Every year since he has become eligible, Alan Trammell has received a significant enough amount of votes to remain on the Hall of Fame ballot, though he has not been elected to the National Baseball Hall of Fame. This includes appearing on 36.8 percent of the ballots this year. Meanwhile, the ballplayer whose name very prominently complemented Trammell’s through almost the entirety of Trammell’s career, Lou Whitaker, did not receive the five percent needed to remain on the ballot during his first year of eligibility back in 2001, when his name appeared on just 2.9 percent of the ballots cast.
As I grew up in the 1980s, Trammell and Whitaker were seemingly inseparable amid baseball discourse. Both came up, with Trammell at shortstop and Whitaker at second base, for the Detroit Tigers in 1977, and both played nearly their entire careers together for the Tigers, mostly as the team’s starting double-play tandem, through Whitaker’s retirement after the 1995 season. Trammell retired one year later.
In the end, their statistics look very similar. Whitaker played in 2390 games and had 8570 at bats, while Trammell played in 2293 games and had 8288 at bats. Whitaker scored 1386 runs and drove in 1084 RBIs, while Trammell scored 1231 runs and drove in 1003 RBIs. Whitaker had 2369 hits, of which 420 were doubles, 65 were triples, and 244 were home runs. Trammell had 2365 hits, of which 412 were doubles, 55 were triples, and 185 were doubles. Whitaker walked significantly more than Trammell (1099 vs. 874), but he also struck out significantly more than Trammell (1197 vs. 850). Trammell stole significantly more bases (236 vs. 143) and had a significantly higher batting average (.285 to .276), but Whitaker had a higher on base percentage (.363 to .352) and a higher slugging percentage (.426 to .415).
At the time of Whitaker’s retirement, he ranked as follows all-time among second basemen: ninth in hits, fifth in home runs, eighth in runs score, ninth in RBIs, ninth in doubles, fourth in walks, and seventh in at bats. All of those are higher than where Trammell ranked all-time among shortstops at the time of his retirement. Trammell’s rankings were tenth in hits, sixth in home runs, fifteenth in runs score, fifteenth in RBIs, eleventh in doubles, thirteenth in walks, and fifteenth in at bats. Trammell’s ranking of 26th in stolen bases does significantly outperform Whitaker’s ranking of 71st. Also, Trammell ranked 18th in average and 11th in slugging percentage among shortstops, while Whitaker ranked 30th and 12th, respectively. Both were ranked seventeenth in on base percentage, and neither ranked particularly high in triples, though Whitaker did rank higher among second basemen than Trammell did among shortstops. In other words, at the time of retirement Whitaker ranked higher against his positional peers than Trammell in more of the most prominent statistical categories than Trammell ranked higher than Whitaker.
In the time since these two retired, some second basemen have passed Whitaker and some shortstops have passed Trammell. Still, Whitaker remains more highly ranked among second basemen than Trammell does among shortstops on all from the above statistics that he did at the time of retirement except hits, where Trammell is now ranked twelfth among shortstops while Whitaker is ranked thirteenth among second basemen. Meanwhile, Trammell remains more highly ranked in batting average among shortstops than Whitaker does among second basemen (23rd to 42nd), and Trammell is now barely ranked higher among shortstops in on base percentage than Whitaker is among second basemen (20th to 21st), but Whitaker is now ranked slightly higher among second baseman in slugging percentage than Trammell is among shortstops (19th to 20th).
Meanwhile, to make this about at least a little more than batting statistics, Whitaker has a lifetime fielding percentage of .984 (all at second base), while Trammell has a lifetime fielding percentage of .977 at shortstop (along with 944 in 9 games in the outfield, .950 in 11 games at second base, and .950 in 43 games at third base).
All of this considered, there is a strong case to be made that Whitaker actually outperformed Trammell. At the very least, it suggests that there is anything but a clear-cut case of Trammell outperforming Whitaker. Still, the results of a little over a decade of Hall of Fame voting provide a different story, as indicated in my first paragraph above.
In the end, I can’t help but wonder if race is playing a role here, given that Trammell is white, while Whitaker is African American. There are well-documented histories of stereotyped depictions of black athletes as more naturally gifted than white athletes alongside overly generalized characterizations of white athletes as scrappier and more intelligent than black athletes. These characterizations have helped produce a history of Major League Baseball folks seeing white athletes as more fit for managerial and coaching roles than black athletes, and perhaps that has played a role in the fact that Trammell has gone on to become a major league coach and manager, while Whitaker has not. It would seem like these racialized perceptions could also easily lead Hall of Fame ballot holders to give Trammell more credit for his performance than they give Whitaker and thus produce the inequity of these two players’ ballot results.
Saturday, January 14, 2012
Friday, January 13, 2012
A Higher Standard
This week Ohio State University president Gordon Gee appears to have added to the list of awkward statements that he has compiled in recent months. That list includes some disparaging remarks toward the likes of Boise State and TCU in the Fall of 2010. It also includes the unfortunate statement during the investigation of former OSU football coach Jim Tressel last spring that rather than fire Tressel, Gee hoped Tressel didn't fire him. Now, while speaking on Wednesday at the downtown athletic club in Columbus, Gee made an ethnically insensitive statement by referring to a coordination problem among institutions by saying, "It was kind of like the Polish army or something."
For a much-circulated Associate Press account of this latest instance, see here. Now, looking at that again, check out the second-to-last paragraph, which reference other "gaffes" that Gee has made in the past. One listed is from 1992 when Gee called then-governor of Ohio George Voinovich "a damn dummy" regarding funding for higher education.
While this 1992 "gaffe" does reflect upon Gee, it also reflects on a level of agenda setting within the Associated Press, at the very least on the part of the AP writer(s) who wrote the story. Specifically, I'm not sure how this qualifies as a "gaffe." I suppose if it is meant to suggest that his use of the term "dummy" reflects insensitivity to people who cannot speak, I might agree. However, if it's meant to suggest that it was awkward or inappropriate for Gee to refer to Voinovich like that, then it's hardly a "gaffe." I remember higher education changes being proposed and developed by Voinovich's administration at that time, and I remember thinking they were very misguided and antithetical to what I would envision as a thriving and democratic system of education. One change involved the centralization of many graduate programs in the state, which seemed to me that it would take away some of the useful diversity that comes from having multiple degree-granting programs that have different emphases, strengths, and specialities. Indeed, to some extent that change benefited Gee's own institution, as OSU became even more fully (as if it wasn't enough already) a centralized place for research and advanced academic study. Yet, even Gee saw that Voinovich's vision of higher education contained significant flaws.
So, in that context, Gee's comment about Voinovich hardly seems like a gaffe, and it certainly doesn't fit into the same category as his "Polish army" comment. Rather, the mistake here is in the AP story, which sets us up to disallow Gee's comment on Voinovich and thus positions us to accept legitimacy in what Voinovich did to higher education.
Higher education deserves better than this.
For a much-circulated Associate Press account of this latest instance, see here. Now, looking at that again, check out the second-to-last paragraph, which reference other "gaffes" that Gee has made in the past. One listed is from 1992 when Gee called then-governor of Ohio George Voinovich "a damn dummy" regarding funding for higher education.
While this 1992 "gaffe" does reflect upon Gee, it also reflects on a level of agenda setting within the Associated Press, at the very least on the part of the AP writer(s) who wrote the story. Specifically, I'm not sure how this qualifies as a "gaffe." I suppose if it is meant to suggest that his use of the term "dummy" reflects insensitivity to people who cannot speak, I might agree. However, if it's meant to suggest that it was awkward or inappropriate for Gee to refer to Voinovich like that, then it's hardly a "gaffe." I remember higher education changes being proposed and developed by Voinovich's administration at that time, and I remember thinking they were very misguided and antithetical to what I would envision as a thriving and democratic system of education. One change involved the centralization of many graduate programs in the state, which seemed to me that it would take away some of the useful diversity that comes from having multiple degree-granting programs that have different emphases, strengths, and specialities. Indeed, to some extent that change benefited Gee's own institution, as OSU became even more fully (as if it wasn't enough already) a centralized place for research and advanced academic study. Yet, even Gee saw that Voinovich's vision of higher education contained significant flaws.
So, in that context, Gee's comment about Voinovich hardly seems like a gaffe, and it certainly doesn't fit into the same category as his "Polish army" comment. Rather, the mistake here is in the AP story, which sets us up to disallow Gee's comment on Voinovich and thus positions us to accept legitimacy in what Voinovich did to higher education.
Higher education deserves better than this.
Sunday, January 8, 2012
My Hypothetical 2012 MLB Hall of Fame ballot
At approximately 2:00 p.m. tomorrow (Monday, January 9), the 2012 National Baseball Hall of Fame voting results will be announced. Check here for a look at who was on the ballot this past year.
Over the last three years, I’ve posted on this blog indication of those players for whom I would vote if I had a ballot. So, without further ado, if I had an MLB Hall of Fame ballot this year, I would vote for the following ten players (in rough order of how strongly I feel they belong):
Mark McGwire
Rafael Palmeiro
Fred McGriff
Barry Larkin
Tim Raines
Jeff Bagwell
Jack Morris
Dale Murphy
Lee Smith
Alan Trammell
None of these players are new to this year’s ballot. The first nine fall right in line with what I wrote last year, so please read that for more commentary. With Roberto Alomar and Bert Blyleven from last year’s ballot having been elected, that made room for Murphy and Smith to move onto the ballot. Meanwhile, they jumped ahead of Harold Baines from last year, since Baines unfortunately failed last year to attain the five percent to maintain eligibility for the ballot.
Filling in Trammell in the tenth slot was the toughest call to make (and, though I don’t remember my thought process from a year ago, apparently, a year ago I would have put Larry Walker and Don Mattingly ahead of him). After looking over statistics from the careers of a group of players that included Trammell, Walker, and Mattingly as well as Juan Gonzalez, Edgar Martinez, and Bernie Williams, I decided that Trammell had the best case. That said, it was very tough to select one from among that group of six players, and so, like most years, if I could vote for more than 10 players, I would. In fact, I would vote for 16. That includes all of the ten on the mock ballot above as well as the five players who vied with Trammell for the tenth slot on my list.
Of course, that only adds up to 15, and so the final player who would make it is Ruben Sierra. I actually looked at Sierra’s numbers along with the six players mentioned above whom I examined for my tenth slot. I easily separated the other six from Sierra, though, which left him out of that hunt. However, when I reconsidered him to discuss what I would do with an unlimited ballot, I decided to include him. Statistically, he matches up with some players for whom I would have voted in the past. (See last year’s blog post as well as the posts from 2010 and 2009.) I hesitated, though, and I think that hesitation came from my perception of Sierra as not living up to expectation. When Sierra came up in 1986/1987, he was touted very highly, and for a while in the late 1980s and early 1990s, he was my favorite baseball player. I even considered trying to find and purchase the album of music he released in 1994. But then Sierra’s career fell apart, and in the end he didn’t quite live up to the hype. Still, he ended up having a very nice career—one that, in the end, I think was just good enough to warrant Hall of Fame inclusion. Just barely, though.
After Sierra, the remaining candidates on the ballot (all of whom are new to the ballot this year) failed to stack up enough for serious consideration. The only one who seemed to warrant a second look was Vinny Castilla, but his statistics did not stack up enough to merit inclusion, especially when the 1990s Colorado effect seems to need to be taken into account for him. So, in addition to Castilla, Jeromy Burnitz, Brian Jordan, Javy Lopez, Bill Mueller, Terry Mulholland, Phil Nevin, Brad Radke, Tim Salmon, Tony Womack, and Eric Young would not make my ballot.
Over the last three years, I’ve posted on this blog indication of those players for whom I would vote if I had a ballot. So, without further ado, if I had an MLB Hall of Fame ballot this year, I would vote for the following ten players (in rough order of how strongly I feel they belong):
Mark McGwire
Rafael Palmeiro
Fred McGriff
Barry Larkin
Tim Raines
Jeff Bagwell
Jack Morris
Dale Murphy
Lee Smith
Alan Trammell
None of these players are new to this year’s ballot. The first nine fall right in line with what I wrote last year, so please read that for more commentary. With Roberto Alomar and Bert Blyleven from last year’s ballot having been elected, that made room for Murphy and Smith to move onto the ballot. Meanwhile, they jumped ahead of Harold Baines from last year, since Baines unfortunately failed last year to attain the five percent to maintain eligibility for the ballot.
Filling in Trammell in the tenth slot was the toughest call to make (and, though I don’t remember my thought process from a year ago, apparently, a year ago I would have put Larry Walker and Don Mattingly ahead of him). After looking over statistics from the careers of a group of players that included Trammell, Walker, and Mattingly as well as Juan Gonzalez, Edgar Martinez, and Bernie Williams, I decided that Trammell had the best case. That said, it was very tough to select one from among that group of six players, and so, like most years, if I could vote for more than 10 players, I would. In fact, I would vote for 16. That includes all of the ten on the mock ballot above as well as the five players who vied with Trammell for the tenth slot on my list.
Of course, that only adds up to 15, and so the final player who would make it is Ruben Sierra. I actually looked at Sierra’s numbers along with the six players mentioned above whom I examined for my tenth slot. I easily separated the other six from Sierra, though, which left him out of that hunt. However, when I reconsidered him to discuss what I would do with an unlimited ballot, I decided to include him. Statistically, he matches up with some players for whom I would have voted in the past. (See last year’s blog post as well as the posts from 2010 and 2009.) I hesitated, though, and I think that hesitation came from my perception of Sierra as not living up to expectation. When Sierra came up in 1986/1987, he was touted very highly, and for a while in the late 1980s and early 1990s, he was my favorite baseball player. I even considered trying to find and purchase the album of music he released in 1994. But then Sierra’s career fell apart, and in the end he didn’t quite live up to the hype. Still, he ended up having a very nice career—one that, in the end, I think was just good enough to warrant Hall of Fame inclusion. Just barely, though.
After Sierra, the remaining candidates on the ballot (all of whom are new to the ballot this year) failed to stack up enough for serious consideration. The only one who seemed to warrant a second look was Vinny Castilla, but his statistics did not stack up enough to merit inclusion, especially when the 1990s Colorado effect seems to need to be taken into account for him. So, in addition to Castilla, Jeromy Burnitz, Brian Jordan, Javy Lopez, Bill Mueller, Terry Mulholland, Phil Nevin, Brad Radke, Tim Salmon, Tony Womack, and Eric Young would not make my ballot.
Monday, December 26, 2011
A Holiday Thank You
As one of the many, many people who spent part of Christmas day on the road travelling to a holiday gathering, I'd like very seriously and gratefully to take this time to thank the many convenience store, gas station, and food service employees for everything that they do. Their sacrifice in having to spend significant portions of their holiday away from friends and family, often for inadequate compensation and in potentially hostile working conditions, helps make possible the freedoms that the rest of us enjoy.
Saturday, December 17, 2011
College Bowl Rankings 2011-2012
This proved to be fun last year, so, with the first bowl game of the 2011-2012 getting started as I write this, I’m going to offer my rankings of this year’s college bowls, based on their appeal to me as a follower of college football. I’ve purposely not read the bowl game rankings that appear in places like here, here, and here until after I’ve compiled my list. Based on experience, I’m sure that my list is going to differ substantially from the ones I just referenced.
And so, without further ado, here are my 2011-2012 college bowl game watchability rankings from 1 to 35:
1. Baylor v. Washington – Really glad to see Robert Griffin III win the Heisman. He’s typically very fun to watch.
2. Northern Illinois v. Arkansas State – Two words make this very appealable to watch: Chandler Harnish. Add in an Arkansas State team that played very well and there’s a reason this is near the top of the list.
3. Air Force v. Toledo – As a Bowling Green alum, I don’t like to root for Toledo, but I have to admit they’re a good team and they’re enjoyable to watch.
4. Michigan State v. Georgia – My second alma mater, the Spartans, has been a very enjoyable and exciting team to watch. Meanwhile, the excellent season put together by Georgia with their coach on the hot seat helps as well.
5. Ohio v. Utah State – Utah State could have easily ended up with three more wins, with all the last second heartbreaks they’ve suffered, starting with the first game against Auburn. They’re a fun team to watch, and Frank Solich has consistently has good Bobcat teams at Ohio. Oh ... and Ohio's quarterback is the son of former major league baseball player Mickey Tettleton ... and he's pretty good. That's worth watching alone.
6. Boise State v. Arizona State – Realize that if these two teams had played up to their potential, this could have been a BCS game. As it is, Boise State is very worth watching, and though Arizona State is my third alma mater, which draws me to the game, this particular disappointing team actually hurts this game in the rankings. A bit better of a Sun Devil team and this is in the running for number one on this list.
7. Southern Mississippi v. Nevada – This is a very good Southern Mississippi team that ended Houston’s run at perfection. Nevada’s worth watching, too.
8. Wyoming v. Temple – two teams worth watching … and I’m watching them right now as I post this.
9. Louisiana Lafayette v. San Diego State – ditto Wyoming and Temple (except that this game isn’t on yet).
10. Western Michigan v. Purdue – Western Michigan looked very strong in the first half of the season, but then I’m not sure what happened to them. I could take or leave Purdue and their 6-6 record, but I can remember some other recent MAC vs. Purdue bowl games that have been memorable, which helps this game.
11. Houston v. Penn State – Case Keenum is the draw here. Given all that’s happened at Penn State, I’m not very interested in watching their football team. Penn State against any number of other teams and this game would be near the bottom of the least. That says something for Keenum’s appeal.
12. TCU v. Louisiana Tech – TCU is an outstanding team.
13. LSU v. Alabama – Despite what those who myopically believe the more points the better say, I’d argue that that first game between these two was a very exciting game. It was also a good reason why we should bring back the tie and get rid of overtime. This rematch should also be interesting.
14. Georgia Tech v. Utah – Starting to lose some luster starting here. Utah brings this game up the ranking. Georgia Tech is, well, “meh …”
15. Virginia v. Auburn – Kudos to Mike London on the job he’s done at Virginia. I don’t care much for Auburn, but supporting London makes this worthwhile.
16. Oregon v. Wisconsin – I tend to have an inherent dislike for Wisconsin (hmmm … I went to Michigan State … I wonder why …), but after the two MSU-Wisconsin games this year, I have to admit that Wisconsin is worth watching, especially with Russell Wilson and Montee Ball. So, let’s make a deal and be willing to watch this one.
17. Louisville v. N.C. State – Not overly drawn to this but for an interest in supporting Charlie Strong
18. Cincinnati v. Vanderbilt – Starting to get kind of boring here … and I’m only halfway through the list … uh oh …
19. Oklahoma State v. Stanford – This makes it to the bottom half of the list despite some appeal of Stanford’s Andrew Luck … Blame that on the desire not to watch Oklahoma State.
20. California v. Texas – I kind of like Mack Brown, but his Texas teams the last two years seem kind of sleepy, as do the Cal Bears.
21. Missouri v. North Carolina – I’d rank this lower, largely because of North Carolina, but I’m not sure what below this deserves to go higher.
22. South Carolina v. Nebraska – Oh God, still thirteen more to go and we’re already at this snoozer …
23. Clemson v. West Virginia – Seriously! This made it up to number 23. This is good evidence that there are too many bowl games. Unfortunately, since this is a BCS game, this and some of the ones below it would be far from the chopping block, and some of the games I’d want to see (like Air Force v. Toledo and Ohio v. Utah State) would end up getting cut. So, in other words, because of the power of the likes of the SEC, Big Ten, Pac-12, and Big 12, we need 35 bowl games so that people like me can get the bowl games we want to see. Warped logic, I know, but thus are the lovely wonders of our kind of capitalist system …
24. Arkansas v. Kansas State – I don’t mind watching Kansas State, but Arkansas really hurts.
25. Rutgers v. Iowa State – Really boring, and would be lower, but for the fact that stuff below this has major negative appeal, while this one’s just very plain.
26. Texas A&M v. Northwestern – I don’t mind watching Northwestern, but here’s the deal on Texas A&M: a few years ago, they ran afoul of the need to interview minority coaches in order to get “their man” in white guy Mike Sherman. Now, they’ve fired Sherman and are on the hook for a buyout to Sherman. To their credit, they’ve hired Kevin Sumlin as Sherman’s replacement, and maybe that will be a reason to watch them next year. For now, though, they’re still on the naughty list.
27. SMU v. Pittsburgh – Ditto game number 25. No interest in seeing either of these teams much at all.
28. Wake Forest v. Mississippi State – Same here. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.
29. BYU v. Tulsa – I have heavy disinterest in seeing BYU. Too bad for Tulsa, because they can be enjoyable to watch.
30. Oklahoma v. Iowa – See last year’s bowl list for some of the reasons why Iowa has a reserved place in a special level of dislike for me. Nothing has changed that. Add in that the thought of watching Oklahoma sounds almost (note, I did say almost) as bad as watching Keeping Up with the Kardashians, and, well, the stuff below this must be REALLY bad.
31. Florida State v. Notre Dame – And it is. Yuck, yuck, yuckety yuck yuck yuck. You know what? Change each of those initial “y” letters to an “f.” That’s how I feel about this game.
32. Ohio State v. Florida – I actually kind of like Urban Meyer a bit—probably because of the outstanding job he did in two years as head coach at Bowling Green. And I understand his thinking in coming out of retirement for the Ohio State job. So, maybe I’ll start to be a little more willing to watch Ohio State in the near future. Note that I said “watch,” not “root for.” I think anyone who graduated from or works at a state university in Ohio other than OSU should have a healthy anger at the way that OSU sucks resources from everyone else, all the while acting like they should have every right to do so, with their “the” Ohio State University crap. Still, I like Meyer a bit. That said, he isn’t the head coach yet … and we all know he’s not at Florida anymore. So, while I feel a bit for Luke Fickell, this game would be tough to watch, especially with Florida as Ohio State’s opponent. That they’re both 6-6 makes it even worse, though I will note that before the season started, I pegged Ohio State to go 4-8, which very easily could have happened had the Buckeyes lost to Toledo and Wisconsin, which very easily could have happened. So, 6-6 for this Buckeye team was actually not bad.
33. FIU v. Marshall – While I know this list is about football and not men’s basketball, that the Athletics Department at Florida International hired Isiah Thomas still feels very icky. And it makes me not want to watch their football team, even though their game against Toledo in last year’s bowl season was kind of entertaining. Marshall does nothing much either way for me.
34. Michigan v. Virginia Tech – Okay, now we’re down to the bottom two, both of which are making a statement by being here. For this one, I know, I know. This looks like a Spartan fan dogging on Michigan by ranking this game next to last. I understand, but I really believe that’s not the case. I’m happy to give props to the Wolverines this year. They played well, and they had an excellent season (which, by the way, I saw coming when I looked at the schedule in August). However, this team does not deserve to be in a BCS game over Boise State, and neither does Virginia Tech. For that matter, Kansas State has a beef against both Michigan and Virginia Tech as well. So, while this is not the most unwatchable game in terms of football excitement, I will be making a point not to watch it because of the injustice that it represents.
35. UCLA v. Illinois – Going from 6-0 to 6-6 by losing your final six games is pretty putrid, all arguments about the ease of Illinois’ first-half schedule aside. A good team would have found a way to win one or two of those final six (like against Ohio State and/or Northwestern, for instance). The Illini didn’t, and that’s why Ron Zook is out as head coach (again, though, with a buyout, which is problematic; I’m getting to be of the “you signed the coach for the number of years you did, so you’re stuck with him” philosophy—something that also applies here to UCLA). While I kind of like Zook, and I think he got a bad rap at Florida, his departure from Illinois is good for me as a Bowling Green fan, since it means that Illinois poached a good coach from Toledo. Still, this isn’t an Illinois team that seems worth watching. That said, at least they, at 6-6, have the right to be here. UCLA had to petition the NCAA for something they did (or didn’t do) not to count so they could get in with a 6-7 record, which is supposed to be not allowed. It seems inappropriate for the NCAA to rule in this instance that a conference championship game shouldn’t hurt a team when in other instances (like Houston losing its undefeated season and a chance at a BCS game, Michigan State getting its third loss of the season and a fall in the BCS rankings that helped pave the way for Michigan to make it to a BCS game instead, etc.) being in a conference championship game does hurt a team. Screw that hypocrisy. While I’ll be rooting for UCLA to lose just because of the embarrassment on college football’s books in having a bowl team that finished 6-8, I refuse to watch this game.
And so, without further ado, here are my 2011-2012 college bowl game watchability rankings from 1 to 35:
1. Baylor v. Washington – Really glad to see Robert Griffin III win the Heisman. He’s typically very fun to watch.
2. Northern Illinois v. Arkansas State – Two words make this very appealable to watch: Chandler Harnish. Add in an Arkansas State team that played very well and there’s a reason this is near the top of the list.
3. Air Force v. Toledo – As a Bowling Green alum, I don’t like to root for Toledo, but I have to admit they’re a good team and they’re enjoyable to watch.
4. Michigan State v. Georgia – My second alma mater, the Spartans, has been a very enjoyable and exciting team to watch. Meanwhile, the excellent season put together by Georgia with their coach on the hot seat helps as well.
5. Ohio v. Utah State – Utah State could have easily ended up with three more wins, with all the last second heartbreaks they’ve suffered, starting with the first game against Auburn. They’re a fun team to watch, and Frank Solich has consistently has good Bobcat teams at Ohio. Oh ... and Ohio's quarterback is the son of former major league baseball player Mickey Tettleton ... and he's pretty good. That's worth watching alone.
6. Boise State v. Arizona State – Realize that if these two teams had played up to their potential, this could have been a BCS game. As it is, Boise State is very worth watching, and though Arizona State is my third alma mater, which draws me to the game, this particular disappointing team actually hurts this game in the rankings. A bit better of a Sun Devil team and this is in the running for number one on this list.
7. Southern Mississippi v. Nevada – This is a very good Southern Mississippi team that ended Houston’s run at perfection. Nevada’s worth watching, too.
8. Wyoming v. Temple – two teams worth watching … and I’m watching them right now as I post this.
9. Louisiana Lafayette v. San Diego State – ditto Wyoming and Temple (except that this game isn’t on yet).
10. Western Michigan v. Purdue – Western Michigan looked very strong in the first half of the season, but then I’m not sure what happened to them. I could take or leave Purdue and their 6-6 record, but I can remember some other recent MAC vs. Purdue bowl games that have been memorable, which helps this game.
11. Houston v. Penn State – Case Keenum is the draw here. Given all that’s happened at Penn State, I’m not very interested in watching their football team. Penn State against any number of other teams and this game would be near the bottom of the least. That says something for Keenum’s appeal.
12. TCU v. Louisiana Tech – TCU is an outstanding team.
13. LSU v. Alabama – Despite what those who myopically believe the more points the better say, I’d argue that that first game between these two was a very exciting game. It was also a good reason why we should bring back the tie and get rid of overtime. This rematch should also be interesting.
14. Georgia Tech v. Utah – Starting to lose some luster starting here. Utah brings this game up the ranking. Georgia Tech is, well, “meh …”
15. Virginia v. Auburn – Kudos to Mike London on the job he’s done at Virginia. I don’t care much for Auburn, but supporting London makes this worthwhile.
16. Oregon v. Wisconsin – I tend to have an inherent dislike for Wisconsin (hmmm … I went to Michigan State … I wonder why …), but after the two MSU-Wisconsin games this year, I have to admit that Wisconsin is worth watching, especially with Russell Wilson and Montee Ball. So, let’s make a deal and be willing to watch this one.
17. Louisville v. N.C. State – Not overly drawn to this but for an interest in supporting Charlie Strong
18. Cincinnati v. Vanderbilt – Starting to get kind of boring here … and I’m only halfway through the list … uh oh …
19. Oklahoma State v. Stanford – This makes it to the bottom half of the list despite some appeal of Stanford’s Andrew Luck … Blame that on the desire not to watch Oklahoma State.
20. California v. Texas – I kind of like Mack Brown, but his Texas teams the last two years seem kind of sleepy, as do the Cal Bears.
21. Missouri v. North Carolina – I’d rank this lower, largely because of North Carolina, but I’m not sure what below this deserves to go higher.
22. South Carolina v. Nebraska – Oh God, still thirteen more to go and we’re already at this snoozer …
23. Clemson v. West Virginia – Seriously! This made it up to number 23. This is good evidence that there are too many bowl games. Unfortunately, since this is a BCS game, this and some of the ones below it would be far from the chopping block, and some of the games I’d want to see (like Air Force v. Toledo and Ohio v. Utah State) would end up getting cut. So, in other words, because of the power of the likes of the SEC, Big Ten, Pac-12, and Big 12, we need 35 bowl games so that people like me can get the bowl games we want to see. Warped logic, I know, but thus are the lovely wonders of our kind of capitalist system …
24. Arkansas v. Kansas State – I don’t mind watching Kansas State, but Arkansas really hurts.
25. Rutgers v. Iowa State – Really boring, and would be lower, but for the fact that stuff below this has major negative appeal, while this one’s just very plain.
26. Texas A&M v. Northwestern – I don’t mind watching Northwestern, but here’s the deal on Texas A&M: a few years ago, they ran afoul of the need to interview minority coaches in order to get “their man” in white guy Mike Sherman. Now, they’ve fired Sherman and are on the hook for a buyout to Sherman. To their credit, they’ve hired Kevin Sumlin as Sherman’s replacement, and maybe that will be a reason to watch them next year. For now, though, they’re still on the naughty list.
27. SMU v. Pittsburgh – Ditto game number 25. No interest in seeing either of these teams much at all.
28. Wake Forest v. Mississippi State – Same here. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.
29. BYU v. Tulsa – I have heavy disinterest in seeing BYU. Too bad for Tulsa, because they can be enjoyable to watch.
30. Oklahoma v. Iowa – See last year’s bowl list for some of the reasons why Iowa has a reserved place in a special level of dislike for me. Nothing has changed that. Add in that the thought of watching Oklahoma sounds almost (note, I did say almost) as bad as watching Keeping Up with the Kardashians, and, well, the stuff below this must be REALLY bad.
31. Florida State v. Notre Dame – And it is. Yuck, yuck, yuckety yuck yuck yuck. You know what? Change each of those initial “y” letters to an “f.” That’s how I feel about this game.
32. Ohio State v. Florida – I actually kind of like Urban Meyer a bit—probably because of the outstanding job he did in two years as head coach at Bowling Green. And I understand his thinking in coming out of retirement for the Ohio State job. So, maybe I’ll start to be a little more willing to watch Ohio State in the near future. Note that I said “watch,” not “root for.” I think anyone who graduated from or works at a state university in Ohio other than OSU should have a healthy anger at the way that OSU sucks resources from everyone else, all the while acting like they should have every right to do so, with their “the” Ohio State University crap. Still, I like Meyer a bit. That said, he isn’t the head coach yet … and we all know he’s not at Florida anymore. So, while I feel a bit for Luke Fickell, this game would be tough to watch, especially with Florida as Ohio State’s opponent. That they’re both 6-6 makes it even worse, though I will note that before the season started, I pegged Ohio State to go 4-8, which very easily could have happened had the Buckeyes lost to Toledo and Wisconsin, which very easily could have happened. So, 6-6 for this Buckeye team was actually not bad.
33. FIU v. Marshall – While I know this list is about football and not men’s basketball, that the Athletics Department at Florida International hired Isiah Thomas still feels very icky. And it makes me not want to watch their football team, even though their game against Toledo in last year’s bowl season was kind of entertaining. Marshall does nothing much either way for me.
34. Michigan v. Virginia Tech – Okay, now we’re down to the bottom two, both of which are making a statement by being here. For this one, I know, I know. This looks like a Spartan fan dogging on Michigan by ranking this game next to last. I understand, but I really believe that’s not the case. I’m happy to give props to the Wolverines this year. They played well, and they had an excellent season (which, by the way, I saw coming when I looked at the schedule in August). However, this team does not deserve to be in a BCS game over Boise State, and neither does Virginia Tech. For that matter, Kansas State has a beef against both Michigan and Virginia Tech as well. So, while this is not the most unwatchable game in terms of football excitement, I will be making a point not to watch it because of the injustice that it represents.
35. UCLA v. Illinois – Going from 6-0 to 6-6 by losing your final six games is pretty putrid, all arguments about the ease of Illinois’ first-half schedule aside. A good team would have found a way to win one or two of those final six (like against Ohio State and/or Northwestern, for instance). The Illini didn’t, and that’s why Ron Zook is out as head coach (again, though, with a buyout, which is problematic; I’m getting to be of the “you signed the coach for the number of years you did, so you’re stuck with him” philosophy—something that also applies here to UCLA). While I kind of like Zook, and I think he got a bad rap at Florida, his departure from Illinois is good for me as a Bowling Green fan, since it means that Illinois poached a good coach from Toledo. Still, this isn’t an Illinois team that seems worth watching. That said, at least they, at 6-6, have the right to be here. UCLA had to petition the NCAA for something they did (or didn’t do) not to count so they could get in with a 6-7 record, which is supposed to be not allowed. It seems inappropriate for the NCAA to rule in this instance that a conference championship game shouldn’t hurt a team when in other instances (like Houston losing its undefeated season and a chance at a BCS game, Michigan State getting its third loss of the season and a fall in the BCS rankings that helped pave the way for Michigan to make it to a BCS game instead, etc.) being in a conference championship game does hurt a team. Screw that hypocrisy. While I’ll be rooting for UCLA to lose just because of the embarrassment on college football’s books in having a bowl team that finished 6-8, I refuse to watch this game.
Wednesday, November 16, 2011
Still Despicable
Last night, Duke University men's basketball coach Mike Krzyzewski became the winningest head coach in Division I men's basketball history when his Blue Devils defeated the Michigan State University Spartans 74-69 at Madison Square Garden. Since the game--and indeed, even before the game--the accolades have been pouring in. I, however, will not be joining in the chorus celebrating Krzyzewski, and it's not because he defeated one of my alma maters and rooting interests to get his 903rd, record-setting win. Frankly, after their participation in the Carrier Classic last Friday night, I'm not sure I care that much about how the MSU Spartans perform.
Rather, as I wrote about on this blog in March 2010, I find Krzyzewski rather despicable because of his response to the actions of Abar Rouse, who, while serving as an assistant coach for Baylor University's men's basketball team, recorded Dave Bliss concocting a detestable cover-up for the shooting death of one of his basketball players. I'll point you to that post rather than rehashing it here again.
What I find particularly interesting here is the juxtaposition of Krzyzewski's win against the situation unfolding with Penn State University football. As USAToday reported today, 59% of respondents in a poll suggested that the football program had become too powerful at Penn State. Meanwhile, as some have suggested, recently fired head football coach Joe Paterno may have become so big as the head of that football program that he arrogantly thought he called his own shots. Yet, in Coach K, we may be seeing the same kind of pattern developing. Now, that's not to say that Krzyzewski has been directly complicit in the kind of horrible situation in which Paterno has been. However, the kind of lack of sensitivity and moral judgment reflected in Krzyzewski's comments about Rouse lead to me think he is very complicit in the broader culture that helped produce the situation at Penn State. Meanwhile, given Krzyzewski's lack of good judgment in the Baylor situation, I'd want to be really careful about perpetuating the sense that he and his program are more important than the university for which they work and more important than the many other individuals who are affected by what happens at that university. Still, that's exactly what the commemorations of Krzyzewski's 903rd victory appear to be doing.
I don't blame Coach K for what happened at Penn State, but I do think that, especially given his reponse to the situation at Baylor, the kind of adulation that puts his college basketball program on a level akin to Penn State's football program shows that we haven't learned much from what happened at Penn State.
Rather, as I wrote about on this blog in March 2010, I find Krzyzewski rather despicable because of his response to the actions of Abar Rouse, who, while serving as an assistant coach for Baylor University's men's basketball team, recorded Dave Bliss concocting a detestable cover-up for the shooting death of one of his basketball players. I'll point you to that post rather than rehashing it here again.
What I find particularly interesting here is the juxtaposition of Krzyzewski's win against the situation unfolding with Penn State University football. As USAToday reported today, 59% of respondents in a poll suggested that the football program had become too powerful at Penn State. Meanwhile, as some have suggested, recently fired head football coach Joe Paterno may have become so big as the head of that football program that he arrogantly thought he called his own shots. Yet, in Coach K, we may be seeing the same kind of pattern developing. Now, that's not to say that Krzyzewski has been directly complicit in the kind of horrible situation in which Paterno has been. However, the kind of lack of sensitivity and moral judgment reflected in Krzyzewski's comments about Rouse lead to me think he is very complicit in the broader culture that helped produce the situation at Penn State. Meanwhile, given Krzyzewski's lack of good judgment in the Baylor situation, I'd want to be really careful about perpetuating the sense that he and his program are more important than the university for which they work and more important than the many other individuals who are affected by what happens at that university. Still, that's exactly what the commemorations of Krzyzewski's 903rd victory appear to be doing.
I don't blame Coach K for what happened at Penn State, but I do think that, especially given his reponse to the situation at Baylor, the kind of adulation that puts his college basketball program on a level akin to Penn State's football program shows that we haven't learned much from what happened at Penn State.
Friday, November 11, 2011
Staring on Veterans Day
I suppose many who read and/or hear what I have to say on this blog, on The Agon, and in other outlets would easily characterize me as being anti-military. Indeed, I'm sure to folks like Ed Rollins, I fall right in line with "many in the academic world ... [who] don't like our military."
Well, I would respond two-fold to such a charge. First, if one defines the military as a war production machine that places an emphasis on the development of weapons of violence, which I think happens too often in the kinds of spectacle that accompanies much done to "honor" the military, then yes, I will gladly stand as charged. As someone who wishes for a world with less violence, then I'm happy to be characterized in opposition to an institution that is defined by violence.
On the other hand, I would also respond by arguing that the military does not need to be defined so broadly and deeply in terms of violence. I recognize that physical action in the name of defense is, in all likelihood, a necessary protection for a nation. Yet, defense can take many forms, a good variety of which do not involve the development of weaponry and the proliferation of violent action, while they do involve diplomacy, dialogue, and imaginative means of defending one's own nation without causing harm to others. Insofar as we see and represent the military along those lines, then I am supportive of the military and very willing to commemorate the contributions that our military institutions and the individuals who work within those institutions offer.
With that in mind, on this holiday of Veterans Day, which unlike days like Independence Day, is designed to commemorate the military, I am planning to watch what might be my favorite “military movie”: The Men Who Stare at Goats.
While I can understand why and how many folks might not find the film entertaining, I like it for a number of reasons. For instance, I’m sure that part of the appeal of the film is that I saw the film for the first time shortly after my mom died, and it prominently uses the Boston song “More Than a Feeling,” which I quoted in my eulogy at my mom’s funeral. So, I connect on a very personal level with the film’s use of that song. I’m also sure that the film appeals to me as a Star Wars fan through all of its intertextual references to the film series, starting with its use of Ewan McGregor as its lead actor.
However, it also appeals to me because it offers a sense of imagination with which I identify. While meant at least in part as comedy, it offers possibilities for the development of human capacities along metaphysical and mind-expanding lines, a lot like The Force in Star Wars. I find these possibilities both fascinating and hopeful, and so I enjoy how the film presents them.
Meanwhile, the film presents these possibilities in connection with the U.S. military, as objectives that might be explored and developed in the name of defense. And, in that regard, it potentially challenges the overly hyped, overly generalized, and very dangerous celebration of the military for its use of violent force. To me, that seems like a much more appropriate text for commemorating the military on Veterans Day than things like this, which ask us to stare in shock and awe at dehumanizing spectacles of power.
Well, I would respond two-fold to such a charge. First, if one defines the military as a war production machine that places an emphasis on the development of weapons of violence, which I think happens too often in the kinds of spectacle that accompanies much done to "honor" the military, then yes, I will gladly stand as charged. As someone who wishes for a world with less violence, then I'm happy to be characterized in opposition to an institution that is defined by violence.
On the other hand, I would also respond by arguing that the military does not need to be defined so broadly and deeply in terms of violence. I recognize that physical action in the name of defense is, in all likelihood, a necessary protection for a nation. Yet, defense can take many forms, a good variety of which do not involve the development of weaponry and the proliferation of violent action, while they do involve diplomacy, dialogue, and imaginative means of defending one's own nation without causing harm to others. Insofar as we see and represent the military along those lines, then I am supportive of the military and very willing to commemorate the contributions that our military institutions and the individuals who work within those institutions offer.
With that in mind, on this holiday of Veterans Day, which unlike days like Independence Day, is designed to commemorate the military, I am planning to watch what might be my favorite “military movie”: The Men Who Stare at Goats.
While I can understand why and how many folks might not find the film entertaining, I like it for a number of reasons. For instance, I’m sure that part of the appeal of the film is that I saw the film for the first time shortly after my mom died, and it prominently uses the Boston song “More Than a Feeling,” which I quoted in my eulogy at my mom’s funeral. So, I connect on a very personal level with the film’s use of that song. I’m also sure that the film appeals to me as a Star Wars fan through all of its intertextual references to the film series, starting with its use of Ewan McGregor as its lead actor.
However, it also appeals to me because it offers a sense of imagination with which I identify. While meant at least in part as comedy, it offers possibilities for the development of human capacities along metaphysical and mind-expanding lines, a lot like The Force in Star Wars. I find these possibilities both fascinating and hopeful, and so I enjoy how the film presents them.
Meanwhile, the film presents these possibilities in connection with the U.S. military, as objectives that might be explored and developed in the name of defense. And, in that regard, it potentially challenges the overly hyped, overly generalized, and very dangerous celebration of the military for its use of violent force. To me, that seems like a much more appropriate text for commemorating the military on Veterans Day than things like this, which ask us to stare in shock and awe at dehumanizing spectacles of power.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)