I, for one, think both of these are well-done and hilarious. And the best part ... on Friday, I was playing the Monty Python-Star Trek one as students were filtering into the classroom in the minutes before the start of my 11:30 class. As it was playing, a tour of the university came by and the folks on the tour could clearly hear and see what we were watching. A number of us in the class noticed the wonderful juxtaposition of the two. I loved it!
Monday, April 28, 2008
Pythons in Space
I suppose one has to find enjoyment in Monty Python to get the kind of satisfaction out of these clips that some of us do, but here are two great shorts in which people have combined Monty Python and the Holy Grail with Star Trek and Star Wars, respectively:
Another Reason to Celebrate
A week after Danica Patrick won an IndyCar race, Ashley Force became the first woman to win an NHRA Funny Car race. Congratulations to Ashley Force! Exciting stuff going on in auto racing.
In the meantime, stripped studs on her right wheel knocked Danica Patrick out of the Road Runner Turbo Indy 300 at Kansas Speedway. Her car had significant issues all day and while she had remained on the lead lap until the car was pulled, it seems like she would have been hard-pressed to win, especially given how well the Target/Chip Ganassi cars were racing that day. And, by the way, fuel was a factor once again, as Scott Dixon led most of the race and went into the pit about 2-3 laps before eventual winner Dan Wheldon. A crash put the race on yellow flag just as Dixon was coming out of the pit. Wheldon (along with others) was able to pit under yellow, lose less track time while pitting, and win the race. I have seen some acknowledgement of this vis-a-vis Danica Patrick, but there hasn't seemed to have been quite the amount of discourse about it being "only a fuel win, not a skill win" that appeared when Patrick won.
In the meantime, stripped studs on her right wheel knocked Danica Patrick out of the Road Runner Turbo Indy 300 at Kansas Speedway. Her car had significant issues all day and while she had remained on the lead lap until the car was pulled, it seems like she would have been hard-pressed to win, especially given how well the Target/Chip Ganassi cars were racing that day. And, by the way, fuel was a factor once again, as Scott Dixon led most of the race and went into the pit about 2-3 laps before eventual winner Dan Wheldon. A crash put the race on yellow flag just as Dixon was coming out of the pit. Wheldon (along with others) was able to pit under yellow, lose less track time while pitting, and win the race. I have seen some acknowledgement of this vis-a-vis Danica Patrick, but there hasn't seemed to have been quite the amount of discourse about it being "only a fuel win, not a skill win" that appeared when Patrick won.
Thursday, April 24, 2008
For Lack of Something Better to Post Right Now ...
I thought these names were kind of interesting:
Name the career leader in each of the following statistics among active baseball players, defining active as being signed with a major league organization (i.e., the likes of Barry Bonds, Sammy Sosa, and Mike Piazza don't count). I'll leave a little space before providing the answers:
Some interesting names there. The Griffey answers seem like no surprise. Nor does Frank Thomas for walks. I only know Luis Gonzalez as the doubles answer because I'm a fan of him. After seeing it, Omar Vizquel made sense for hits, but I thought that seemed like the most surprising. For anyone who might sit on the fence about whether Omar belongs in the Hall of Fame, perhaps this could mean something significant.
Hopefully, I'll have something more substantive after the end-of-the-semester rush dies down. Still, this seemed interesting enough to tide the blog over.
Name the career leader in each of the following statistics among active baseball players, defining active as being signed with a major league organization (i.e., the likes of Barry Bonds, Sammy Sosa, and Mike Piazza don't count). I'll leave a little space before providing the answers:
- Runs
- Hits
- Doubles
- Triples
- Homeruns
- Runs Batted In
- Total Bases
- Walks
- Strikeouts
- Stolen Bases
- Batting Average
- Ken Griffey, Jr.
- Omar Vizquel
- Luis Gonzalez
- Johnny Damon (Steve Finley and/or Kenny Lofton would be ahead, if with a team)
- Ken Griffey, Jr.
- Ken Griffey, Jr.
- Ken Griffey, Jr.
- Frank Thomas (though, part of this week the answer would have been Jim Thome, as Frank was between contracts after being released by Toronto and before being signed by Oakland)
- Jim Thome
- Juan Pierre (again, Lofton would get it, if with a team)
- Albert Pujols today; although, he and Ichiro Suzuki are both at .332 for their careers and Todd Helton is at .331
Some interesting names there. The Griffey answers seem like no surprise. Nor does Frank Thomas for walks. I only know Luis Gonzalez as the doubles answer because I'm a fan of him. After seeing it, Omar Vizquel made sense for hits, but I thought that seemed like the most surprising. For anyone who might sit on the fence about whether Omar belongs in the Hall of Fame, perhaps this could mean something significant.
Hopefully, I'll have something more substantive after the end-of-the-semester rush dies down. Still, this seemed interesting enough to tide the blog over.
Monday, April 21, 2008
A Reason to Celebrate
There are a number of critiques that can be leveled against Danica Patrick, particularly from a feminist perspective, for the ways that she has used sexuality as a means of promotion … or even for her initial comment of “I feel like a wuss for crying” during her first interview after winning the Twin Ring Motegi race in Motegi, Japan, this past weekend.
However, I’d like to put all that aside for now (though I suppose by bringing it up I may not have entirely done that; still …) and focus, as a sports fan and an Indycar fan, on celebrating Patrick’s victory. I was riveted and excited late Saturday night watching the last two laps of the race, hoping that Patrick’s fuel would not run out after she took the lead from Helio Castroneves. I was ecstatic when the fuel didn’t run out and she won.
Additionally, while I’ve already seen many accounts that, to one degree or another, have devalued the win by pointing out that she won because the other leaders ran out of fuel (for instance, check out the comment of BobbyLabonteFan1 among comments here), I would argue that the very aspect of the race that they are using as a detraction is a point in Patrick’s favor. I’ve watched enough Indycar races to know that many times when it comes down to which car can go faster over the final laps, the race becomes as much, if not more, about the car as the driver. I may be a great driver, but if my car isn’t up to speed, the other racer often wins. This case was different than that. In this case, the patience that Patrick showed in falling well back of the leaders in order to conserve fuel over the last 50 laps of the race is a credit to her as a driver. This was not a matter of being on radically different pit times and the numbers working in her favor. She had to drive appropriately for the strategy to work and that’s exactly what she –as a driver—did.
Too often in sports emphasis is placed on the fastest, the strongest, the highest, the farthest, etc. While those are worthy of recognition, in the process other important characteristics of excellent sport performance go unacknowledged, even when these characteristics play significant roles in the performances. Rather than using this victory as an opportunity to detract from Patrick’s accomplishment, I’d suggest using it as an instance to recognize the many aspects of sports performance that help accomplishments happen. Some feminist perspectives ask us to look at how some forms of achievement are often given greater cultural weight and authority than others, in ways that reinforce inequities on the basis of gender. With that in mind, we might have even more reason to celebrate that Patrick won by driving in accordance with fuel strategy in the manner that she did than we would had she won by simply having the faster car.
So, way to go, Danica Patrick! I hope that she can keep it going through Kansas, Indianapolis, and the whole Indycar points championship!
However, I’d like to put all that aside for now (though I suppose by bringing it up I may not have entirely done that; still …) and focus, as a sports fan and an Indycar fan, on celebrating Patrick’s victory. I was riveted and excited late Saturday night watching the last two laps of the race, hoping that Patrick’s fuel would not run out after she took the lead from Helio Castroneves. I was ecstatic when the fuel didn’t run out and she won.
Additionally, while I’ve already seen many accounts that, to one degree or another, have devalued the win by pointing out that she won because the other leaders ran out of fuel (for instance, check out the comment of BobbyLabonteFan1 among comments here), I would argue that the very aspect of the race that they are using as a detraction is a point in Patrick’s favor. I’ve watched enough Indycar races to know that many times when it comes down to which car can go faster over the final laps, the race becomes as much, if not more, about the car as the driver. I may be a great driver, but if my car isn’t up to speed, the other racer often wins. This case was different than that. In this case, the patience that Patrick showed in falling well back of the leaders in order to conserve fuel over the last 50 laps of the race is a credit to her as a driver. This was not a matter of being on radically different pit times and the numbers working in her favor. She had to drive appropriately for the strategy to work and that’s exactly what she –as a driver—did.
Too often in sports emphasis is placed on the fastest, the strongest, the highest, the farthest, etc. While those are worthy of recognition, in the process other important characteristics of excellent sport performance go unacknowledged, even when these characteristics play significant roles in the performances. Rather than using this victory as an opportunity to detract from Patrick’s accomplishment, I’d suggest using it as an instance to recognize the many aspects of sports performance that help accomplishments happen. Some feminist perspectives ask us to look at how some forms of achievement are often given greater cultural weight and authority than others, in ways that reinforce inequities on the basis of gender. With that in mind, we might have even more reason to celebrate that Patrick won by driving in accordance with fuel strategy in the manner that she did than we would had she won by simply having the faster car.
So, way to go, Danica Patrick! I hope that she can keep it going through Kansas, Indianapolis, and the whole Indycar points championship!
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
E-Nuff with the Cra-Z Nicknames
It all seemed to start with Alex Rodriguez getting the nickname “A-Rod” a few years ago. Before we knew it, the same kind of nickname was being used all over the place. The last name Rodriguez particularly found itself treated this way quite often, with Francisco Rodriguez becoming “K-Rod” and Ivan Rodriguez being called “I-Rod.” We have also seen it with Daisuke Matsusaka being called “Dice-K” and, ridiculously, with Victor Martinez being called “V-Mart,” which just makes him sound as if he’s a discount store. Some folks tried this practice with Luis Gonzalez when he was the Diamondbacks, as they attempted to call him “Lu-Go,” though Luis quickly—and thankfully—indicated his preference for “Gonzo.” I think I finally saw the worst of it (so far) the other day when, on CBS Sportsline, which my fantasy baseball league uses, Manny Ramirez was called “Man-Ram.” Besides the name being silly, the sexual connotations make it really awkward and uncomfortable—particularly for Manny, I would think. Let’s hope it doesn’t catch on, but it got me thinking just how far this might go…
- St. Louis Cardinals’ catching prospect Brian Esposito might not want to make it big, for fear of becoming “B-Es.”
- The same goes for Houston Astros’ pitching prospect Jack Cassell, who could become affectionately known as “Jack-Cass”
- Kansas City Royals’ outfielder Mark Teahan has put up pretty good numbers for a couple of years, but if he becomes too good, he might be faced with being known as “M-Tea.”
- Pat Neshek has also already begun to establish his career, with some nice numbers in 2006 and 2007 as a reliever for the Minnesota Twins, but he might want to watch it or he could become “P-Nes.”
- A very similar nickname could come out of the slightly moderated practice of using the end of the last name instead of the beginning, as Pedro Martinez might become “P-nez” (though I suppose that’s only slightly worse than the “P-Mart” possibility, which I have seen used and which sounds like a place to buy urine samples).
- Along those same lines, perennial all-star Albert Pujols might suffer the most humiliation, becoming known as “A-jols.”
Let’s hope, though, that Kevin Youkilis doesn’t have a relative named Frank who is good enough to make the majors. As preposterous as the other possibilities might be, I could really see “F-You” become a reality, especially on posters in opposing ballparks.
Monday, April 14, 2008
Reappropriating Some Greens
For the past five years, I have been hoping that someone from the PGA tour would refuse to play at the Masters golf tournament as a form of solidarity with Martha Burk and the National Council of Women’s Organizations. Particularly early on in that controversy, back in 2003 and 2004, I read and heard comments from the likes of Tiger Woods expressing agreement that Augusta National Golf Club should admit women as members; however, I have yet to see a PGA member who was invited refuse to play.
This year, though, while biding my time not watching the tournament, I wondered if there might be a better action to wish for. When I think about it, of those who still play the tournament (i.e. not Jack Nicklaus, for instance), outside of Tiger Woods and maybe Phil Mickelson, I don’t think that the refusal of any PGA tour member to play the tournament would have any kind of significant persuasive impact. And even if Tiger or Phil refused to play, I wonder about the way that the PGA, Augusta National, and the press would handle it. However, this year, a new and I think even more delightful tactic occurred to me. What if the winner (or even any high-placing competitor) gave the money that he made at the tournament (after dutifully paying his caddie) as a donation to the National Council of Women’s Organizations? For Trevor Immelman—this year’s winner—that prize was $1,350,000. I believe a caddie’s cut is usually 10 percent, so that makes $1,215,000 as a donation.
Now, one might say that to Immelman that’s a lot of money (though he did earn over $1.8 million on the PGA tour last year and over $3.8 million in 2006, which doesn’t even account for non-PGA tournaments played, any endorsements he might have, etc.). Fine. Tiger Woods has tons of money. Let’s say he donated all of the money he made at the Masters since the first protested tournament in 2003. The figures are:
$93,000 for 15th place in 2003
$70,200 for 22nd place in 2004
$1,260,000 for 1st place in 2005
$315,700 for 3rd place in 2006
$541,333 for 2nd place in 2007
$810,000 for 2nd place in 2008
(All of these monetary figures were found on espn.com.)
That’s a total of $3,090,233. Again, if we take out a ten percent caddie cut, the total comes to $2,781,209.70. This certainly seems like a donation that Tiger could afford and imagine how over $2.7 million dollars would help out the National Council of Women’s Organizations in its many projects and efforts. And what could the PGA, Augusta National, etc. do? They couldn’t complain that this was a public affront to them, the way they might if someone refused to play. Additionally, it would now be the player’s money and he would have the right to do what he wished with it. So, I’d tend to think that anyone who complained would look like a total jackass to a lot of people.
I'm really liking this idea better. So, come on, PGAers, step up to the teebox on this one.
This year, though, while biding my time not watching the tournament, I wondered if there might be a better action to wish for. When I think about it, of those who still play the tournament (i.e. not Jack Nicklaus, for instance), outside of Tiger Woods and maybe Phil Mickelson, I don’t think that the refusal of any PGA tour member to play the tournament would have any kind of significant persuasive impact. And even if Tiger or Phil refused to play, I wonder about the way that the PGA, Augusta National, and the press would handle it. However, this year, a new and I think even more delightful tactic occurred to me. What if the winner (or even any high-placing competitor) gave the money that he made at the tournament (after dutifully paying his caddie) as a donation to the National Council of Women’s Organizations? For Trevor Immelman—this year’s winner—that prize was $1,350,000. I believe a caddie’s cut is usually 10 percent, so that makes $1,215,000 as a donation.
Now, one might say that to Immelman that’s a lot of money (though he did earn over $1.8 million on the PGA tour last year and over $3.8 million in 2006, which doesn’t even account for non-PGA tournaments played, any endorsements he might have, etc.). Fine. Tiger Woods has tons of money. Let’s say he donated all of the money he made at the Masters since the first protested tournament in 2003. The figures are:
$93,000 for 15th place in 2003
$70,200 for 22nd place in 2004
$1,260,000 for 1st place in 2005
$315,700 for 3rd place in 2006
$541,333 for 2nd place in 2007
$810,000 for 2nd place in 2008
(All of these monetary figures were found on espn.com.)
That’s a total of $3,090,233. Again, if we take out a ten percent caddie cut, the total comes to $2,781,209.70. This certainly seems like a donation that Tiger could afford and imagine how over $2.7 million dollars would help out the National Council of Women’s Organizations in its many projects and efforts. And what could the PGA, Augusta National, etc. do? They couldn’t complain that this was a public affront to them, the way they might if someone refused to play. Additionally, it would now be the player’s money and he would have the right to do what he wished with it. So, I’d tend to think that anyone who complained would look like a total jackass to a lot of people.
I'm really liking this idea better. So, come on, PGAers, step up to the teebox on this one.
Thursday, April 10, 2008
In the line of Roger McDowell and Orel Hershiser ...
Burke Badenhop will be the latest pitcher from Bowling Green State University to play major league baseball. He was called up by the Florida Marlins on Monday and it looks like he will start for the team this weekend.
As a proud alum and now faculty member at BGSU, go Falcons!
As a proud alum and now faculty member at BGSU, go Falcons!
Wednesday, April 9, 2008
Lost in 80s Music Update No. 1
Before you do anything else, you've got to check this out!
And now for a series of news tidbits for 80s music freaks like me:
And now for a series of news tidbits for 80s music freaks like me:
- Sean Levert, of the Cleveland-based 80s trio Levert, who were perhaps best known for their Top 10 hit "Casanova" in 1987, but who had a series of hits on R&B radio (often called "Black radio" at the time, even among Billboard music charts), passed away on March 30 at the age of 39. This makes two of the three members of the band to pass away in the last two years. Sean's brother, Gerald, died in November of 2006.
- New Kids on the Block are reuniting! I imagine they'll take it step by step in their return. Don't forget to check out their website for the latest news!
- Rick Astley is finding himself in the midst of a return of sorts. It's called RickRolling and it's become significant enough of a trend to be reported as news. Hope you enjoyed getting RickRolled at the beginning of this post.
Monday, April 7, 2008
Confluence of the Underappreciated
Last night, while driving through Ohio on my way home on I-75 from Cincinnati, I tuned into AM 1510 WLAC out of Nashville. I've found before that this radio station comes in regularly after dusk on that stretch of the highway. Last night, it made for one of the best listening experiences I've had in awhile, as they were airing the University of Tennessee women's basketball NCAA tournament semifinal game against LSU. In the process, it brought together two areas of American sports culture that I believe get some attention, but go underappreciated.
First is women's basketball. Certainly, both NCAA women's basketball and the WNBA get some media coverage, but not nearly as much as men's college basketball and the NBA. Meanwhile, I've heard sports talk radio hosts ranging from Jim Rome to Tony Kornheiser to many of the fill-in folks on ESPN radio belittle women's basketball to one degree or another. Yet, at least personally, I find women's basketball to be a more satisfying game than men's basketball. Sometimes I'm not sure that that translates as well as it could as it is covered on television, but listening to it on the radio last night captured the appeal beautifully. I'd like to hear it more ...
And I'll be listening, because the second thing that I believe goes underappreciated is the experience of listening to sports on radio vis-a-vis watching sports on television. I've seen plenty of people publicly acknowledge an affinity for sports on the radio, particularly in reference to baseball, but we live in an age in which television coverage is prioritized over radio coverage. Often, the question one asks is "Did you see ..." not "Did you hear ..." in reference to sports phenomena. I do watch sports on television at times and I can't say that every single sport is more enjoyable on radio. For instance, I follow the Indy Car series and I enjoy that on television more than radio (though I have listened on radio before and it's not unenjoyable; indeed, I could see that affinity changing some day, especially if I had XM satellite radio and listened to the races there). Additionally, I'm not sure how I might handle soccer on the radio (though, as I think about it, perhaps it might work for me). Overall, though, I tend to enjoy mediated sports experiences more when they're on the radio than when they're on television. Again, listening to the Tennessee-LSU game on radio last night just reconfirmed that feeling.
So, here's to more recognition of both women's basketball and sports on radio ...
And BTW, the NCAA women's championship game can be billed as the Clash of the Canda(i)ces ... Candace Parker for Tennessee and Candice Wiggins for Stanford. My rooting interest is for Stanford, who I picked to win it all the last couple years and had losing to North Carolina in my bracket this year. Since I didn't pick them to win it, they'll surely win (I hope anyway). I'm sure this interest goes back to my days at Arizona State a few years ago when the Sun Devils would defeat everybody else in PAC-10 play, but hit a wall against the Cardinal.
First is women's basketball. Certainly, both NCAA women's basketball and the WNBA get some media coverage, but not nearly as much as men's college basketball and the NBA. Meanwhile, I've heard sports talk radio hosts ranging from Jim Rome to Tony Kornheiser to many of the fill-in folks on ESPN radio belittle women's basketball to one degree or another. Yet, at least personally, I find women's basketball to be a more satisfying game than men's basketball. Sometimes I'm not sure that that translates as well as it could as it is covered on television, but listening to it on the radio last night captured the appeal beautifully. I'd like to hear it more ...
And I'll be listening, because the second thing that I believe goes underappreciated is the experience of listening to sports on radio vis-a-vis watching sports on television. I've seen plenty of people publicly acknowledge an affinity for sports on the radio, particularly in reference to baseball, but we live in an age in which television coverage is prioritized over radio coverage. Often, the question one asks is "Did you see ..." not "Did you hear ..." in reference to sports phenomena. I do watch sports on television at times and I can't say that every single sport is more enjoyable on radio. For instance, I follow the Indy Car series and I enjoy that on television more than radio (though I have listened on radio before and it's not unenjoyable; indeed, I could see that affinity changing some day, especially if I had XM satellite radio and listened to the races there). Additionally, I'm not sure how I might handle soccer on the radio (though, as I think about it, perhaps it might work for me). Overall, though, I tend to enjoy mediated sports experiences more when they're on the radio than when they're on television. Again, listening to the Tennessee-LSU game on radio last night just reconfirmed that feeling.
So, here's to more recognition of both women's basketball and sports on radio ...
And BTW, the NCAA women's championship game can be billed as the Clash of the Canda(i)ces ... Candace Parker for Tennessee and Candice Wiggins for Stanford. My rooting interest is for Stanford, who I picked to win it all the last couple years and had losing to North Carolina in my bracket this year. Since I didn't pick them to win it, they'll surely win (I hope anyway). I'm sure this interest goes back to my days at Arizona State a few years ago when the Sun Devils would defeat everybody else in PAC-10 play, but hit a wall against the Cardinal.
Friday, April 4, 2008
Likes and Dislikes with NCAA basketball tournaments
Sorry, I've been gone nearly a month ... a week of being sick, a couple weeks of trying desperately to catch up, and then a week without a topic will do that, I guess ...
It's "March Madness" time and, so, I wanted to mention some things that bug me about it:
1. When teams are said to have "shown that they deserved" or "shown that they did not deserve" a bid to the NCAA tournament. We hear this kind of thing every year, yet, as I argue about all kinds of sports tournaments, it's all about matchups. The right matchup and a team has a good shot at winning; the wrong matchup and the team has a poor shot. So, as some would have it, Villanova "justified" selection to the tournament by winning two games. Yet, given a different matchup in the first round, perhaps they don't win at all and then it's "Did they deserve to be there?" On the women's side, Florida State was questioned as a team that maybe didn't belong in the tournament, yet, they won their first game because they had a matchup that worked for them. I'm tired of this need to make everything to black or white ... That's why I say screw declaring a national champion in college football. If West Virginia hadn't lost to Pittsburgh, LSU wouldn't be national champion and Ohio State might have had a more favorable matchup. In the end, it wouldn't have really told us who the best team was. The same sentiment goes for college basketball. The NCAA tournament just lets people have a final winner of some sort. It's still all about matchups and a team's run to the Final 16 or Final 8 is highly determined by that. Just ask Georgetown this year after running into Davidson ...
2. The "Elite Eight" moniker for the round of eight. This seemed to start in the early 1990s when it seemed like there were two possibilities being tossed around: Elite Eight and Great Eight. The industry fell onto the standard "Elite Eight," I assume in keeping with the trend of starting the descriptor with the same letter as the number of teams left--e.g. Sweet Sixteen and Final Four. Yet, the word "Elite" bothers me so much because of what it implies. Do I really want to perpetuate the idea that elitism is good? "Great" has its issues, as does "Sweet" for that matter, but I find them more tolerable. Actually, "Final Eight" is what I say and "Final Four" seems most appropriate, since that's most descriptive of the situation--i.e. these are the final 4 or 8 teams left in the tournament. What's next? "Thirsty Thirty-two?" "Scintillating Sixty-Four?"
3. Billy Packer -- I'm not the first or last to say that he bugs me, but the other day it finally dawned on me what about him bugs me so much. He is blatantly dismissive and utterly smug about it. When, for instance, the other day, during the telecast of his game, he mentioned that no one had Davidson in the Final Eight, the way he put it (and I don't remember or have the exact language) was so dismissive of the idea that one could have conceived of them there that it was downright offensive (probably particularly so for me personally, since I had them in the Final 16 and seriously considered picking them against Wisconsin). He is typically dismissive of schools from non-BCS leagues, their qualifications, and their chances. He is also dismissive during games of the possibilities of teams winning or coming back to win and, while I've seen him have to eat his words before (a UCLA comeback in the last 2 minutes during the regular season, I believe against Stanford, I think 9 years ago), he seems not to learn any caution from it. I know other announcers can make statements that might be similar, but I guess the way that Greg Gumbel or Jim Nantz or others say it makes it at least feel like they recognize variety of opinion and possibilities.
4. When two non-BCS schools ranked between 5 and 12 are asked to play one another in the first round. This year the Drake-Western Kentucky, Kent State (another team that was victim to the "they don't belong there" syndrome, just because they happened to have 1 bad half of shooting)-UNLV, Butler-South Alabama, and Gonzaga-Davidson matchups all fit. When one of these teams makes the top 4 seeds, little can often be done to keep them from being matched up with a non-BCS school (though, in that regard, at least the committee did put the BCS 14 seed Georgia against Xavier and not match up two non-BCS schools). So, I understand in those situations. However, over and over again, the non-BCS schools are judged more severely when they fail to win tournament games than the BCS schools are. These are often held as indictments against non-BCS conferences getting more than one bid. When the tournament selection committee then makes them play one another in the first round, it compounds the problem for these schools and their conferences within the hierarchy of big-time college athletics. I think the selection committee should be much more cognizant of this.
5. CBS's decision to turn damn near everything into the "one shining moment" motif. Enough already ...
Lest I seem like a complete crank (though, that was what baseball "fans" were called back in the day, so I'm not completely opposed to being called that), here are things that I have enjoyed:
1. Stacey Dales -- She's done work on football and on men's college basketball. As a former women's college basketball player herself at the University of Oklahoma, she gets most prominently featured on ESPN for their women's college basketball coverage. When I hear here analysis and reporting, she seems intelligent, articulate, and insightful.
2. The Vern Lundquist-Bill Raftery pairing -- They seem to be having fun and I seem to catch it. While Nance-Packer is CBS's number one team, if given a choice, I'll tune into a blowout that Lundquist and Raftery are calling instead of a close game that Nance-Packer are calling ... that is, if I'm not listening to my radio instead. Gus Johnson is great, too ... and lucky as hell ... he got to call the Davidson-Kansas mid-major barnburner this year and, if memory serves me right, he was on the call for Gonzaga putting themselves on the map and nearly beating Connecticut in the round of 8 back in 1999.
3. Making out brackets for both men's and women's NCAA and NIT tournaments. Heck, I would have even done the CBI tournament for 16 men's teams, but I didn't want to deal with how they changed the matchups based on who was left after the first round. Bradley and Tulsa go for all the marbles in the rubber match of the three-game championship tonight ...
4. And, since my preference is to listen to the radio, hearing Tommy Tighe always brings back so many great memories ... And calls by John Thompson, Brad Sham, Dave Sims, and the whole lot make me smile.
It's "March Madness" time and, so, I wanted to mention some things that bug me about it:
1. When teams are said to have "shown that they deserved" or "shown that they did not deserve" a bid to the NCAA tournament. We hear this kind of thing every year, yet, as I argue about all kinds of sports tournaments, it's all about matchups. The right matchup and a team has a good shot at winning; the wrong matchup and the team has a poor shot. So, as some would have it, Villanova "justified" selection to the tournament by winning two games. Yet, given a different matchup in the first round, perhaps they don't win at all and then it's "Did they deserve to be there?" On the women's side, Florida State was questioned as a team that maybe didn't belong in the tournament, yet, they won their first game because they had a matchup that worked for them. I'm tired of this need to make everything to black or white ... That's why I say screw declaring a national champion in college football. If West Virginia hadn't lost to Pittsburgh, LSU wouldn't be national champion and Ohio State might have had a more favorable matchup. In the end, it wouldn't have really told us who the best team was. The same sentiment goes for college basketball. The NCAA tournament just lets people have a final winner of some sort. It's still all about matchups and a team's run to the Final 16 or Final 8 is highly determined by that. Just ask Georgetown this year after running into Davidson ...
2. The "Elite Eight" moniker for the round of eight. This seemed to start in the early 1990s when it seemed like there were two possibilities being tossed around: Elite Eight and Great Eight. The industry fell onto the standard "Elite Eight," I assume in keeping with the trend of starting the descriptor with the same letter as the number of teams left--e.g. Sweet Sixteen and Final Four. Yet, the word "Elite" bothers me so much because of what it implies. Do I really want to perpetuate the idea that elitism is good? "Great" has its issues, as does "Sweet" for that matter, but I find them more tolerable. Actually, "Final Eight" is what I say and "Final Four" seems most appropriate, since that's most descriptive of the situation--i.e. these are the final 4 or 8 teams left in the tournament. What's next? "Thirsty Thirty-two?" "Scintillating Sixty-Four?"
3. Billy Packer -- I'm not the first or last to say that he bugs me, but the other day it finally dawned on me what about him bugs me so much. He is blatantly dismissive and utterly smug about it. When, for instance, the other day, during the telecast of his game, he mentioned that no one had Davidson in the Final Eight, the way he put it (and I don't remember or have the exact language) was so dismissive of the idea that one could have conceived of them there that it was downright offensive (probably particularly so for me personally, since I had them in the Final 16 and seriously considered picking them against Wisconsin). He is typically dismissive of schools from non-BCS leagues, their qualifications, and their chances. He is also dismissive during games of the possibilities of teams winning or coming back to win and, while I've seen him have to eat his words before (a UCLA comeback in the last 2 minutes during the regular season, I believe against Stanford, I think 9 years ago), he seems not to learn any caution from it. I know other announcers can make statements that might be similar, but I guess the way that Greg Gumbel or Jim Nantz or others say it makes it at least feel like they recognize variety of opinion and possibilities.
4. When two non-BCS schools ranked between 5 and 12 are asked to play one another in the first round. This year the Drake-Western Kentucky, Kent State (another team that was victim to the "they don't belong there" syndrome, just because they happened to have 1 bad half of shooting)-UNLV, Butler-South Alabama, and Gonzaga-Davidson matchups all fit. When one of these teams makes the top 4 seeds, little can often be done to keep them from being matched up with a non-BCS school (though, in that regard, at least the committee did put the BCS 14 seed Georgia against Xavier and not match up two non-BCS schools). So, I understand in those situations. However, over and over again, the non-BCS schools are judged more severely when they fail to win tournament games than the BCS schools are. These are often held as indictments against non-BCS conferences getting more than one bid. When the tournament selection committee then makes them play one another in the first round, it compounds the problem for these schools and their conferences within the hierarchy of big-time college athletics. I think the selection committee should be much more cognizant of this.
5. CBS's decision to turn damn near everything into the "one shining moment" motif. Enough already ...
Lest I seem like a complete crank (though, that was what baseball "fans" were called back in the day, so I'm not completely opposed to being called that), here are things that I have enjoyed:
1. Stacey Dales -- She's done work on football and on men's college basketball. As a former women's college basketball player herself at the University of Oklahoma, she gets most prominently featured on ESPN for their women's college basketball coverage. When I hear here analysis and reporting, she seems intelligent, articulate, and insightful.
2. The Vern Lundquist-Bill Raftery pairing -- They seem to be having fun and I seem to catch it. While Nance-Packer is CBS's number one team, if given a choice, I'll tune into a blowout that Lundquist and Raftery are calling instead of a close game that Nance-Packer are calling ... that is, if I'm not listening to my radio instead. Gus Johnson is great, too ... and lucky as hell ... he got to call the Davidson-Kansas mid-major barnburner this year and, if memory serves me right, he was on the call for Gonzaga putting themselves on the map and nearly beating Connecticut in the round of 8 back in 1999.
3. Making out brackets for both men's and women's NCAA and NIT tournaments. Heck, I would have even done the CBI tournament for 16 men's teams, but I didn't want to deal with how they changed the matchups based on who was left after the first round. Bradley and Tulsa go for all the marbles in the rubber match of the three-game championship tonight ...
4. And, since my preference is to listen to the radio, hearing Tommy Tighe always brings back so many great memories ... And calls by John Thompson, Brad Sham, Dave Sims, and the whole lot make me smile.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)