of reliever. Calling Jones a reliever is a misnomer. He doesn't provide much relief at all. In fact, Jones creates far more anxiety than relief. He also saves quite a few games, which is his job.
The bullpen guys we know for sure are coming north are Fernando Rodney, Jamie Walker and the other pitching phenom, Joel Zumaya. While all three are question marks in my mind--Rodney still recovering his surgery of two years ago, Walker because he make me as nervous Jones, and Zumaya because he's a rook--they have all shown enough to make me believe they can, if properly used, be an effective lot.
The primary reason for my optimism on the bullpen is Zumaya. Again, here's another youngster we've heard tons about. The organization and scouts rave about just how hard he throws. If Zumaya's electric stuff can stun batters for an inning or two prior to Jones' arrival, then maybe Jones stuff will look that much more confounding to the opposing batters.
Even with all of my bubbling optimism, I'm not calling for a World Series, division title or even a wild card run. Nope, I just have the hope that the 2006 Detroit Tigers can be a fun baseball team. Maybe even a winning one. Crazy talk? Yep, but what's wrong with some high hopes a week before the opener? We'll have the rest of the season to think otherwise.
Truth be told, I became optimistic about the 2006 Tigers sometime in the middle of this past week. I can't say there was a specific moment when my '05 negativity relinquished it's control, but I have unquestionable made the transition from the disappointing end of last year to being upbeat about the '06 season. Four months tardy, I admit. But, hey, I made it, right?
Now, I could continue to opt for the traditional sky is falling routine. You know the bit. It goes like this: Dave Dombrowski is a moron, the Tigers farm system still stinks, the big league club is filled with overpaid, injury prone veterans and Jim Leyland isn't going to help. That's an easy and, perhaps, accurate assessment. However, from now through Opening Day, I'm going to take the opposite approach.
Even if Pudge Rodriguez, Magglio Ordonez and Dmitri Young don't produce up to their full potential, couldn't they still contribute significant numbers? If Carlos Guillen and Placido Polanco produce close to their potential, wouldn't the Tigers offense be rather formidable? What of Chris Shelton and Curtis Granderson? Couldn't full seasons from them be better than what the Tigers got out of their firstbase and centerfield spots a year ago? The potential for a strong offense is there and I'm not even tossing in Craig Monroe who had his best season ever in '05. (I honestly just take any offense Brandon Inge provides as a bonus. I like the guy, but an offensive force, he's not.)
Then comes the wildcard in all of this--pitching. No, I'm not crazy about Kenny Rogers. However, he does seem to win games. Sometimes lots of them. No, Jeremy Bonderman hasn't lived up to the hype yet, but how many other big leaguers have his stuff at his age? It's a very short list. Mike Maroth is steady, if unspectacular and Nate Robertson isn't horrible, either. In fact, I'm not quite sure what Robertson's upside is. Let's just assume that Rogers gives Detroit 15 or more wins and the younger arms make normal progress, is it that hard to figure the staff could be very much improved?
Then toss in the just promoted Justin Verlander. You've read the articles. You've heard the Tigers' brass fawn all over him. You know the guy's got (if I may borrow Sam's terminology) wicked stuff. Sure, Verlander could have a typical up and down rookie season. Or he could be in the running for Rookie of the Year. If it's the latter, just how much improved would the staff seem then?
This rotation has three lefties. Two of them--Maroth and Rogers--are the soft tossing variety. Robertson has more velocity and then there's the righties. Bonderman and Verlander just throw nasty hard stuff. Come on, admit it. They might not end up as terrible as we think.
The bullpen is a tad scary. Todd Jones is your basic "Smoke three packs of cigarettes per batter" type of reliever. Calling Jones a reliever is a misnomer. He doesn't provide much relief at all. In fact, Jones creates far more anxiety than relief. He also saves quite a few games, which is his job.
The bullpen guys we know for sure are coming north are Fernando Rodney, Jamie Walker and the other pitching phenom, Joel Zumaya. While all three are question marks in my mind--Rodney still recovering his surgery of two years ago, Walker because he make me as nervous Jones, and Zumaya because he's a rook--they have all shown enough to make me believe they can, if properly used, be an effective lot.
The primary reason for my optimism on the bullpen is Zumaya. Again, here's another youngster we've heard tons about. The organization and scouts rave about just how hard he throws. If Zumaya's electric stuff can stun batters for an inning or two prior to Jones' arrival, then maybe Jones stuff will look that much more confounding to the opposing batters.
Even with all of my bubbling optimism, I'm not calling for a World Series, division title or even a wild card run. Nope, I just have the hope that the 2006 Detroit Tigers can be a fun baseball team. Maybe even a winning one. Crazy talk? Yep, but what's wrong with some high hopes a week before the opener? We'll have the rest of the season to think otherwise.
Thursday, March 23, 2006
Fantasy Baseball And A Request For Advice
I run two fantasy baseball leagues--the Harry Heilmann League and the Gehringer-Greenberg League. This year, I've had some difficulties filling both leagues. Honestly, I'm having some off the blog field issues. My life for the last month or so probably qualifies as a country music song. The hot water tank leaked, the furnace broke, the last wind storm we had pulled a storm door almost complete off my house and, finally, my pick-up truck wouldn't start. Now, if that ain't sounding like country music hit, I don't know what is.
In addition to these messes, my employer sent about 200 people home for good about a month ago, I've been visiting my doctor semi-regularly, I'm apparently attempting to hold up the entire economy on my mediocre salary and I've got the usual assortment of adult responsibilities that are keeping me from important things like blogging and organizing my fantasy baseball leagues.
However, I would like to get both leagues off the ground. (Things are so backwards right now, that even the email I composed to about every blogger I know making this offer disappeared. Thought I had it in my drafts. However, it's nowhere to be found.) Now, as the season begins a week from Monday, time is an issue. I would post the specific details here, however, I want to know that you are truly interested in participating in one of these leagues. So I ask that you please email me if you are interested.
The Heilmann League is pretty straight forward and is a Yahoo! online draft. The G-Men League Draft has always been old school--we get as many participants as we can together in one room to hold the draft. Antiquated notion, I admit, but there's still something unique about a face-to-face draft. That may not be an option this season, but some traditions die hard with me.
In the end, neither league may take flight in 2006, but I had to attempt to get one of them kick started. I thank you for considering it.
Finally, I have a request for help. I received an email asking me if I would be interested in writing a weekly college baseball column. The question I pose to you is "Would that be a good idea?". You are probably thinking, "Why shouldn't you, Brian?". Have you seen my posting around here as of late? Not exactly consistent. It's even worse at my college baseball blog. I missed all of this past week.
Can I really take on two blogs, plus a weekly column? Seems like I might be biting off a bit more than I can chew. Sure, I like the idea, but there are clearly obstacles. And, no, I do not believe compensation is being offered. So, what do I do? Bill? Greg? Ian? Anyone?
In addition to these messes, my employer sent about 200 people home for good about a month ago, I've been visiting my doctor semi-regularly, I'm apparently attempting to hold up the entire economy on my mediocre salary and I've got the usual assortment of adult responsibilities that are keeping me from important things like blogging and organizing my fantasy baseball leagues.
However, I would like to get both leagues off the ground. (Things are so backwards right now, that even the email I composed to about every blogger I know making this offer disappeared. Thought I had it in my drafts. However, it's nowhere to be found.) Now, as the season begins a week from Monday, time is an issue. I would post the specific details here, however, I want to know that you are truly interested in participating in one of these leagues. So I ask that you please email me if you are interested.
The Heilmann League is pretty straight forward and is a Yahoo! online draft. The G-Men League Draft has always been old school--we get as many participants as we can together in one room to hold the draft. Antiquated notion, I admit, but there's still something unique about a face-to-face draft. That may not be an option this season, but some traditions die hard with me.
In the end, neither league may take flight in 2006, but I had to attempt to get one of them kick started. I thank you for considering it.
Finally, I have a request for help. I received an email asking me if I would be interested in writing a weekly college baseball column. The question I pose to you is "Would that be a good idea?". You are probably thinking, "Why shouldn't you, Brian?". Have you seen my posting around here as of late? Not exactly consistent. It's even worse at my college baseball blog. I missed all of this past week.
Can I really take on two blogs, plus a weekly column? Seems like I might be biting off a bit more than I can chew. Sure, I like the idea, but there are clearly obstacles. And, no, I do not believe compensation is being offered. So, what do I do? Bill? Greg? Ian? Anyone?
Friday, March 17, 2006
Run. Run, Now. It's A Soccer Post.
If there is one thing you've come to expect around here it's me providing insights on things you just don't care about. This post will live up to all your expectations--I'm going to talk soccer. Originally, I was just going to mention a topic or two, but the soccer theme just kept repeating, so it gets its own post.
As a courtesy to all, I've combined all my soccer thoughts into a single post so the majority of you can skip reading this altogether. (You are welcome.) For my soccer brethren, here is a post all to yourselves. (Yourself?) Anyway, it's all soccer and you've been warned.
* Did you know Detroit was granted an expansion franchise in the Major Indoor Soccer League? Now, if someone was going to know this piece of information, wouldn't you bet it would be me? Which other Detroit sports blogger would even bother to mention it? Yet, somehow this snuck past me until just this past week. No name for Detroit's latest entry into indoor soccer, but I guess it's going to be announced next month.
* In other expansion news, I contacted the local group attempting to bring an MLS franchise to Metro Detroit. Seems they are stuck in neutral attempting to find an ownership group. Not terribly surprising in light of the area's dreadful economy. However, I am disappointed to hear that more progress isn't being made.
In theory, I truly believe Detroit could and would support a MLS franchise. I also think it makes Detroit look like a big time city to the world if it has a legit first division soccer team regardless of what level of play Major League Soccer is perceived to be at.
* MLS has a couple of newly named franchises. First, is the Houston Dynamo. I'm not crazy about this new moniker. I'm with MLS FanGirl (who is getting added to the blogroll) on this one, it just doesn't sound right. Eric hits the nail on the head when he suggests it sounds too much like a Cold War Eastern European name.
The team's original name was Houston 1836. However, as Houston was "acquired" from Mexico in a less than friendly fashion, many in the local community frowned on naming the club after the year of the city's birth. A tad too PC for me, but fair enough. MLS and Houston ownership group doesn't want to offend what might be the largest portion of their fanbase and I can understand that.
However, as Eric astutely points out that, perhaps, some should research Sam Houston, for whom the town was named, before complaining about the 1836 tag. However, if that occurred, it would only start up a political correctness parade which would lead to no name whatsoever. Maybe Dynamo isn't so bad, after all.
Houston wasn't alone in the name change game. Red Bull, yes, those behind the energy drink, bought the New York/New Jersey Metrostars. Right on cue, the parent company changed the team's name to New York Red Bulls. I've also heard it referred to as Red Bull New York. Obviously, this name changed has gotten some folks more wound up then they would be after a six pack of Red Bull.
First, the N.J. supporters feels left out in the cold. After all, the team does play in N.J. Then there are the Metrostars fans, many of whom own Metrostars (now retro) apparel, who just aren't embracing the new title. There are those who frown upon the corporate tackiness of the name, as well. Honestly, I kind of like Red Bull New York, but I also thought the team should have been named Cosmos after the NASL powerhouse right from the beginning, so what do I know?
* Let's see, any other football related topics I'd like to address? Everton have been redhot since January 1. Hmmm. Who thought they would struggle until after the holidays? Blind squirrel theory in action there. Nonetheless, I am quite pleased with the turnaround.
I'm still rooting for the Toffees and Nottingham Forest. I still support Reading, as well, but that's mostly because of Bobby Convey. For some unknown reason, I just like Everton and Forest. I know, I'm nuts for caring about English football.
* Finally, yes, I debated joining a MLS fantasy league. I haven't done so as of yet mostly because I am a casual fan and feel my knowledge of the league overall is woefully inadequate for the task. Of course, I'm in way over my head with the English Premier League fantasy league team I've got, so maybe I should give the domestic league a try.
As a courtesy to all, I've combined all my soccer thoughts into a single post so the majority of you can skip reading this altogether. (You are welcome.) For my soccer brethren, here is a post all to yourselves. (Yourself?) Anyway, it's all soccer and you've been warned.
* Did you know Detroit was granted an expansion franchise in the Major Indoor Soccer League? Now, if someone was going to know this piece of information, wouldn't you bet it would be me? Which other Detroit sports blogger would even bother to mention it? Yet, somehow this snuck past me until just this past week. No name for Detroit's latest entry into indoor soccer, but I guess it's going to be announced next month.
* In other expansion news, I contacted the local group attempting to bring an MLS franchise to Metro Detroit. Seems they are stuck in neutral attempting to find an ownership group. Not terribly surprising in light of the area's dreadful economy. However, I am disappointed to hear that more progress isn't being made.
In theory, I truly believe Detroit could and would support a MLS franchise. I also think it makes Detroit look like a big time city to the world if it has a legit first division soccer team regardless of what level of play Major League Soccer is perceived to be at.
* MLS has a couple of newly named franchises. First, is the Houston Dynamo. I'm not crazy about this new moniker. I'm with MLS FanGirl (who is getting added to the blogroll) on this one, it just doesn't sound right. Eric hits the nail on the head when he suggests it sounds too much like a Cold War Eastern European name.
The team's original name was Houston 1836. However, as Houston was "acquired" from Mexico in a less than friendly fashion, many in the local community frowned on naming the club after the year of the city's birth. A tad too PC for me, but fair enough. MLS and Houston ownership group doesn't want to offend what might be the largest portion of their fanbase and I can understand that.
However, as Eric astutely points out that, perhaps, some should research Sam Houston, for whom the town was named, before complaining about the 1836 tag. However, if that occurred, it would only start up a political correctness parade which would lead to no name whatsoever. Maybe Dynamo isn't so bad, after all.
Houston wasn't alone in the name change game. Red Bull, yes, those behind the energy drink, bought the New York/New Jersey Metrostars. Right on cue, the parent company changed the team's name to New York Red Bulls. I've also heard it referred to as Red Bull New York. Obviously, this name changed has gotten some folks more wound up then they would be after a six pack of Red Bull.
First, the N.J. supporters feels left out in the cold. After all, the team does play in N.J. Then there are the Metrostars fans, many of whom own Metrostars (now retro) apparel, who just aren't embracing the new title. There are those who frown upon the corporate tackiness of the name, as well. Honestly, I kind of like Red Bull New York, but I also thought the team should have been named Cosmos after the NASL powerhouse right from the beginning, so what do I know?
* Let's see, any other football related topics I'd like to address? Everton have been redhot since January 1. Hmmm. Who thought they would struggle until after the holidays? Blind squirrel theory in action there. Nonetheless, I am quite pleased with the turnaround.
I'm still rooting for the Toffees and Nottingham Forest. I still support Reading, as well, but that's mostly because of Bobby Convey. For some unknown reason, I just like Everton and Forest. I know, I'm nuts for caring about English football.
* Finally, yes, I debated joining a MLS fantasy league. I haven't done so as of yet mostly because I am a casual fan and feel my knowledge of the league overall is woefully inadequate for the task. Of course, I'm in way over my head with the English Premier League fantasy league team I've got, so maybe I should give the domestic league a try.
Tuesday, March 14, 2006
Edwards? Drummond? Kitna?
I wish I could clearly articulate just how perplexed I am with the Detroit Lions foray into free agency as of this moment. Yet, as a lowly, simple minded blogger, I am unable to find the words to suffice. I do take some solace in knowing that there are still some productive free agents remaining and the draft cometh. However, right this moment, I am left utterly amazed at the futility that is our football club.
Saturday, March 11, 2006
That Can't Be Right
I see where the Detroit Free Press sports section was named one of the ten best in the country. Is anyone else wondering just how bad the other nine have to be? The Freep sports section has been on a steady decline for years. I regularly find it laughably underwhelming. There are days I pick up the entire section and can see through it. Not just light, but actually objects on the other side. How is that one of the top sports sections in the land?
Tommy Amaker's Reign
In the interest of complete disclosure, I should preface my post with the following: I'm a Tommy Amaker fan. I remember him from his playing days at Duke. He was a tough defensive player on a winning team. As such, I wanted Amaker as Michigan's coach. Even when Brian Ellerbe got the gig, I thought Amaker should have. I want Amaker to stay as Michigan coach. However, I cannot come up with a single reason that he should.
Yes, Amaker's stabilized the program. With all due respect to Amaker, couldn't Michigan have found about 100 guys to do that? I mean they were a step above the old UNLV program when Amaker arrived. Michigan's administration almost could have chosen anyone with an ounce of credibility and stopped the bleeding. However, wouldn't some of them posted better records? The problem for Amaker is that his record is only part of the dilemma.
I don't believe that very many of his upper classmen are much better basketball players then when they arrived. His recruiting has been good, not great. His team's play appears unorganized and his decision making can be questioned. Finally, and this may be my biggest issue with the guy I wanted, Amaker refuses to sell his program. He just won't get in front of cameras and microphones and promote the university's program--his program.
This closed door approach might work for coaches with Final Fours under their belt. Coach K, Roy Williams, Bobby Knight, Jim Calhoun can basically do whatever they want. Closed practices, open practices, talk to everyone, talk to no one. It's their choice. Their record, their program's history speaks for itself. Michigan and Coach Amaker cannot afford that. Michigan is not a basketball school and it's head basketball coach needs to sell the program to the alumni and fans here as much as he needs to promote it to potential recruits. Yet, Coach Amaker is oddly absent from the public's eye (and ear).
Michigan needs to get itself onto the college basketball map. There are two ways to accomplish that- sell the program relentlessly to all that will hear and win games. I don't think Amaker has done either. While I don't think that Michigan's administration has any idea about firing him, I'm his fan and even I find myself asking why he should stay.
Yes, Amaker's stabilized the program. With all due respect to Amaker, couldn't Michigan have found about 100 guys to do that? I mean they were a step above the old UNLV program when Amaker arrived. Michigan's administration almost could have chosen anyone with an ounce of credibility and stopped the bleeding. However, wouldn't some of them posted better records? The problem for Amaker is that his record is only part of the dilemma.
I don't believe that very many of his upper classmen are much better basketball players then when they arrived. His recruiting has been good, not great. His team's play appears unorganized and his decision making can be questioned. Finally, and this may be my biggest issue with the guy I wanted, Amaker refuses to sell his program. He just won't get in front of cameras and microphones and promote the university's program--his program.
This closed door approach might work for coaches with Final Fours under their belt. Coach K, Roy Williams, Bobby Knight, Jim Calhoun can basically do whatever they want. Closed practices, open practices, talk to everyone, talk to no one. It's their choice. Their record, their program's history speaks for itself. Michigan and Coach Amaker cannot afford that. Michigan is not a basketball school and it's head basketball coach needs to sell the program to the alumni and fans here as much as he needs to promote it to potential recruits. Yet, Coach Amaker is oddly absent from the public's eye (and ear).
Michigan needs to get itself onto the college basketball map. There are two ways to accomplish that- sell the program relentlessly to all that will hear and win games. I don't think Amaker has done either. While I don't think that Michigan's administration has any idea about firing him, I'm his fan and even I find myself asking why he should stay.
Wednesday, March 01, 2006
More Team, Less Dream
The invitees to USA Basketball's Olympic team tryouts have been leaked out. Thankfully, it seems that the powers-that-be have opted for a more balanced approach to roster building than just tossing whichever All-Star Game participants are willing to show up together and assuming victory will follow. (Just ask Larry Brown how well that went.) No, the team that dons the red, white and blue in Beijing in 2008 may actually be a team.
Sure, the usual assortment of highlight reel members are going to be in USA Basketball's Olympic camp. LeBron James, Kobe Bryant, Paul Pierce, and Dwayne Wade are present and accounted for. However, role players like Bruce Bowen, Brad Miller and Shane Battier are vying for roster spots, too. It appears that USA Basketball has finally learned a lesson--a team is more than just guys all wearing the same jersey. It's something their hockey brethren to the north have understood for quite a while.
As long as I can recall, when Hockey Canada assembled a national team, they have always included role players. Yes, the big scorers get the media attention, but the Canada squad has always had defensive defensemen, shorthanded specialists and a checking line. A darn impressive checking line, mind you, but a checking line nonetheless.
This more "team" centered approach, while leaving some stars at home, is how guys like the Red Wings Kris Draper gets to wear the maple leaf in the Olympics. Wayne Gretzky knows hockey is about scoring, but it's also about killing penalties, winning faceoffs and beating your opponent to lose pucks. It's the reason that Canada generally does rather well even when suiting up NHL players. They don't forget to take guys along to do the dirty work and who aren't going to whine about sitting too much.
(A side note: I discount this year's Olympic result for Canada. They are in transition. Guys like Joe Thornton, Rick Nash and others are dynamic players, but have never had the pressure of being "The Man" in a big situation. Few situations are bigger for Canadian players than putting on that sweater and some of them just weren't ready. They will be next time. Sorry, for the unrelated tangent, but I had to get that in.)
Ironically, this is the same approach to assembling a team that USA Basketball used of years when the college kids represented the country. They gathered a wide group of players, held real tryouts and selected the best unit. That sometimes meant some big names didn't make it. More often than not, you had some lesser known players on the roster selected to play specific roles. This method yielded decades of success. Perhaps, now that the rest of the world has caught up to the US in basketball success, the NBA driven squad will follow the old formula of putting together a team.
Now, picking which 12 players go to China will be a challenge. To see for yourself, go to this ESPN.com poll and pick your twelve. While we don't agree on every single slot, Bill Simmons has chosen a team that basically I would have. We also agree on a number of very specific items in regards to the roster.
We both think Kobe Bryant will make the team even if it's not the best thing for the team. We both think Chauncey Billups should start. We both believe Chris Paul needs to be on this team. Neither one of us, nor any reasonable person, can figure how Luke Ridnour got the nod over Kirk Hinrich? It makes no sense. (No offense, Luke, Kirk's just better. That doesn't mean you aren't good, though.)
In addition to the points Mr. Simmons and I concurred on, I also thought that Tayshaun Prince could have been a valuable guy for the USA (he can play D, multiple positions and hit a three), but I realize there are only so many invitations going out. I also am a bit disappointed that Alan Iverson didn't get a call. I'm not an Iverson guy, per se, but whenever USA Basketball went looking for volunteers, A.I. was the first to raise his hand. That's more than I can say for Shaq, Kobe and a number of other NBA stars. For that, I thought The Answer earned an invitation at minimum.
Now, all this said, Jerry Colangelo and the honchos over at USA Basketball, in cooperation with the NBA, of course, could still opt to make this Dream Team XVIIXL or whatever number we are on now. (Note: There was only one Dream Team regardless of what anyone, anywhere tells you.) They could take the traveling circus that would be Kobe vs. Shaq to China. They could opt for Amare Stoudemire's unproven, as of yet, knee over a healthier Chris Bosh. They could opt to leave the role players at training camp. However, I am hopeful with the announcement (ok, leak) of this list of players that USA Basketball has it's priorities in order. Build a team first, worry about marketing opportunities later.
Sure, the usual assortment of highlight reel members are going to be in USA Basketball's Olympic camp. LeBron James, Kobe Bryant, Paul Pierce, and Dwayne Wade are present and accounted for. However, role players like Bruce Bowen, Brad Miller and Shane Battier are vying for roster spots, too. It appears that USA Basketball has finally learned a lesson--a team is more than just guys all wearing the same jersey. It's something their hockey brethren to the north have understood for quite a while.
As long as I can recall, when Hockey Canada assembled a national team, they have always included role players. Yes, the big scorers get the media attention, but the Canada squad has always had defensive defensemen, shorthanded specialists and a checking line. A darn impressive checking line, mind you, but a checking line nonetheless.
This more "team" centered approach, while leaving some stars at home, is how guys like the Red Wings Kris Draper gets to wear the maple leaf in the Olympics. Wayne Gretzky knows hockey is about scoring, but it's also about killing penalties, winning faceoffs and beating your opponent to lose pucks. It's the reason that Canada generally does rather well even when suiting up NHL players. They don't forget to take guys along to do the dirty work and who aren't going to whine about sitting too much.
(A side note: I discount this year's Olympic result for Canada. They are in transition. Guys like Joe Thornton, Rick Nash and others are dynamic players, but have never had the pressure of being "The Man" in a big situation. Few situations are bigger for Canadian players than putting on that sweater and some of them just weren't ready. They will be next time. Sorry, for the unrelated tangent, but I had to get that in.)
Ironically, this is the same approach to assembling a team that USA Basketball used of years when the college kids represented the country. They gathered a wide group of players, held real tryouts and selected the best unit. That sometimes meant some big names didn't make it. More often than not, you had some lesser known players on the roster selected to play specific roles. This method yielded decades of success. Perhaps, now that the rest of the world has caught up to the US in basketball success, the NBA driven squad will follow the old formula of putting together a team.
Now, picking which 12 players go to China will be a challenge. To see for yourself, go to this ESPN.com poll and pick your twelve. While we don't agree on every single slot, Bill Simmons has chosen a team that basically I would have. We also agree on a number of very specific items in regards to the roster.
We both think Kobe Bryant will make the team even if it's not the best thing for the team. We both think Chauncey Billups should start. We both believe Chris Paul needs to be on this team. Neither one of us, nor any reasonable person, can figure how Luke Ridnour got the nod over Kirk Hinrich? It makes no sense. (No offense, Luke, Kirk's just better. That doesn't mean you aren't good, though.)
In addition to the points Mr. Simmons and I concurred on, I also thought that Tayshaun Prince could have been a valuable guy for the USA (he can play D, multiple positions and hit a three), but I realize there are only so many invitations going out. I also am a bit disappointed that Alan Iverson didn't get a call. I'm not an Iverson guy, per se, but whenever USA Basketball went looking for volunteers, A.I. was the first to raise his hand. That's more than I can say for Shaq, Kobe and a number of other NBA stars. For that, I thought The Answer earned an invitation at minimum.
Now, all this said, Jerry Colangelo and the honchos over at USA Basketball, in cooperation with the NBA, of course, could still opt to make this Dream Team XVIIXL or whatever number we are on now. (Note: There was only one Dream Team regardless of what anyone, anywhere tells you.) They could take the traveling circus that would be Kobe vs. Shaq to China. They could opt for Amare Stoudemire's unproven, as of yet, knee over a healthier Chris Bosh. They could opt to leave the role players at training camp. However, I am hopeful with the announcement (ok, leak) of this list of players that USA Basketball has it's priorities in order. Build a team first, worry about marketing opportunities later.
Friday, February 24, 2006
It's Not A Classic. Yet.
The World Baseball Classic is set to begin in less than a week. However, without a single pitch being thrown the international tournament is being met with yawns and complaints. I completely understand where the negativity is coming from, a large portion of the concern is justified, but I just can't by into it.
On the heels of the Winter Olympics, I understand that the average American sports fan probably isn't going to be in the mood for another international event. I can even comprehend why the average baseball fan isn't embracing the WBC. Baseball just doesn't have much international history to build on. (We all have fond memories of Ben Sheets stirring Olympic performance, don't we?) What little it does have is confined to amateur baseball which few people watch. In light of that, the collective apathy on display here in the United States is perfectly understandable.
The doomsayers, and there are plenty, have points of merit, as well. Could a player be seriously injured? Of course. Could losing a star cost a team it's chance at a World Series? Yes. Do all the players really want to play? Do they even want participate that much in a normal Spring Training environment? Of course, not. Is the event diminished because pitchers will be on pitch counts? Yes, it does.
Could the event be held at a better time of the year? Absolutely. I think between Thanksgiving and Christmas would be my first choice--marketing opportunities abound between the holidays (sell those Netherlands jerseys) and with college football winding down there is television time available. Are the rules regarding eligibility fuzzy to the point of being absurd? Yeah, probably, but does anyone think those Olympic downhill skiers from tropical locales are really living on an island most of the year?
Could Major League Baseball's initial foray into international competition been better constructed? Certainly, but to paraphrase a famous sailorman, the WBC is what it is. It's the inaugural event. It's a trial run. It's, hopefully, a warm-up for a bigger, better event down the road. It is, as many have accurately pointed out, much closer to an exhibition series. Again, the WBC is what it is--a Spring Training game.
After spending four paragraphs reviewing a partial list of objections, and agreeing with them, why do I still like this event? I like baseball. That's fairly well document around here. I like international events, too. Canada Cup hockey. World Cup soccer. Olympics--summer and winter. I watch them all. Put baseball and international competition together? What's not to like?
Oh, I admit there is a less positive side, but some of it's overblown. Players can get hurt, but they get hurt all the time. Some are injured falling down stairs or fishing. Would I like to see the eligibility rules more clearly defined? I guess so, but Steve Yzerman could have played for Canada in the Olympics if he chose to. Mr. Yzerman is now a United States citizen. Yet, I would not have lost sleep over Stevie Y. playing with a Maple Leaf on his jersey anymore than I am offended at Mike Piazza donning an Italy cap.
There are problems without a doubt. Yet, I think we are getting the cart before the horse. This isn't on the level of World Cup soccer by any means. Yeah, MLB's marketing arm is trying to shove it down our throats to a point, but let's keep this first one in perspective. Let's see what happens, both good and bad, and then draw some conclusions. I have limited expectations from this years WBC, but from my vantage point, I still see this tournament becoming significant.
All this event needs is history behind it. Rivalries need to be formed. Games need to be won in miraculous fashion and painful, perhaps, controversial losses need to occur. What the WBC needs most is passion. Right now, fans in the States just don't have an emotional investment. That kind of intensity, one which fuels debate over team selection and drives up television ratings, can only be built over time. This first WBC is just the platform on which that emotion will be built.
Now, you are probably still not willing to jump on board. That's fine. I expect to take this voyage alone. Baseball fans have over one hundred years of club baseball in their bloodstream. I don't expect you to suddenly toss your baseball priorities to your favorite MLB team to the curb, grab the old Stars and Stripes and embrace something that's in it's infancy. Of course, there are some folks who are more than warming up to WBC I.
Other nations, perhaps, all other nations in this tournament are geeked up about this. No, I don't mean their players. (Although, I suspect some of the players are, too.) I mean their fans. I've read where a number of foreign players are being pressured into playing. Fans in those countries embrace baseball, international competition and a chance at knocking off the U.S.A. at its own game. They expect their biggest stars to play. While they can continue to back-out, that strategy will only help them if their countrymen succeed. Fail, and those that took a pass might be under a bit more pressure next time around.
If you can't get behind some simple patriotism/jingoism (your choice), then, perhaps, I can get you to root for the success of the WBC for another reason. For all the things Bud Selig has done to annoy even the most casual baseball observer, in starting the WBC, he's done the right thing. Why? Because baseball really is an international sport. I've grown weary of hearing that it's not.
Just because Europeans are quite at the same level as Latin or Asian countries doesn't mean the Euros don't play or the sport isn't global. This isn't 1940. Participants are no longer limited to people living east of the Mississippi River and west of the Atlantic Ocean. I find this downplaying of baseball global appeal just a bit condescending. It's not global if the Europeans aren't good at it? No, it isn't as widely played as soccer, but baseball has reached beyond the U.S. Far beyond.
Another good reason to get behind this idea is that it takes money out of the pockets of the International Olympic Committee. It also annoys them (which delights me). The IOC wants baseball, but only if MLB stops it's regular season and plays during the Summer Games. They've been trying to blackmail Selig and USA Baseball for years--no MLB players, no baseball in the Olympics.
Sure enough, when a comprise wasn't reached, and the WBC appeared to be a reality, the IOC kicked baseball aside. To make matters worse, the IOC got so mad at MLB for denying the Olympic's superiority that they tossed out softball from the games, too. Why hurt the women because MLB players won't go? Because they are a spiteful, greedy lot. That's why.
So, while you might not like the timing of the WBC, remember it could be mid-July in China. The IOC could be making the money, too. Thanks to Selig's refusal to backdown from the IOC, we get the WBC. That alone should make everyone wish for the event to prosper.
All I ask is that you enter this event with an open mind. Don't raise your expectations beyond a reasonable level. Yes, pitchers will be on short leash. Yes, somebody may get injured. However, we might get some fairly entertaining baseball and the beginnings of something much better. It may not deserve the Classic tag, yet, but let's give it time.
On the heels of the Winter Olympics, I understand that the average American sports fan probably isn't going to be in the mood for another international event. I can even comprehend why the average baseball fan isn't embracing the WBC. Baseball just doesn't have much international history to build on. (We all have fond memories of Ben Sheets stirring Olympic performance, don't we?) What little it does have is confined to amateur baseball which few people watch. In light of that, the collective apathy on display here in the United States is perfectly understandable.
The doomsayers, and there are plenty, have points of merit, as well. Could a player be seriously injured? Of course. Could losing a star cost a team it's chance at a World Series? Yes. Do all the players really want to play? Do they even want participate that much in a normal Spring Training environment? Of course, not. Is the event diminished because pitchers will be on pitch counts? Yes, it does.
Could the event be held at a better time of the year? Absolutely. I think between Thanksgiving and Christmas would be my first choice--marketing opportunities abound between the holidays (sell those Netherlands jerseys) and with college football winding down there is television time available. Are the rules regarding eligibility fuzzy to the point of being absurd? Yeah, probably, but does anyone think those Olympic downhill skiers from tropical locales are really living on an island most of the year?
Could Major League Baseball's initial foray into international competition been better constructed? Certainly, but to paraphrase a famous sailorman, the WBC is what it is. It's the inaugural event. It's a trial run. It's, hopefully, a warm-up for a bigger, better event down the road. It is, as many have accurately pointed out, much closer to an exhibition series. Again, the WBC is what it is--a Spring Training game.
After spending four paragraphs reviewing a partial list of objections, and agreeing with them, why do I still like this event? I like baseball. That's fairly well document around here. I like international events, too. Canada Cup hockey. World Cup soccer. Olympics--summer and winter. I watch them all. Put baseball and international competition together? What's not to like?
Oh, I admit there is a less positive side, but some of it's overblown. Players can get hurt, but they get hurt all the time. Some are injured falling down stairs or fishing. Would I like to see the eligibility rules more clearly defined? I guess so, but Steve Yzerman could have played for Canada in the Olympics if he chose to. Mr. Yzerman is now a United States citizen. Yet, I would not have lost sleep over Stevie Y. playing with a Maple Leaf on his jersey anymore than I am offended at Mike Piazza donning an Italy cap.
There are problems without a doubt. Yet, I think we are getting the cart before the horse. This isn't on the level of World Cup soccer by any means. Yeah, MLB's marketing arm is trying to shove it down our throats to a point, but let's keep this first one in perspective. Let's see what happens, both good and bad, and then draw some conclusions. I have limited expectations from this years WBC, but from my vantage point, I still see this tournament becoming significant.
All this event needs is history behind it. Rivalries need to be formed. Games need to be won in miraculous fashion and painful, perhaps, controversial losses need to occur. What the WBC needs most is passion. Right now, fans in the States just don't have an emotional investment. That kind of intensity, one which fuels debate over team selection and drives up television ratings, can only be built over time. This first WBC is just the platform on which that emotion will be built.
Now, you are probably still not willing to jump on board. That's fine. I expect to take this voyage alone. Baseball fans have over one hundred years of club baseball in their bloodstream. I don't expect you to suddenly toss your baseball priorities to your favorite MLB team to the curb, grab the old Stars and Stripes and embrace something that's in it's infancy. Of course, there are some folks who are more than warming up to WBC I.
Other nations, perhaps, all other nations in this tournament are geeked up about this. No, I don't mean their players. (Although, I suspect some of the players are, too.) I mean their fans. I've read where a number of foreign players are being pressured into playing. Fans in those countries embrace baseball, international competition and a chance at knocking off the U.S.A. at its own game. They expect their biggest stars to play. While they can continue to back-out, that strategy will only help them if their countrymen succeed. Fail, and those that took a pass might be under a bit more pressure next time around.
If you can't get behind some simple patriotism/jingoism (your choice), then, perhaps, I can get you to root for the success of the WBC for another reason. For all the things Bud Selig has done to annoy even the most casual baseball observer, in starting the WBC, he's done the right thing. Why? Because baseball really is an international sport. I've grown weary of hearing that it's not.
Just because Europeans are quite at the same level as Latin or Asian countries doesn't mean the Euros don't play or the sport isn't global. This isn't 1940. Participants are no longer limited to people living east of the Mississippi River and west of the Atlantic Ocean. I find this downplaying of baseball global appeal just a bit condescending. It's not global if the Europeans aren't good at it? No, it isn't as widely played as soccer, but baseball has reached beyond the U.S. Far beyond.
Another good reason to get behind this idea is that it takes money out of the pockets of the International Olympic Committee. It also annoys them (which delights me). The IOC wants baseball, but only if MLB stops it's regular season and plays during the Summer Games. They've been trying to blackmail Selig and USA Baseball for years--no MLB players, no baseball in the Olympics.
Sure enough, when a comprise wasn't reached, and the WBC appeared to be a reality, the IOC kicked baseball aside. To make matters worse, the IOC got so mad at MLB for denying the Olympic's superiority that they tossed out softball from the games, too. Why hurt the women because MLB players won't go? Because they are a spiteful, greedy lot. That's why.
So, while you might not like the timing of the WBC, remember it could be mid-July in China. The IOC could be making the money, too. Thanks to Selig's refusal to backdown from the IOC, we get the WBC. That alone should make everyone wish for the event to prosper.
All I ask is that you enter this event with an open mind. Don't raise your expectations beyond a reasonable level. Yes, pitchers will be on short leash. Yes, somebody may get injured. However, we might get some fairly entertaining baseball and the beginnings of something much better. It may not deserve the Classic tag, yet, but let's give it time.
Tuesday, February 21, 2006
Curling Crazy
I began curling this past November. I started because I needed some exercise and wanted to find a winter sport that wouldn't be too demanding, as I am terribly out of shape, but still had some degree of competitiveness. So, curling it was. I've had fun learning the sport, but what has caught me by surprise is curling's popularity.
Nearly everywhere I go now, I find someone talking about curling. I went to the hospital to have a test and what does the technician tell me? Her nephew curls at Bowling Green University. When I tell a long time friend of mine that I started curling what does he tell me? He watches curling all the time. He and his wife were debating going to Canada to catch a bonspeil in Ontario. Fellow blogger and DIBS member, Billfer claims to curl once a year.
It's even invaded my wife's place of work. Seems one of her co-workers and a husband of another co-worker watch curling on the CBC, as well. They watch for hours. I don't believe either have ever tossed a stone, but they are glued to their televisions listening to skips yell "Hard!". (Insert Brokeback Mountain joke here.)
When I heard at the Curling Club that the second most watched Winter Olympic event four years ago was curling, I just kind of wrote it off as stuff people who love their sport are apt to say. It had to be some sort of fuzzy math that came up with that stat. I never knew of anyone that really watched curling. That's before I mentioned to people that I was curling.
Now, curling fans seem to be coming at me from all directions. I guess I shouldn't be all that surprised to learn that there are lots of closet curling fans. After all, I never knew a single person that said they watched NASCAR, either. Now, stockcar fans are swarming us like locusts. (Sorry, for that analogy, Al.) Apparently, they were all in the closet, too. (Another Brokeback Mountain joke opportunity. I'll leave it to your discretion.)
The "outting" of curling fans is now in full flight as the Olympics have given the sport airtime on world wide television. The sport is buzzing with all kinds of attention. The question, as it was posed to us by another blogging friend, Iain, is why?
Honestly, I'm not quite sure. I laughed off curling in years past, too, so it's seemingly robust following has caught me off guard. Let's see if I can guess why people watch. First, and, perhaps, most importantly, curling is often associated with beer. Beer is popular, thus curling is popular. That explains some of the participants, but it doesn't explain those watching, does it? (Even if they are tipping a Molson's while watching.)
It's a simple game requiring some complex thought. (Wow, do I sound like Crash Davis there.) Skips, like baseball managers, are expected to think two and three steps ahead of where the game is now. If we do this, they will do this. Like bowling or billiards, you have to recognize angles. Shots often have to be hit at precise angles to create specific results. This type of thinking tends to attract certain kinds of people. There appears to be a number of engineers at the club where I curl. However, it takes more than a few engineers who like beer to prop up curling's television ratings.
In the end, I suspect curling's mass appeal comes from it's simplicity. Not much equipment--rocks, brooms, ice. Pretty simple to figure out where the target is. It's plenty big, too. It's pace of play is steady, but nowhere near fast. (Plenty of time to grab a snack or Labatt's between shots.) Young and old, men and women can play. Much like another game it's compared to, bowling, I think curling's ability to attract that broad audience lends itself to wider appeal. Only curling has a bit of je ne sais quoi.
Whatever it is, curling's become the flavor of the day. (Google's actually got their Olympic figure curling today. Two stones comprise the O's.) Who knew I was on the cutting edge of a new trend?
Nearly everywhere I go now, I find someone talking about curling. I went to the hospital to have a test and what does the technician tell me? Her nephew curls at Bowling Green University. When I tell a long time friend of mine that I started curling what does he tell me? He watches curling all the time. He and his wife were debating going to Canada to catch a bonspeil in Ontario. Fellow blogger and DIBS member, Billfer claims to curl once a year.
It's even invaded my wife's place of work. Seems one of her co-workers and a husband of another co-worker watch curling on the CBC, as well. They watch for hours. I don't believe either have ever tossed a stone, but they are glued to their televisions listening to skips yell "Hard!". (Insert Brokeback Mountain joke here.)
When I heard at the Curling Club that the second most watched Winter Olympic event four years ago was curling, I just kind of wrote it off as stuff people who love their sport are apt to say. It had to be some sort of fuzzy math that came up with that stat. I never knew of anyone that really watched curling. That's before I mentioned to people that I was curling.
Now, curling fans seem to be coming at me from all directions. I guess I shouldn't be all that surprised to learn that there are lots of closet curling fans. After all, I never knew a single person that said they watched NASCAR, either. Now, stockcar fans are swarming us like locusts. (Sorry, for that analogy, Al.) Apparently, they were all in the closet, too. (Another Brokeback Mountain joke opportunity. I'll leave it to your discretion.)
The "outting" of curling fans is now in full flight as the Olympics have given the sport airtime on world wide television. The sport is buzzing with all kinds of attention. The question, as it was posed to us by another blogging friend, Iain, is why?
Honestly, I'm not quite sure. I laughed off curling in years past, too, so it's seemingly robust following has caught me off guard. Let's see if I can guess why people watch. First, and, perhaps, most importantly, curling is often associated with beer. Beer is popular, thus curling is popular. That explains some of the participants, but it doesn't explain those watching, does it? (Even if they are tipping a Molson's while watching.)
It's a simple game requiring some complex thought. (Wow, do I sound like Crash Davis there.) Skips, like baseball managers, are expected to think two and three steps ahead of where the game is now. If we do this, they will do this. Like bowling or billiards, you have to recognize angles. Shots often have to be hit at precise angles to create specific results. This type of thinking tends to attract certain kinds of people. There appears to be a number of engineers at the club where I curl. However, it takes more than a few engineers who like beer to prop up curling's television ratings.
In the end, I suspect curling's mass appeal comes from it's simplicity. Not much equipment--rocks, brooms, ice. Pretty simple to figure out where the target is. It's plenty big, too. It's pace of play is steady, but nowhere near fast. (Plenty of time to grab a snack or Labatt's between shots.) Young and old, men and women can play. Much like another game it's compared to, bowling, I think curling's ability to attract that broad audience lends itself to wider appeal. Only curling has a bit of je ne sais quoi.
Whatever it is, curling's become the flavor of the day. (Google's actually got their Olympic figure curling today. Two stones comprise the O's.) Who knew I was on the cutting edge of a new trend?
The Zoo Debacle
* Warning: This post is not about sports. Repeat. This post is not about sports. You have been warned. *
When we wonder why Detroit cannot seem to have a true, long term revitalization we need to look no further than the current controversy over The Detroit Zoo. The impasse over the Zoo's future is stuck exactly where the city as found itself for years--tangled in political in-fighting.
Everyone with a stake in the city's future, from public officials to private business, seem to be more worried about who gets the credit for a would-be Detroit revival, and lining up to cash in on it, that the city's progress comes in painfully slow baby steps. If it comes at all.
The battleground for Detroit's future is littered with disputes and distrust between the Mayor's office and city council, public and private organizations and the perpetual battle between the city and the region. Lying beneath the surface of all these economic and political conflicts is the ever-present racial undertones that paralyze the city, the region and the state's ability to move it's largest metropolis forward.
As I don't expect this political merry-go-round to stop anytime soon, I remain dubious of the city's latest renaissance. Like so many, I want to believe that Detroit can finally rebound from decades of loss, but the Zoo's plight only highlight problems that seem to have no answers. At a time when Detroit appeared to be on the doorstep of progress it appears that greed and political grandstanding remain the city's highest priority.
When we wonder why Detroit cannot seem to have a true, long term revitalization we need to look no further than the current controversy over The Detroit Zoo. The impasse over the Zoo's future is stuck exactly where the city as found itself for years--tangled in political in-fighting.
Everyone with a stake in the city's future, from public officials to private business, seem to be more worried about who gets the credit for a would-be Detroit revival, and lining up to cash in on it, that the city's progress comes in painfully slow baby steps. If it comes at all.
The battleground for Detroit's future is littered with disputes and distrust between the Mayor's office and city council, public and private organizations and the perpetual battle between the city and the region. Lying beneath the surface of all these economic and political conflicts is the ever-present racial undertones that paralyze the city, the region and the state's ability to move it's largest metropolis forward.
As I don't expect this political merry-go-round to stop anytime soon, I remain dubious of the city's latest renaissance. Like so many, I want to believe that Detroit can finally rebound from decades of loss, but the Zoo's plight only highlight problems that seem to have no answers. At a time when Detroit appeared to be on the doorstep of progress it appears that greed and political grandstanding remain the city's highest priority.
Saturday, February 11, 2006
You Say Tomato, I Say Torino
The Winter Olympics are only about twenty-four hours in and there's already plenty to comment on. I was going to start with the Opening Ceremonies, but Big Al at The Wayne Fontes Experience has done such a complete job summarizing the event, that I'll just provide you with a link to his post. Apparently, Big Al and I are in desperate need of more culture. Or not.
* One thing I do enjoy about the Opening Ceremonies of the Winter Olympics, in particular, is the parade of nations. (Fine, it's the only thing I really enjoy.) I shake my head seeing the athletes from nations that have absolutely zero, or next to zero, shot at snow. Here comes Bermuda's sole athlete out of the tunnel. Kenya? Kenya has a winter Olympic team? Does Kenya have winter? I mean they may call in winter, but that just means it's hot not boiling, right?
You know these folks representing countries that really don't have winter training facilities are living in other nations year round or hold dual citizenship. I find it mildly amusing to see such tropical and desert environments participating in the Winter Olympics.
* Just for the record, I can't stand the International Olympic Committee. I may have stated that on this blog before, but it bears repeating. I can't stand the IOC. They are, without question, the most insidious, duplicitous and corrupt body in sport and, perhaps, on Earth.
* I awake this morning to learn that Michelle Kwan may be forced out of the Games. It's too bad, but I'm left wondering if the U.S. skating officials that gave her an injury exemption made a solid decision? She's been such a force in her sport, I can see why they might give her a pass even if she really wasn't fit. However, when the Olympics only come around once every four years, it might be best to send those fully able to compete. Some will never get another shot at it.
* Then there is good old NBC. And CNBC. And MSNBC. And USA, too. Four networks, still mediocre coverage. Why in the world can the CBC show events live, but NBC gives us tape delay? I'm kind of a television geek, so I can navigate multiple channels rather well, but the problem is with numerous events and four networks in action, where on Earth am I supposed to begin my search? Even when I'm searching, I find events I'm not interested in or no Olympic coverage at all.
With all the cash NBC pays to cover the Games, they should just bite the bullet and give up their regular broadcast schedule and televise the Olympics full-time for two weeks. You can still do a condensed replay model each night, but let's see the games as they happen. Pretend it's as important as your own marketing would have us believe it is.
* As far as my viewing habits are concerned, I do like most of the skiing events. Speed skating is fine, too. Hockey, obviously, is on the watch list. As is curling, bobsledding and luge. Maybe skelton, too. If I can note a pattern, none of the sports decided by judges rank too high on my interest radar.
* On the heels of hosting several successful big time sporting events, some in Detroit may be pondering a Detroit Olympic bid. I love the idea, but can't get my brain to buy the concept. The Olympics simply require too many structures to be built. An Olympic stadium alone would be a fortune and what in the world would we do with it afterwards? Same for any number of other venues required to host either Summer or Winter Games. In spite of the fact I love the idea of a Detroit PSL bobsledding title, I don't find the concept of hosting an Olympics to be a sound one financially.
* One thing I do enjoy about the Opening Ceremonies of the Winter Olympics, in particular, is the parade of nations. (Fine, it's the only thing I really enjoy.) I shake my head seeing the athletes from nations that have absolutely zero, or next to zero, shot at snow. Here comes Bermuda's sole athlete out of the tunnel. Kenya? Kenya has a winter Olympic team? Does Kenya have winter? I mean they may call in winter, but that just means it's hot not boiling, right?
You know these folks representing countries that really don't have winter training facilities are living in other nations year round or hold dual citizenship. I find it mildly amusing to see such tropical and desert environments participating in the Winter Olympics.
* Just for the record, I can't stand the International Olympic Committee. I may have stated that on this blog before, but it bears repeating. I can't stand the IOC. They are, without question, the most insidious, duplicitous and corrupt body in sport and, perhaps, on Earth.
* I awake this morning to learn that Michelle Kwan may be forced out of the Games. It's too bad, but I'm left wondering if the U.S. skating officials that gave her an injury exemption made a solid decision? She's been such a force in her sport, I can see why they might give her a pass even if she really wasn't fit. However, when the Olympics only come around once every four years, it might be best to send those fully able to compete. Some will never get another shot at it.
* Then there is good old NBC. And CNBC. And MSNBC. And USA, too. Four networks, still mediocre coverage. Why in the world can the CBC show events live, but NBC gives us tape delay? I'm kind of a television geek, so I can navigate multiple channels rather well, but the problem is with numerous events and four networks in action, where on Earth am I supposed to begin my search? Even when I'm searching, I find events I'm not interested in or no Olympic coverage at all.
With all the cash NBC pays to cover the Games, they should just bite the bullet and give up their regular broadcast schedule and televise the Olympics full-time for two weeks. You can still do a condensed replay model each night, but let's see the games as they happen. Pretend it's as important as your own marketing would have us believe it is.
* As far as my viewing habits are concerned, I do like most of the skiing events. Speed skating is fine, too. Hockey, obviously, is on the watch list. As is curling, bobsledding and luge. Maybe skelton, too. If I can note a pattern, none of the sports decided by judges rank too high on my interest radar.
* On the heels of hosting several successful big time sporting events, some in Detroit may be pondering a Detroit Olympic bid. I love the idea, but can't get my brain to buy the concept. The Olympics simply require too many structures to be built. An Olympic stadium alone would be a fortune and what in the world would we do with it afterwards? Same for any number of other venues required to host either Summer or Winter Games. In spite of the fact I love the idea of a Detroit PSL bobsledding title, I don't find the concept of hosting an Olympics to be a sound one financially.
Wednesday, February 08, 2006
Thanks For Nothing, Rick
Rick Tocchet is about to raise my blood pressure. Not because he's allegedly involved in a big time gambling operation that involves organized crime, but because his possible indiscretion is going to bring the whole gambling on sports issue back to the forefront. Honestly, that's something I just don't need.
As a sports fan since the mid-Seventies, I've had to accept a number of things. Expansion. Contraction. Teams changing cities. Big, big money contracts. Free agency. Salary caps. Players demanding to renegotiate contracts. Lockouts. Strikes. Lost seasons. Cheaters. The perpetual arrests. I've learned to deal with most of these things in a very constructive, patient and philosophical manner. Gambling on sports, however, I will never come to grips with.
I have a zero tolerance policy when it comes to gambling on sports. If I were commissioner, I'd enact league bylaws to prohibit all the players from any form of wagering. Old fashioned? Yes. Unconstitutional? Perhaps, but gambling is still illegal in many states, so maybe not. Stubborn? Ridiculous? Overreaching? Absolutely.
Why do I hold such an anti-gambling stance? I guess it's because I don't want there to be any indication that the sports we watch are contrived. I don't even want to consider the possibility that the miracles of sports history were, perhaps, not quite so miraculous. I don't want anyone to think that the player on their team that made a huge mistake or played poorly in the big game did so because he might owe his bookie money. When it comes to gambling, opening the door even a little bit is opening Pandora's Box.
This is why I am so angry at Tocchet. The charges about to be brought against him are only going to stir sports talk radio debate about gambling. They are going to be the subject of endless columns. They are going to bring Pete Rose back to the forefront. I can do without all three, the latter, in particular. (I'll save my complete thoughts on Rose's situation for another post, as it's a big subject, but let's just say I'm not in favor of his inclusion in the Hall of Fame.)
Already, Frank Deford is wondering what all the fuss about gambling is for? (First two words in his piece? Pete Rose. Told you so.) After all, don't foreign lands use soccer results to determine lottery winnings? Yes, they do, Mr. Deford. The leagues openly condone and promote gambling on their sport as well. Did you also know that Germany just went through a huge scandal where referees were caught fixing soccer matches?
Do you know that a great many people think some foreign leagues, including some prominent ones, are fixed? That players don't always play quite as hard, especially late in the year? Do you know that most of the world still believes that when the U.S. team advanced in the last World Cup, the fix was in? Yeah, that open minded view of gambling has worked out real well.
Deford argues that other off-field problems should be a bigger concern. Sure, I'd love to see pro sports leagues go after players that beat their spouses, drive drunk or assault someone, but isn't that what our judicial system is supposed to do? The punishment for those missteps are not the league's jurisdiction, but few fans would argue if teams started to crack down on those players involved in such activity. Although, I suspect the ACLU might come knocking on their door.
When it comes to gambling, the general premise of the game is at stake. It's the league's primary job to keep their game away from such implications. If we took Deford's advice, don't you think most NFL fans would suspect the fix was in during the Super Bowl? I was rooting for the Steelers, but if I thought the league condoned gambling, even I might be tempted to think the refs might have money on the guys from Pittsburgh. Is that the kind of environment you desire?
Do we really want our pro leagues to start embracing gambling? Do we want to end up like international soccer fans, wondering if every blown call or bad play was unfortunate or predetermined? Do we want to wonder if every guy that misses a game is sitting out due to injury or is just doing someone a "favor"? Do we really want to even debate the legitimacy of gambling by our pro athletes? Thanks to Tocchet, we'll get no choice. The debate is on.
As a sports fan since the mid-Seventies, I've had to accept a number of things. Expansion. Contraction. Teams changing cities. Big, big money contracts. Free agency. Salary caps. Players demanding to renegotiate contracts. Lockouts. Strikes. Lost seasons. Cheaters. The perpetual arrests. I've learned to deal with most of these things in a very constructive, patient and philosophical manner. Gambling on sports, however, I will never come to grips with.
I have a zero tolerance policy when it comes to gambling on sports. If I were commissioner, I'd enact league bylaws to prohibit all the players from any form of wagering. Old fashioned? Yes. Unconstitutional? Perhaps, but gambling is still illegal in many states, so maybe not. Stubborn? Ridiculous? Overreaching? Absolutely.
Why do I hold such an anti-gambling stance? I guess it's because I don't want there to be any indication that the sports we watch are contrived. I don't even want to consider the possibility that the miracles of sports history were, perhaps, not quite so miraculous. I don't want anyone to think that the player on their team that made a huge mistake or played poorly in the big game did so because he might owe his bookie money. When it comes to gambling, opening the door even a little bit is opening Pandora's Box.
This is why I am so angry at Tocchet. The charges about to be brought against him are only going to stir sports talk radio debate about gambling. They are going to be the subject of endless columns. They are going to bring Pete Rose back to the forefront. I can do without all three, the latter, in particular. (I'll save my complete thoughts on Rose's situation for another post, as it's a big subject, but let's just say I'm not in favor of his inclusion in the Hall of Fame.)
Already, Frank Deford is wondering what all the fuss about gambling is for? (First two words in his piece? Pete Rose. Told you so.) After all, don't foreign lands use soccer results to determine lottery winnings? Yes, they do, Mr. Deford. The leagues openly condone and promote gambling on their sport as well. Did you also know that Germany just went through a huge scandal where referees were caught fixing soccer matches?
Do you know that a great many people think some foreign leagues, including some prominent ones, are fixed? That players don't always play quite as hard, especially late in the year? Do you know that most of the world still believes that when the U.S. team advanced in the last World Cup, the fix was in? Yeah, that open minded view of gambling has worked out real well.
Deford argues that other off-field problems should be a bigger concern. Sure, I'd love to see pro sports leagues go after players that beat their spouses, drive drunk or assault someone, but isn't that what our judicial system is supposed to do? The punishment for those missteps are not the league's jurisdiction, but few fans would argue if teams started to crack down on those players involved in such activity. Although, I suspect the ACLU might come knocking on their door.
When it comes to gambling, the general premise of the game is at stake. It's the league's primary job to keep their game away from such implications. If we took Deford's advice, don't you think most NFL fans would suspect the fix was in during the Super Bowl? I was rooting for the Steelers, but if I thought the league condoned gambling, even I might be tempted to think the refs might have money on the guys from Pittsburgh. Is that the kind of environment you desire?
Do we really want our pro leagues to start embracing gambling? Do we want to end up like international soccer fans, wondering if every blown call or bad play was unfortunate or predetermined? Do we want to wonder if every guy that misses a game is sitting out due to injury or is just doing someone a "favor"? Do we really want to even debate the legitimacy of gambling by our pro athletes? Thanks to Tocchet, we'll get no choice. The debate is on.
It's Martz. Again. (We Think.)
If we are to believe the breaking news, Mike Martz has agreed to become the Detroit Lions offensive coordinator. Again. Of course, the national media boys aren't reporting this as a done deal, but I can't say that I blame them.
Regardless, we know what the deal is with Mr. Martz, don't we? Martz' arrival in Motown is one of high risk versus high reward. Few doubt Martz can develop quarterbacks. Many think Martz is the brightest offensive mind in the league. Much to my surprise, I understand Martz is quite the disciplinarian, as well. All pretty good things.
Conversely, we all realize that Martz brings baggage. He was serious ill most of this past off-season. We know he really covets the title of head coach, not offensive coordinator. Like most supposed geniuses, Martz lets his concepts get in the way of common sense from time to time. Martz' quirkiness (is that a word?) was revealed to all during this on again, off again negotiation process. These are all things that make you wonder why the Lions pursued Martz so hard.
However, I think I'm going to follow the notion provided by new Lions head coach, Rod Marinelli. At his introductory press conference, Marinelli made it clear to all that he prefers action over words. He said that there was often "too much talk" in football. He wanted to be judged by what we see on the field. Well, Coach, I'm on board.
I'm not going to worry about the Lions rookie leader, the new offensive coordinator, their relationship or much else about the make-up of Marinelli's new staff. No, what I am going to do is wait and see. I'm going to heed Marinelli's suggestion and have him prove to me that this new version of the Lions is different. Until I see the film, as the new guy likes to say, I'm reserving judgment. I'll probably stay a bit more stable this way.
Regardless, we know what the deal is with Mr. Martz, don't we? Martz' arrival in Motown is one of high risk versus high reward. Few doubt Martz can develop quarterbacks. Many think Martz is the brightest offensive mind in the league. Much to my surprise, I understand Martz is quite the disciplinarian, as well. All pretty good things.
Conversely, we all realize that Martz brings baggage. He was serious ill most of this past off-season. We know he really covets the title of head coach, not offensive coordinator. Like most supposed geniuses, Martz lets his concepts get in the way of common sense from time to time. Martz' quirkiness (is that a word?) was revealed to all during this on again, off again negotiation process. These are all things that make you wonder why the Lions pursued Martz so hard.
However, I think I'm going to follow the notion provided by new Lions head coach, Rod Marinelli. At his introductory press conference, Marinelli made it clear to all that he prefers action over words. He said that there was often "too much talk" in football. He wanted to be judged by what we see on the field. Well, Coach, I'm on board.
I'm not going to worry about the Lions rookie leader, the new offensive coordinator, their relationship or much else about the make-up of Marinelli's new staff. No, what I am going to do is wait and see. I'm going to heed Marinelli's suggestion and have him prove to me that this new version of the Lions is different. Until I see the film, as the new guy likes to say, I'm reserving judgment. I'll probably stay a bit more stable this way.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)