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.
Saturday, December 17, 2011
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.
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
25 Years Ago Today -- You Don't Gotta Believe
Do you remember what you were doing exactly 25 years ago today (October 26)? I can tell you exactly where I was and what I was doing because it was one of the most formative moments, if not the most formative moment, of my life as a sports fan. I was in Queens, New York, in the house owned by my dad's longtime friend John Schunke and his wife, Eileen, watching Game 6 of the 1986 World Series. My brothers were there with me, as were John and Eileen's two young children and a babysitter. My mom and dad, along with John and Eileen, though, were not. They were at the game.
We were all Mets fans, and when the Mets made it to the World Series (for the first time in 13 years), the Schunkes were able to get tickets to Game 6. None of us knew, of course, at the time that this would become one of the most memorable games not just in baseball history, but in U.S. sports history in general.
I'm sure most of you know the story of the game. Tied at 3-3 after nine innings, the Boston Red Sox took the lead with two runs in the top of the tenth. Then, the first two hitters for the Mets in the bottom of the tenth were retired, leaving the team that had won 108 games that season down to one out, and eventually one strike, against one of the most storiedly cursed teams in Major League Baseball history, as the Red Sox had gone 68 years since their last World Series championship. Indeed, the scoreboard at Shea Stadium flashed for a moment "Congratulations, Boston Red Sox, 1986 World Champions." But, that congratulations to the Red Sox would have to wait another 18 years. The Mets rallied back with that one out left to score three runs, with the winning run of Ray Knight scoring as Mookie Wilson's groundball to first base scooted through the legs of Bill Buckner. The Mets would go on to win Game 7 two days later and, of course, take the championship in the process.
I've come to realize in recent years that I think this led me for awhile to believe that destiny exists in sports. It seemed to me, the Mets fan (and I'm sure Red Sox fans have understandably very different feelings), that the Mets deserved to win the championship, having won 108 games that year, tying the 1984 Detroit Tigers (who also won the World Series) for the most wins by any team in the 1980s. And so it was ... they did win, in dramatic fashion. And for years I held on to ideas about sports teams being destined to win, something that I think also for a while influenced my views on the world in general. It was easy for me to believe that people who seemed to deserve success would get success--a firmly entrenched belief in the mythology of the American Dream.
Unfortunately, it doesn't always work that way, and indeed, even determining who is "deserving" and who is not is very much an ideologically loaded judgment (again, just ask Red Sox fans about my idea that the Mets deserved to win). So, as I experienced many disappointments in my life that the 14-year-old me never saw coming, and as I learned much more about the ways in which social structures embedded in discriminations on the basis of race, social class, gender, religion, sexuality, and other identities have worked, I came to understand just how often there is no such thing as destiny and just how often destiny itself is an ideological construction, often built in inequities of power. I mean, just look at the concept of "manifest destiny" that helped fuel 19th century U.S. expansion as an easily recognizable example of exactly how the concept of destiny fueled oppression.
And, so, I still enjoy my memory of Game 6 of the 1986 World Series. Identification with the Mets has been a significant part of my immediate family's bond with one another. And this is one of the most important experiences in the history of that bond, with the entire family in New York and my parents at the game. Yet, while at one point in my life (in the late 1980s and early 1990s), I could literally not help but grin ear to ear and start jumping around with excitement at seeing video highlights of the game, my reaction today is much more subdued. I'm sure that part of that is age, as the experiences of adulthood life have for me, as they do for many people, muted the ways of feeling and expressing excitement. Yet part of it (and this part, I think, can be related to those experiences of age) also involves growth. Today, it would seem so much more insensitive to Red Sox fans (pre-2004 Red Sox fans, especially) to jump and down like that and go on and on about my perceived sense of destiny for the Mets.
So, even without consciously thinking about it, I simply don't react like that anymore. Rather, a quiet smile, largely in connection with the family bonding that this event signifies, feels so much more appropriate, for counter to the Mets' longtime slogan "You Gotta Believe," which my dad told me after the game he yelled out when the Mets were down to their last out, and which I'm sure went through the minds and lips of many Mets fans at that moment, I don't have to believe in any sense of destiny in order to find valuable meaning in what happened. And if I believe anything, it's that I think that's the more humane way to remember the event.
We were all Mets fans, and when the Mets made it to the World Series (for the first time in 13 years), the Schunkes were able to get tickets to Game 6. None of us knew, of course, at the time that this would become one of the most memorable games not just in baseball history, but in U.S. sports history in general.
I'm sure most of you know the story of the game. Tied at 3-3 after nine innings, the Boston Red Sox took the lead with two runs in the top of the tenth. Then, the first two hitters for the Mets in the bottom of the tenth were retired, leaving the team that had won 108 games that season down to one out, and eventually one strike, against one of the most storiedly cursed teams in Major League Baseball history, as the Red Sox had gone 68 years since their last World Series championship. Indeed, the scoreboard at Shea Stadium flashed for a moment "Congratulations, Boston Red Sox, 1986 World Champions." But, that congratulations to the Red Sox would have to wait another 18 years. The Mets rallied back with that one out left to score three runs, with the winning run of Ray Knight scoring as Mookie Wilson's groundball to first base scooted through the legs of Bill Buckner. The Mets would go on to win Game 7 two days later and, of course, take the championship in the process.
I've come to realize in recent years that I think this led me for awhile to believe that destiny exists in sports. It seemed to me, the Mets fan (and I'm sure Red Sox fans have understandably very different feelings), that the Mets deserved to win the championship, having won 108 games that year, tying the 1984 Detroit Tigers (who also won the World Series) for the most wins by any team in the 1980s. And so it was ... they did win, in dramatic fashion. And for years I held on to ideas about sports teams being destined to win, something that I think also for a while influenced my views on the world in general. It was easy for me to believe that people who seemed to deserve success would get success--a firmly entrenched belief in the mythology of the American Dream.
Unfortunately, it doesn't always work that way, and indeed, even determining who is "deserving" and who is not is very much an ideologically loaded judgment (again, just ask Red Sox fans about my idea that the Mets deserved to win). So, as I experienced many disappointments in my life that the 14-year-old me never saw coming, and as I learned much more about the ways in which social structures embedded in discriminations on the basis of race, social class, gender, religion, sexuality, and other identities have worked, I came to understand just how often there is no such thing as destiny and just how often destiny itself is an ideological construction, often built in inequities of power. I mean, just look at the concept of "manifest destiny" that helped fuel 19th century U.S. expansion as an easily recognizable example of exactly how the concept of destiny fueled oppression.
And, so, I still enjoy my memory of Game 6 of the 1986 World Series. Identification with the Mets has been a significant part of my immediate family's bond with one another. And this is one of the most important experiences in the history of that bond, with the entire family in New York and my parents at the game. Yet, while at one point in my life (in the late 1980s and early 1990s), I could literally not help but grin ear to ear and start jumping around with excitement at seeing video highlights of the game, my reaction today is much more subdued. I'm sure that part of that is age, as the experiences of adulthood life have for me, as they do for many people, muted the ways of feeling and expressing excitement. Yet part of it (and this part, I think, can be related to those experiences of age) also involves growth. Today, it would seem so much more insensitive to Red Sox fans (pre-2004 Red Sox fans, especially) to jump and down like that and go on and on about my perceived sense of destiny for the Mets.
So, even without consciously thinking about it, I simply don't react like that anymore. Rather, a quiet smile, largely in connection with the family bonding that this event signifies, feels so much more appropriate, for counter to the Mets' longtime slogan "You Gotta Believe," which my dad told me after the game he yelled out when the Mets were down to their last out, and which I'm sure went through the minds and lips of many Mets fans at that moment, I don't have to believe in any sense of destiny in order to find valuable meaning in what happened. And if I believe anything, it's that I think that's the more humane way to remember the event.
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
Oh! What a Night!
As the title would suggest, let's start off with a link to a particular song by Frankie Valli and the Four Seasons.
And, with that in mind, what a night it was for many a baseball fan, as the Baltimore Orioles came from behind in the ninth inning to defeat the Boston Red Sox, who were then knocked out of the playoffs moments later when the Tampa Bay Rays defeated the New York Yankees in extra innings, after coming back from a 7-0 deficit and tying the game with a 2-out, 2-strike solo home run by Dan Johnson in the bottom of the ninth inning. Meanwhile, the Atlanta Braves lost by one run in extra innings to the Philadelphia Phillies and thereby also lost out on the playoffs, finishing one game behind the St. Louis Cardinals, who won handily over the Houston Astros. For Boston and Atlanta, these capped off incredible collapses in the month of September. For St. Louis and Tampa Bay, this was the culmination of a month of climbing back into competition.
Still, this occurs amid conversation of expanding Major League Baseball's playoff structure, and that very prospect led a friend of mine to post the following:
Dear, Bud Selig.
Don't screw up the playoffs (See this season).
Signed, baseball fans
And, indeed, if the Major League Baseball playoffs worked like the NBA or NHL, where eight teams from each league made it to the playoffs, all four of the teams above would not have been playing to continue their seasons today. Rather, they would have been playing for home field advantage in the first round of the playoffs, while the bigger stories today might have been Cleveland losing but still holding off the Chicago White Sox to take the American League's eighth seed by one game and Cincinnati perhaps playing with a different game plan today as they fought to try to catch the Washington Nationals for the National League's eighth seed. Certainly, these could have still be dramatic stories, but perhaps they would have had a different meaning than the races do right now.
Still, as a potentially interesting exercise, I looked at what the first-round matchups would be if Major League Baseball followed that model. They would be:
American League:
Cleveland at New York
Toronto at Texas
Los Angeles at Detroit
Boston at Tampa Bay
National League:
Washington at Philadelphia
Los Angeles at Milwaukee
San Francisco at Arizona
Atlanta at St. Louis
Some interesting stories, perhaps, including the Nationals making the playoffs and some potentially exciting first-round matchups there. What do you think?
And, with that in mind, what a night it was for many a baseball fan, as the Baltimore Orioles came from behind in the ninth inning to defeat the Boston Red Sox, who were then knocked out of the playoffs moments later when the Tampa Bay Rays defeated the New York Yankees in extra innings, after coming back from a 7-0 deficit and tying the game with a 2-out, 2-strike solo home run by Dan Johnson in the bottom of the ninth inning. Meanwhile, the Atlanta Braves lost by one run in extra innings to the Philadelphia Phillies and thereby also lost out on the playoffs, finishing one game behind the St. Louis Cardinals, who won handily over the Houston Astros. For Boston and Atlanta, these capped off incredible collapses in the month of September. For St. Louis and Tampa Bay, this was the culmination of a month of climbing back into competition.
Still, this occurs amid conversation of expanding Major League Baseball's playoff structure, and that very prospect led a friend of mine to post the following:
Dear, Bud Selig.
Don't screw up the playoffs (See this season).
Signed, baseball fans
And, indeed, if the Major League Baseball playoffs worked like the NBA or NHL, where eight teams from each league made it to the playoffs, all four of the teams above would not have been playing to continue their seasons today. Rather, they would have been playing for home field advantage in the first round of the playoffs, while the bigger stories today might have been Cleveland losing but still holding off the Chicago White Sox to take the American League's eighth seed by one game and Cincinnati perhaps playing with a different game plan today as they fought to try to catch the Washington Nationals for the National League's eighth seed. Certainly, these could have still be dramatic stories, but perhaps they would have had a different meaning than the races do right now.
Still, as a potentially interesting exercise, I looked at what the first-round matchups would be if Major League Baseball followed that model. They would be:
American League:
Cleveland at New York
Toronto at Texas
Los Angeles at Detroit
Boston at Tampa Bay
National League:
Washington at Philadelphia
Los Angeles at Milwaukee
San Francisco at Arizona
Atlanta at St. Louis
Some interesting stories, perhaps, including the Nationals making the playoffs and some potentially exciting first-round matchups there. What do you think?
Monday, September 5, 2011
Laboring Through Some Thoughts Today
First of all, Happy Labor Day, everyone! At a time when laborers are under what may be as great of an attack as they have faced in decades, now more than ever is the time to celebrate laborers. Unfortunately, unlike the ways that the U.S. media and institutions fall all over themselves to celebrate the military on Memorial Day (and somewhat misguidedly on Independence Day), to celebrate reasons to give thanks on Thanksgiving (despite the insensitivities of doing so), and to declare the United States a land of great equality on Martin Luther King, Jr. Day (despite the civil rights inequities that persist in this country), there seems to be an embarrassingly inadequate amount of celebration of laborers by U.S. media and institutions today. Indeed, with thanks to Korryn Mozisek for bringing this to my attention, some have even called out Major League Baseball for such a lack of engagement with Labor Day.
Meanwhile, on a related note, if you've read this blog in the past, you may have seen where I have taken issue before with things suggested by BG News faculty columnist Phil Schurrer. While I haven't written about them here, it is worth noting that I have had many more disagreements with things that Phil has said in his columns in the time since I wrote that letter to the editor (and also that Phil and I had an amicable lunch shortly after that letter to the editor).
I do, though, want to start this blog post by agreeing with something that Phil said in his column that appeared in the BG News one week ago. After spending the column largely extolling the virtues of "right to work" situations in which union membership is not required, he argues that mandated union membership and/or mandated payment of union dues limits the choices of workers. His argument thus suggests that "right to work" allows workers more choice in this regard.
I agree. Mandated union membership and/or mandated payment of union dues do place some limitations on choices, and if one has the right to choose to work amid a strike or other collective bargaining action, then, yes, one has more choices. However, Phil's broader arguments about this going against the supposed "right to choose" rhetoric of liberals and progressives is an unfair application of a principle of purity to a situation that is a compromise to begin with.
Namely, unions themselves are a compromise position with our system of free market capitalism. Indeed, though Phil associates unions with liberals and progressives, and that is the dominant association in U.S. culture, in some ways unions are actually a rather conservative approach to management-labor conflict. Unions ultimately help keep the system of capitalism in place, but they attempt to provide labor with a greater voice in determining their working conditions within that system. As they help keep the system in place, they are, then, by definition at least somewhat conservative--i.e., they help to conserve the system as it is already established, which is at least one reasonable way of defining "conservatism." They are one choice among many for addressing management-labor conflict and representing workers voices. Other choices could include such things as reconstituting the structures of organizations to ensure more involvement of workers in decision making, significantly more fully developed government involvement in the processes of management and labor in an attempt to ensure that workers' needs are being met, redefinition of the very terms "management" and "labor" that affect the structures of work life and decision making, and a whole host of other possibilities that would be more radical and less conservative than the establishment of collective bargaining organizations.
As such, as I have suggested, unions are thus a compromise position rather than a more ideologically pure position that would call for significantly more radical social, economic, and/or political change. Like all compromises, they involve give and take from the parties involved. As compromises, they by definition compromise the purity or principles, with the hope that the tradeoff is worth the compromise. So, then, yes, unions do limit certain kinds of choices, but they do so with the hope that the other benefits (which would, by the way, include access to many other kinds of choices by virtue of the opportunities gained through collective bargaining) outweigh this particular loss of choice.
Meanwhile, Phil is awfully selective in how he applies his critique here. If he wants to critique this compromise that unions make and suggest that the "right to work" should not be compromised by unions, then I'm certainly willing to listen. But shouldn't we then also be applying this to the opposite side of the labor-management distinction? More specifically, shouldn't we also then be demanding a "right to work" of employers (and particularly of corporations)? If unions must offer individuals the "right to work," then I would think it's only fair that employers offer that as well. In this scenario, employers who wish to lay off workers must offer employees the right to work instead of just laying them off. Additionally, employers must show just cause in terminating employment of individuals because, unless those individuals have done things egregious enough to warrant termination (like violating others' "right to work," for example), they have a "right a work." If we want to add that to the conversation, then perhaps we have a lot of potential for a productive conversation.
Of course, doing so would harvest the potential for a much more radical alteration of the very structure of management and labor in the United States. It would also contain much more potential to upset the balance (or, more appropriately, imbalance) of power that employers--especially corporations--maintain. Yet, wouldn't that seem to be exactly the kind of upset that we need?
Meanwhile, on a related note, if you've read this blog in the past, you may have seen where I have taken issue before with things suggested by BG News faculty columnist Phil Schurrer. While I haven't written about them here, it is worth noting that I have had many more disagreements with things that Phil has said in his columns in the time since I wrote that letter to the editor (and also that Phil and I had an amicable lunch shortly after that letter to the editor).
I do, though, want to start this blog post by agreeing with something that Phil said in his column that appeared in the BG News one week ago. After spending the column largely extolling the virtues of "right to work" situations in which union membership is not required, he argues that mandated union membership and/or mandated payment of union dues limits the choices of workers. His argument thus suggests that "right to work" allows workers more choice in this regard.
I agree. Mandated union membership and/or mandated payment of union dues do place some limitations on choices, and if one has the right to choose to work amid a strike or other collective bargaining action, then, yes, one has more choices. However, Phil's broader arguments about this going against the supposed "right to choose" rhetoric of liberals and progressives is an unfair application of a principle of purity to a situation that is a compromise to begin with.
Namely, unions themselves are a compromise position with our system of free market capitalism. Indeed, though Phil associates unions with liberals and progressives, and that is the dominant association in U.S. culture, in some ways unions are actually a rather conservative approach to management-labor conflict. Unions ultimately help keep the system of capitalism in place, but they attempt to provide labor with a greater voice in determining their working conditions within that system. As they help keep the system in place, they are, then, by definition at least somewhat conservative--i.e., they help to conserve the system as it is already established, which is at least one reasonable way of defining "conservatism." They are one choice among many for addressing management-labor conflict and representing workers voices. Other choices could include such things as reconstituting the structures of organizations to ensure more involvement of workers in decision making, significantly more fully developed government involvement in the processes of management and labor in an attempt to ensure that workers' needs are being met, redefinition of the very terms "management" and "labor" that affect the structures of work life and decision making, and a whole host of other possibilities that would be more radical and less conservative than the establishment of collective bargaining organizations.
As such, as I have suggested, unions are thus a compromise position rather than a more ideologically pure position that would call for significantly more radical social, economic, and/or political change. Like all compromises, they involve give and take from the parties involved. As compromises, they by definition compromise the purity or principles, with the hope that the tradeoff is worth the compromise. So, then, yes, unions do limit certain kinds of choices, but they do so with the hope that the other benefits (which would, by the way, include access to many other kinds of choices by virtue of the opportunities gained through collective bargaining) outweigh this particular loss of choice.
Meanwhile, Phil is awfully selective in how he applies his critique here. If he wants to critique this compromise that unions make and suggest that the "right to work" should not be compromised by unions, then I'm certainly willing to listen. But shouldn't we then also be applying this to the opposite side of the labor-management distinction? More specifically, shouldn't we also then be demanding a "right to work" of employers (and particularly of corporations)? If unions must offer individuals the "right to work," then I would think it's only fair that employers offer that as well. In this scenario, employers who wish to lay off workers must offer employees the right to work instead of just laying them off. Additionally, employers must show just cause in terminating employment of individuals because, unless those individuals have done things egregious enough to warrant termination (like violating others' "right to work," for example), they have a "right a work." If we want to add that to the conversation, then perhaps we have a lot of potential for a productive conversation.
Of course, doing so would harvest the potential for a much more radical alteration of the very structure of management and labor in the United States. It would also contain much more potential to upset the balance (or, more appropriately, imbalance) of power that employers--especially corporations--maintain. Yet, wouldn't that seem to be exactly the kind of upset that we need?
Monday, July 25, 2011
The Ball is in Our Court
If you get a chance, read Mike Butterworth's most recent post on his blog, The Agon. I'm not going to go on much more here because I think you can read much of what I might want to say from Mike's post.
I do, though, wish to add that, as an Michigan State University alumnus, I am not, despite what MSU Athletic Director Mark Hollis says, appreciative of the opportunity for the MSU men's basketball team to play in this game, in particular because I feel very strongly that it is inappropriate to stage a baseball game designed, in the words of Rear Admiral Dennis Moynihan, to be "a celebration of service to all veterans" on the U.S.S. Carl Vinson, which was the ship that transported the body of Osama bin Laden after he was killed during a U.S. military operation this past spring. Regardless of what any of us think or feel about bin Laden; the events of September 11, 2001; and/or U.S. military action over the past decade, the U.S.S. Carl Vinson is now inescapably associated with these things, and public events that use it for any kind of celebration of the U.S. military or U.S. foreign policy cannot be divorced from the cultural and political significance that the ship gained by becoming known as the ship that carried bin Laden's body. As such, its usage for this event strikes me as reflective of an arrogant insensitivity to the positions and practices of our fellow nations and cultures within the contemporary global environment at a time when reflective sensitivity to humane treatment of the various groups and cultures that make up the world would seem much more prudent.
Okay ... so I did end up adding a little bit to what Mike said, but I'll stop there and end by asking you to please join me in voicing concern about this event taking place on the U.S.S. Carl Vinson and requesting that the event be moved to an aircraft carrier that does not hold the kind of symbolic significance that the U.S.S. Carl Vinson does. I have called the MSU Athletics Department. I have emailed the Morale Entertainment Foundation, which helped organize this event. I will also be sending an email to MSU Athletic Director Mark Hollis. In each of these correspondences I have and will voice my concern about the ship being used and my request that the ship be changed. I ask you to do the same.
Contact information for Morale Entertainment, including phone number and email address, can be found here.
Contact information for the MSU Athletics Department, including phone numbers, a postal address, and an email link for AD Mark Hollis, can be found here.
Contact information for the UNC Chapel Hill Athletics Department, including phone numbers, a postal address, and an email address for UNC AD Dick Baddour, can be found here.
I do, though, wish to add that, as an Michigan State University alumnus, I am not, despite what MSU Athletic Director Mark Hollis says, appreciative of the opportunity for the MSU men's basketball team to play in this game, in particular because I feel very strongly that it is inappropriate to stage a baseball game designed, in the words of Rear Admiral Dennis Moynihan, to be "a celebration of service to all veterans" on the U.S.S. Carl Vinson, which was the ship that transported the body of Osama bin Laden after he was killed during a U.S. military operation this past spring. Regardless of what any of us think or feel about bin Laden; the events of September 11, 2001; and/or U.S. military action over the past decade, the U.S.S. Carl Vinson is now inescapably associated with these things, and public events that use it for any kind of celebration of the U.S. military or U.S. foreign policy cannot be divorced from the cultural and political significance that the ship gained by becoming known as the ship that carried bin Laden's body. As such, its usage for this event strikes me as reflective of an arrogant insensitivity to the positions and practices of our fellow nations and cultures within the contemporary global environment at a time when reflective sensitivity to humane treatment of the various groups and cultures that make up the world would seem much more prudent.
Okay ... so I did end up adding a little bit to what Mike said, but I'll stop there and end by asking you to please join me in voicing concern about this event taking place on the U.S.S. Carl Vinson and requesting that the event be moved to an aircraft carrier that does not hold the kind of symbolic significance that the U.S.S. Carl Vinson does. I have called the MSU Athletics Department. I have emailed the Morale Entertainment Foundation, which helped organize this event. I will also be sending an email to MSU Athletic Director Mark Hollis. In each of these correspondences I have and will voice my concern about the ship being used and my request that the ship be changed. I ask you to do the same.
Contact information for Morale Entertainment, including phone number and email address, can be found here.
Contact information for the MSU Athletics Department, including phone numbers, a postal address, and an email link for AD Mark Hollis, can be found here.
Contact information for the UNC Chapel Hill Athletics Department, including phone numbers, a postal address, and an email address for UNC AD Dick Baddour, can be found here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)