Wouldn't it be something if the "Detroit Lions' brain trust", and I use that phrase loosely, because it seems to have become oxymoronic over the decades, decided to retire long time place kicker Jason Hanson's #4? No Honolulu blue and silver player could ever wear it again.
After all, the recently retired Hanson played 21 years for them, set a slew of team records, a few NFL marks, and even made a tackle every 10 games or so along the way. Not too shabby for a little dude out of Washington State with a pre-med degree. Jeez, I'd bet his mom was so proud. Her son's going to be a doctor. Oops. Change of plans. Jason decided he'd rather take his career chances kicking a ball amongst ruffians. Moms normally don't approve of such things. And despite their value to a team, historically place kickers have also been amongst the lowest paid players on NFL squads. Had Hanson gone on to indeed become a doctor -- it's anybody's guess whether he would have made more or less money over the last 21 years.
Nevertheless, if the Lions opted to retire his number, he would join some very elite company in sports that have had their #4s retired. Lou Gehrig of the New York Yankees. Bobby Orr of the Boston Bruins. Brett Favre of the Green Bay Packers. These are household names to any sports fan, and will be remembered forever. Jason Hanson might well be inducted into the pro football Hall of Fame someday, but it's a probably a fair statement to say that in 10 or 20 years he won't have the same name recognition as the others mentioned above that wore #4.
And why shouldn't the Lions retire his number? What else have they got to do? The team's still a train wreck waiting to happen yet again, and it would be a nice gesture for a great guy. Besides, it's not unprecedented. The Lions have retired numbers before. Six of them.
Dutch Clark's #7. He played in the 1930s.
Bobby Layne's #22.
Doak Walker's # 37. They both played mostly in the 1950s.
Joe Schmidt's #56. He played in the 50s and 60s
These were all great players in their time.
Chuck Hughes' #85 will never be worn again. Hughes was hardly a standout. Though listed as a wide receiver, he played mostly on special teams. Indeed, during his 5 year NFL career he only caught 15 passes. Not to be insensitive about it, but his number was only retired because he tragically died on the field of Tiger Stadium (where the Lions used to play) from a massive heart attack during a game against the Chicago Bears in 1971.
The most recent and likely most notable retired number was the #20 Barry Sanders once sported. Yet people often forget that before Barry, there was a guy named Billy Sims that wore the same number, and was a dynamite running back himself, before a tragic knee injury cut his career short. And before Billy, there was an electric cornerback named Lem Barney, a 7-time Pro Bowler and Hall of Fame inductee that also wore #20 for the Lions. Perhaps the retiring of that particular number could be thought of as a triple tribute, or triumvirate, to 3 great players.
Which brings me back to Jason Hanson. Should his number really be retired? Maybe, but he has one huge black mark on his resume. Over the course of those 21 years, Hanson had multiple opportunities to take his talents elsewhere to a Super Bowl contender as a free agent -- yet he chose to stay with the woeful Lions. This does not show good judgment.
You'd think a guy with a 3.8 grade point average in college would have had more sense than that.
Yet, in the end, there's a bit of irony. As is well known, Hanson went prematurely "bald". Perhaps poetic justice was served. After all, Lions fans have been pulling their hair out for the last half century.
Welcome to the follicly challenged club, Jason. It's a lifetime contract.
Saturday, April 6, 2013
Friday, April 5, 2013
Handicapping the Final Four
It's not like they were a #15 seed but, as an original #9, few could dispute if there's a "Cinderella" still left in the tournament -- it's Wichita State. The Shockers shocked a lot of people by getting this far. Now they face the daunting task of taking on the overall #1 seed Louisville, who many predicted would cut down the nets at the end of the final game before the tournament even started.
It would seem to be a mismatch, but is it? Louisville's really good. They can run with the best of them, play a half court game, shoot, crash the boards, and have a tenacious defense. Plus they've got a very experienced coach in Rick Pitino. Like him or not, he's been there, done that. Not that they needed any more motivation, but the Cardinals are rallying around their fallen teammate Kevin Ware, who suffered the well publicized horrendous broken leg in their last game against Duke. They're on a mission to win it for #5.
On the other hand, despite being a 10 point underdog in the upcoming game, Wichita State appears to be a on a mission of their own. They weren't supposed to beat #1 seed Gonzaga or #2 Ohio State along the way -- but they did. The Shockers are peaking at the right time and seem to rise to whatever occasion confronts them. Besides their own talent, they can be very physical, and just play flat out HARD from start to finish.
Prediction? Cinderella only lives happily ever after in fairy tales and Disney movies. This is the big stage, not the big screen. Louisville 72, Wichita State 56.
Michigan and Syracuse have a lot in common. They were both #4 seeds going in. They both knocked off a #1 in the regional semis, and a #3 in the regional finals. What's the chances of that happening? Even their head coaches, John Beilein and Jim Boeheim, are old buddies from way back.
Michigan from the Big 10 and Syracuse from the Big East. Either conference can make a very good argument about being the toughest in the country. Indeed, seven Big 10 teams made it into the tournament, and eight from the Big East. Both the Blue and the Orange have faced a lot of brutal competition over the course of the season.
Also, they're both somewhat unpredictable. Each is capable of beating anybody if they're playing well, and each is also capable of losing to a much lesser team if they underachieve. Both have posted impressive wins and suffered disappointing, head-scratching losses. Up and down the rankings over the season they have gone.
Yet they are vastly different as well. Michigan features the Associated Press player of the year, Trey Burke, and a few other highly touted underclassmen that can shoot the lights out when they're going good. They like to run and gun.
Syracuse can run a little too, but might be more adept at the half court game. They feature a bunch of lesser known guys with more experience.
Forget the occasional dunks. Everybody can dunk these days. This game will boil down to one thing. Syracuse's vaunted defensive 2-3 zone versus how well Michigan shoots. Some say Burke and company will easily penetrate it. I disagree. The Syracuse guys are long, have been playing this zone all year, and are very good at it. They not only smoothly and quickly transition to the movement of the basketball, they anticipate passes which often result in turnovers. Michigan will have a hard time getting easy points in the "paint".
Syracuse is going to get their points regardless -- both inside and out. If Michigan's gunners light it up from 3 point range -- they win. If they don't -- they lose.
Prediction? In a toss-up game, one would normally give the nod to the more experienced coach. Like the above mentioned Rick Pitino, Jim Boeheim has been there, done that. This will be John Beilein's first go-around at the Big Show. But the way Michigan dismantled Florida in the regional finals convinced me the Wolverines are the real deal -- again -- if they shoot well. I think they will. Michigan 74, Syracuse 68.
It would seem to be a mismatch, but is it? Louisville's really good. They can run with the best of them, play a half court game, shoot, crash the boards, and have a tenacious defense. Plus they've got a very experienced coach in Rick Pitino. Like him or not, he's been there, done that. Not that they needed any more motivation, but the Cardinals are rallying around their fallen teammate Kevin Ware, who suffered the well publicized horrendous broken leg in their last game against Duke. They're on a mission to win it for #5.
On the other hand, despite being a 10 point underdog in the upcoming game, Wichita State appears to be a on a mission of their own. They weren't supposed to beat #1 seed Gonzaga or #2 Ohio State along the way -- but they did. The Shockers are peaking at the right time and seem to rise to whatever occasion confronts them. Besides their own talent, they can be very physical, and just play flat out HARD from start to finish.
Prediction? Cinderella only lives happily ever after in fairy tales and Disney movies. This is the big stage, not the big screen. Louisville 72, Wichita State 56.
Michigan and Syracuse have a lot in common. They were both #4 seeds going in. They both knocked off a #1 in the regional semis, and a #3 in the regional finals. What's the chances of that happening? Even their head coaches, John Beilein and Jim Boeheim, are old buddies from way back.
Michigan from the Big 10 and Syracuse from the Big East. Either conference can make a very good argument about being the toughest in the country. Indeed, seven Big 10 teams made it into the tournament, and eight from the Big East. Both the Blue and the Orange have faced a lot of brutal competition over the course of the season.
Also, they're both somewhat unpredictable. Each is capable of beating anybody if they're playing well, and each is also capable of losing to a much lesser team if they underachieve. Both have posted impressive wins and suffered disappointing, head-scratching losses. Up and down the rankings over the season they have gone.
Yet they are vastly different as well. Michigan features the Associated Press player of the year, Trey Burke, and a few other highly touted underclassmen that can shoot the lights out when they're going good. They like to run and gun.
Syracuse can run a little too, but might be more adept at the half court game. They feature a bunch of lesser known guys with more experience.
Forget the occasional dunks. Everybody can dunk these days. This game will boil down to one thing. Syracuse's vaunted defensive 2-3 zone versus how well Michigan shoots. Some say Burke and company will easily penetrate it. I disagree. The Syracuse guys are long, have been playing this zone all year, and are very good at it. They not only smoothly and quickly transition to the movement of the basketball, they anticipate passes which often result in turnovers. Michigan will have a hard time getting easy points in the "paint".
Syracuse is going to get their points regardless -- both inside and out. If Michigan's gunners light it up from 3 point range -- they win. If they don't -- they lose.
Prediction? In a toss-up game, one would normally give the nod to the more experienced coach. Like the above mentioned Rick Pitino, Jim Boeheim has been there, done that. This will be John Beilein's first go-around at the Big Show. But the way Michigan dismantled Florida in the regional finals convinced me the Wolverines are the real deal -- again -- if they shoot well. I think they will. Michigan 74, Syracuse 68.
Thursday, April 4, 2013
Fire the NCAA?
It happens all the time. If it's not one school, it's another. Now it's Auburn -- again. According to reports, their football program is being investigated by the NCAA for violations in recent years. Cash or other goodies given to players, grades fudged to keep them academically eligible, improper recruiting -- you know -- the usual laundry list in big time college football. So far, nothing but denials out of the Auburn folks. What will come out of it, nobody knows. Likely the worst that can happen to Auburn is forfeiting some baubles in their trophy case, banners taken down, loss of a few scholarships, being bowl ineligible for a year and, of course, the dreaded probation, which is pretty much a joke anyway.
Like the IRS tax code, and "code" is a very good name for that behemoth of a manual, because nobody seems to be able to completely decipher it -- the NCAA has got rules on top of more rules. All the member schools, including their administrations, coaching staffs, and players are expected to toe the line, lest they be "audited". Despite how confounding it may be, "ignorance of the law" is no excuse, as they say.
Though I wouldn't advise it for taxpayers, what if several major college football schools banded together, went "rogue", and decided to throw off the oppressors of the NCAA? Consider the following scenario:
Grabbing a few random names, let's say Michigan, Ohio State, Nebraska, Georgia, LSU, Oklahoma, Texas, USC, UCLA, Oregon, Alabama, a couple of the major Florida schools, and assorted others decided to fire the NCAA and form their own superconference? Such a conference to be devoid of all those pesky NCAA rules and regulations. What's to keep them from doing it?
Certainly they all have the stadiums to play in. They already handle their own travel and endorsements with various companies. Dividing the conference into east/west divisions or the like could be sorted out. Setting schedules wouldn't be that big of a problem. And tell me the TV folks wouldn't climb all over each other trying to throw huge piles of money at them for broadcasting rights. Plus it would have the added benefit of eliminating those annoying "patsy" games so many of them frontload their schedules with.
The rule book goes out the window. Want to pay the players? Go ahead. The star quarterback needs a new SUV? The boosters would be happy to cough up such chump change. It's not like it's illegal. Only the NCAA currently stands in the way. Taxes on such income? Let the rich alumni, boosters or sponsors pony up for that too. Hey, if I wanted to pay my neighbor's taxes, I'm pretty sure the IRS wouldn't care as long as they got their money one way or the other. What's the difference? And who cares about grades? For that matter, why even make them go to class at all? Most of their curriculums (or is that curriculi?) are a joke, as well.
There would be no worries about revenue sharing in such a conference. Who needs revenue sharing when every school has a huge stadium and every game would be sold out? The only thing they would have to decide on is years of eligibility. Let them pick their own number. Heck, nowadays a lot of these so-called "student athletes" manage to hang around for 6 years supposedly pursuing a 4 year degree. Who's kidding who?
Currently, the NCAA is like border patrol agents. For every "illegal" they catch, another 100 sneak by. Their rules are about as effective as building an 800 mile fence across a 2000 mile long border. Hmm. That sounds familiar, but either way, it's akin to a screen door on a submarine.
The universally disliked bowl system and "national championship" set-up? History. Forget the computers and human pollsters. Any conference this forward-thinking would surely initiate a playoff system.
It could be very interesting if a few high-profile schools started such an uprising and fired the NCAA.
Will it ever happen? Probably not, but if it did, at least there wouldn't be any more dopey rules about how many phone calls a coach can make. Please.
Like the IRS tax code, and "code" is a very good name for that behemoth of a manual, because nobody seems to be able to completely decipher it -- the NCAA has got rules on top of more rules. All the member schools, including their administrations, coaching staffs, and players are expected to toe the line, lest they be "audited". Despite how confounding it may be, "ignorance of the law" is no excuse, as they say.
Though I wouldn't advise it for taxpayers, what if several major college football schools banded together, went "rogue", and decided to throw off the oppressors of the NCAA? Consider the following scenario:
Grabbing a few random names, let's say Michigan, Ohio State, Nebraska, Georgia, LSU, Oklahoma, Texas, USC, UCLA, Oregon, Alabama, a couple of the major Florida schools, and assorted others decided to fire the NCAA and form their own superconference? Such a conference to be devoid of all those pesky NCAA rules and regulations. What's to keep them from doing it?
Certainly they all have the stadiums to play in. They already handle their own travel and endorsements with various companies. Dividing the conference into east/west divisions or the like could be sorted out. Setting schedules wouldn't be that big of a problem. And tell me the TV folks wouldn't climb all over each other trying to throw huge piles of money at them for broadcasting rights. Plus it would have the added benefit of eliminating those annoying "patsy" games so many of them frontload their schedules with.
The rule book goes out the window. Want to pay the players? Go ahead. The star quarterback needs a new SUV? The boosters would be happy to cough up such chump change. It's not like it's illegal. Only the NCAA currently stands in the way. Taxes on such income? Let the rich alumni, boosters or sponsors pony up for that too. Hey, if I wanted to pay my neighbor's taxes, I'm pretty sure the IRS wouldn't care as long as they got their money one way or the other. What's the difference? And who cares about grades? For that matter, why even make them go to class at all? Most of their curriculums (or is that curriculi?) are a joke, as well.
There would be no worries about revenue sharing in such a conference. Who needs revenue sharing when every school has a huge stadium and every game would be sold out? The only thing they would have to decide on is years of eligibility. Let them pick their own number. Heck, nowadays a lot of these so-called "student athletes" manage to hang around for 6 years supposedly pursuing a 4 year degree. Who's kidding who?
Currently, the NCAA is like border patrol agents. For every "illegal" they catch, another 100 sneak by. Their rules are about as effective as building an 800 mile fence across a 2000 mile long border. Hmm. That sounds familiar, but either way, it's akin to a screen door on a submarine.
The universally disliked bowl system and "national championship" set-up? History. Forget the computers and human pollsters. Any conference this forward-thinking would surely initiate a playoff system.
It could be very interesting if a few high-profile schools started such an uprising and fired the NCAA.
Will it ever happen? Probably not, but if it did, at least there wouldn't be any more dopey rules about how many phone calls a coach can make. Please.
Wednesday, April 3, 2013
Mike Rice and the Rutgers affair
Somehow this sounds vaguely familiar. A northeastern based school, physical abuse, a fired coach, the athletic director and university president embroiled in what some might call a cover-up, and folks clamoring for their heads to roll as well. But in this case there is indisputable video evidence. And it ain't pretty.
Today, Rutgers men's head basketball coach Mike Rice was fired, and justifiably so. The video clip(s) of his misconduct, which have quickly gone viral, leave no doubt that Rice stepped WAY over the line with his players on multiple occasions. Grabbing them, pushing them down, throwing basketballs at them, and screaming ethnic slurs. In today's day and age, any of the above is a fireable offense, let alone all of them. In the real world, Rice would likely be in jail facing multiple counts of assaultive behavior and perhaps even hate crimes. By those standards, the fact he was merely terminated from his employment at Rutgers (so far) would seem quite lenient.
But there are some interesting sub-plots afoot as well. It's been documented the above mentioned AD and Prez were aware of this abuse months ago, yet elected only to fine Rice $50,000, suspend him for three games, and require him to take anger management classes. Other than that, the beat pretty well went on in Scarlet Knight land.
Which leaves one to contemplate a few what-ifs? First, though Rutgers has a fine reputation as an academic institution of higher learning, their men's basketball program isn't exactly what one would consider high-profile, much less a powerhouse. Indeed, during Rice's 3 year tenure, they compiled a record of 44-51, including 15-16 this year and 5-13 in the Big East conference. Of course, any such stats should be totally irrelevant given the whole picture of the debacle that has been brought to light, but would a more famous program have handled it any differently? One would certainly hope so, and further hope this was but an "isolated incident". But we really don't know, do we?
More importantly, can we dare assume that if the damning video evidence hadn't been made public, that Rice would still be there as the head coach? The way things have played out with the latest statements put forth by the AD and Prez -- it appears to be a definite possibility. Worse yet, when originally apprised of Rice's obvious misbehavior months ago, it seems they terminated the guy that brought it to their attention, while Rice was allowed to go merrily on his way. If so, something is horribly wrong with that picture. It took the pressure of public outrage for these guys to act? And what of the "whistle-blower" that tried to do the right thing? Where is his justice? If it hasn't happened already, yours truly suspects a wrongful termination law suit could be on the horizon.
Whether Rice had changed his ways since the videoed abuses actually took place is unknown, at least to the public. Also, Rice freely admitted his wrongdoing, apologized, and appeared genuinely remorseful over his actions when he eventually faced the press. However, there are some offenses that don't warrant a second chance. Presented with such overwhelming evidence last year, the AD and/or Prez were clearly remiss in their duties by allowing Rice to stay on. He should have been fired within the hour, not months later when public outrage boiled over.
Here's hoping Mike Rice has indeed seen the light and changed his ways, and he eventually finds another niche in life that will be rewarding. Regarding his being fired from Rutgers, later is better than never, but he had to go.
And, in my opinion, so do the AD and Prez for ever countenancing such egregious behavior. All the spin in the world isn't going to make it go away.
Today, Rutgers men's head basketball coach Mike Rice was fired, and justifiably so. The video clip(s) of his misconduct, which have quickly gone viral, leave no doubt that Rice stepped WAY over the line with his players on multiple occasions. Grabbing them, pushing them down, throwing basketballs at them, and screaming ethnic slurs. In today's day and age, any of the above is a fireable offense, let alone all of them. In the real world, Rice would likely be in jail facing multiple counts of assaultive behavior and perhaps even hate crimes. By those standards, the fact he was merely terminated from his employment at Rutgers (so far) would seem quite lenient.
But there are some interesting sub-plots afoot as well. It's been documented the above mentioned AD and Prez were aware of this abuse months ago, yet elected only to fine Rice $50,000, suspend him for three games, and require him to take anger management classes. Other than that, the beat pretty well went on in Scarlet Knight land.
Which leaves one to contemplate a few what-ifs? First, though Rutgers has a fine reputation as an academic institution of higher learning, their men's basketball program isn't exactly what one would consider high-profile, much less a powerhouse. Indeed, during Rice's 3 year tenure, they compiled a record of 44-51, including 15-16 this year and 5-13 in the Big East conference. Of course, any such stats should be totally irrelevant given the whole picture of the debacle that has been brought to light, but would a more famous program have handled it any differently? One would certainly hope so, and further hope this was but an "isolated incident". But we really don't know, do we?
More importantly, can we dare assume that if the damning video evidence hadn't been made public, that Rice would still be there as the head coach? The way things have played out with the latest statements put forth by the AD and Prez -- it appears to be a definite possibility. Worse yet, when originally apprised of Rice's obvious misbehavior months ago, it seems they terminated the guy that brought it to their attention, while Rice was allowed to go merrily on his way. If so, something is horribly wrong with that picture. It took the pressure of public outrage for these guys to act? And what of the "whistle-blower" that tried to do the right thing? Where is his justice? If it hasn't happened already, yours truly suspects a wrongful termination law suit could be on the horizon.
Whether Rice had changed his ways since the videoed abuses actually took place is unknown, at least to the public. Also, Rice freely admitted his wrongdoing, apologized, and appeared genuinely remorseful over his actions when he eventually faced the press. However, there are some offenses that don't warrant a second chance. Presented with such overwhelming evidence last year, the AD and/or Prez were clearly remiss in their duties by allowing Rice to stay on. He should have been fired within the hour, not months later when public outrage boiled over.
Here's hoping Mike Rice has indeed seen the light and changed his ways, and he eventually finds another niche in life that will be rewarding. Regarding his being fired from Rutgers, later is better than never, but he had to go.
And, in my opinion, so do the AD and Prez for ever countenancing such egregious behavior. All the spin in the world isn't going to make it go away.
Ladies' NCAA basketball
Like the men, the women's NCAA Final Four is now set. Off they'll go to New Orleans where Cal will face Louisville, and Notre Dame will take on UConn in the semis. Considering the physical stature of some of these student-athletes, and festive atmosphere and nightlife this city is well known to offer, it is hoped none of them indeed add to the lore of the "Big Easy". Ahem.
Also like the men, a few major upsets have taken place along the way, plus too many of their nicknames are screwed up. What is it with Stanford and this Cardinal thing, as in singular? You'd think that particular institution, with such a glowing academic reputation, located in the heart of "silicon valley", and home of Yahoo, Google, Hewlitt-Packard, and so many other geniuses running around, would at least comprehend Grammar 101 and get their name right. Maybe not. It reminds me of the "Borg" of Star Trek fame. Regardless, in a huge upset, they themselves were assimilated by the Georgia Lady Bulldogs in the regional semis. And hey, in real life, how many women do you know that would be proud to be called bulldogs? Besides, that could easily lead to another not-so-good name for adult female canines -- but it probably wouldn't be appropriate here.
Per usual, Geno Auriemma's UConn Lady Huskies have breezed into the Final Four. Nothing wrong with lady huskies. Seems to me there's been a few of them that were the lead dogs on Iditarod winning sled teams. These girls are highly coached and disciplined, smart, mentally tough as nails, and never seem to run out of gas. Geno's 2-legged variety of Huskies are much the same way.
But next they have to face their recent nemesis. The ladies' version of the Fighting Irish. Yours truly has yet to figure out how that school came up with that particular name, considering the original Notre Dame in a cathedral in Paris, but perhaps the "Fighting French" moniker left something to be desired. At any rate, I've known a few women of Irish heritage, and getting them riled up is usually a very bad idea.
Nevertheless, Geno has to go up against little miss Muffet McGraw of Notre Dame once again. She's sat on his tuffet 3 times already this year. Once in Storrs, the home of UConn, once in South Bend, and again in Hartford, Conn, all but a home court advantage to UConn in the Big East tournament. Will the 4th time in New Orleans be the charm for Auriemma or will it be another case of Genocide?
Louisville has been the surprise of the tournament. They did the unthinkable by knocking off #1 overall seed Baylor. At least they call themselves the Cardinals, as in plural, unlike those so-called brainy Palo Alto folks mentioned above. Then they beat Tennessee to make the Final Four. It appeared the Lady Vols were bewitched by the style of play they confronted. Perhaps this is what happens when a school hires a warlock, oops, Warlick as their coach to replace the legend of Pat Summitt.
Though no doubt very talented, the Louisville women play a very physical game. They're not above doing whatever it takes to get the job done. Even their head coach Jeff Walz fondly referred to his players as the "ugly ducklings" in the wake of the victory over UTenn.
Indeed, though she shall remain nameless, in my opinion Louisville has one player on its team that isn't so good looking. I'm not saying she's ugly but...
Looking at that girl's face could turn Medusa into stone.
She could glance at falling bird poop and make it stop -- in mid air.
She almost makes ME look good. Almost.
No matter. The Louisville ladies join their male counterparts in the Final Four. Quite an accomplishment for a single school in the same year.
As mentioned above, next up they'll face the Golden Bears of California in the semis. Wait a minute. Golden Bears? Cal named it's teams after Jack Nicklaus? I thought he was from Ohio.
This sure gets confusing sometimes.
Also like the men, a few major upsets have taken place along the way, plus too many of their nicknames are screwed up. What is it with Stanford and this Cardinal thing, as in singular? You'd think that particular institution, with such a glowing academic reputation, located in the heart of "silicon valley", and home of Yahoo, Google, Hewlitt-Packard, and so many other geniuses running around, would at least comprehend Grammar 101 and get their name right. Maybe not. It reminds me of the "Borg" of Star Trek fame. Regardless, in a huge upset, they themselves were assimilated by the Georgia Lady Bulldogs in the regional semis. And hey, in real life, how many women do you know that would be proud to be called bulldogs? Besides, that could easily lead to another not-so-good name for adult female canines -- but it probably wouldn't be appropriate here.
Per usual, Geno Auriemma's UConn Lady Huskies have breezed into the Final Four. Nothing wrong with lady huskies. Seems to me there's been a few of them that were the lead dogs on Iditarod winning sled teams. These girls are highly coached and disciplined, smart, mentally tough as nails, and never seem to run out of gas. Geno's 2-legged variety of Huskies are much the same way.
But next they have to face their recent nemesis. The ladies' version of the Fighting Irish. Yours truly has yet to figure out how that school came up with that particular name, considering the original Notre Dame in a cathedral in Paris, but perhaps the "Fighting French" moniker left something to be desired. At any rate, I've known a few women of Irish heritage, and getting them riled up is usually a very bad idea.
Nevertheless, Geno has to go up against little miss Muffet McGraw of Notre Dame once again. She's sat on his tuffet 3 times already this year. Once in Storrs, the home of UConn, once in South Bend, and again in Hartford, Conn, all but a home court advantage to UConn in the Big East tournament. Will the 4th time in New Orleans be the charm for Auriemma or will it be another case of Genocide?
Louisville has been the surprise of the tournament. They did the unthinkable by knocking off #1 overall seed Baylor. At least they call themselves the Cardinals, as in plural, unlike those so-called brainy Palo Alto folks mentioned above. Then they beat Tennessee to make the Final Four. It appeared the Lady Vols were bewitched by the style of play they confronted. Perhaps this is what happens when a school hires a warlock, oops, Warlick as their coach to replace the legend of Pat Summitt.
Though no doubt very talented, the Louisville women play a very physical game. They're not above doing whatever it takes to get the job done. Even their head coach Jeff Walz fondly referred to his players as the "ugly ducklings" in the wake of the victory over UTenn.
Indeed, though she shall remain nameless, in my opinion Louisville has one player on its team that isn't so good looking. I'm not saying she's ugly but...
Looking at that girl's face could turn Medusa into stone.
She could glance at falling bird poop and make it stop -- in mid air.
She almost makes ME look good. Almost.
No matter. The Louisville ladies join their male counterparts in the Final Four. Quite an accomplishment for a single school in the same year.
As mentioned above, next up they'll face the Golden Bears of California in the semis. Wait a minute. Golden Bears? Cal named it's teams after Jack Nicklaus? I thought he was from Ohio.
This sure gets confusing sometimes.
Tuesday, April 2, 2013
Drug testing and Mayberry's Aunt Bea
Most of us at least know somebody that has got into trouble over some form of either alcohol or drugs, which has taken on the rather all-encompassing generic title of "substance abuse". Certainly, we read and hear about such things in the news all the time. Whether it's a DUI, or perhaps getting caught with some weed or pills of various nature, almost always such people will eventually go through some sort of "probation". During this time, they will have to "blow" and "drop" to prove they are "clean".
Just as certainly, the world of sports has clamped down as well. From the various shenanigans of Tour de France cyclists, to Olympic athletes, to major league baseball's dark ages of the "steroid era" and beyond, the powers that be have decreed they won't tolerate it any more. Currently, random drug testing seems to be the growing order of the day -- even in the "off-season" for many athletes. There's two very different ways of looking at that.
First, if they monitor everybody, then chances are we won't see another freaky fast climb up an Alp somewhere, medals awarded to druggies, or baseball's hallowed records continue to fall, etc.
But there's a flip side. What of the totally clean boys and girls that have risen to a high level by god-given talent, sacrifice, hard work, and sheer perseverance? Why should they be subjected to the terms of probation when they've never done anything wrong? It's like they have to prove themselves innocent to compete, instead of somebody else proving they've "violated" and should be disqualified. Somewhere along the line the benefit of the doubt got tossed out the window like the baby in the bathwater. These days, if Beaver Cleaver and Opie Taylor ran a 100 yard dash at the county fair with a blue ribbon on the line -- they might have to "drop". Off to the lab the specimens would go, to be thoroughly analyzed for any sort of slightly raised level of testosterone, human growth hormone, and who knows what else? Yet somehow that seems to be the direction we're headed in. Everybody's monitored for everything.
Next thing you know, the mad scientists could start manipulating DNA samples to unleash armies of clones on the world. An Eddie Haskell on every block. A Barney Fife driving every patrol car. This could get out of control.
And, excuse me, but I find something very scary about that. Yet on the other hand, a lot more Aunt Beas in the world couldn't hurt. Turn a few thousand of those loose and all this alcohol and drug nonsense would quickly stop. Forget sports related drug agencies, special panels, and even Senate hearings flapping their gums and churning out mountains of paperwork that get about as much respect as Rodney Dangerfield ever did by the athletes. If they had to answer to an Aunt Bea, they'd sit up and pay attention.
Hmm. It seems I've segued from a valid topic into the world of make believe. Given that, why not one more gigantic leap into the absurd?
Aunt Beas good. Other Beas bad. As in Bea Arthurs. Can you imagine legions of Maudes patrolling the world? Brrr. Substance abuse would be the least of our worries.
Just as certainly, the world of sports has clamped down as well. From the various shenanigans of Tour de France cyclists, to Olympic athletes, to major league baseball's dark ages of the "steroid era" and beyond, the powers that be have decreed they won't tolerate it any more. Currently, random drug testing seems to be the growing order of the day -- even in the "off-season" for many athletes. There's two very different ways of looking at that.
First, if they monitor everybody, then chances are we won't see another freaky fast climb up an Alp somewhere, medals awarded to druggies, or baseball's hallowed records continue to fall, etc.
But there's a flip side. What of the totally clean boys and girls that have risen to a high level by god-given talent, sacrifice, hard work, and sheer perseverance? Why should they be subjected to the terms of probation when they've never done anything wrong? It's like they have to prove themselves innocent to compete, instead of somebody else proving they've "violated" and should be disqualified. Somewhere along the line the benefit of the doubt got tossed out the window like the baby in the bathwater. These days, if Beaver Cleaver and Opie Taylor ran a 100 yard dash at the county fair with a blue ribbon on the line -- they might have to "drop". Off to the lab the specimens would go, to be thoroughly analyzed for any sort of slightly raised level of testosterone, human growth hormone, and who knows what else? Yet somehow that seems to be the direction we're headed in. Everybody's monitored for everything.
Next thing you know, the mad scientists could start manipulating DNA samples to unleash armies of clones on the world. An Eddie Haskell on every block. A Barney Fife driving every patrol car. This could get out of control.
And, excuse me, but I find something very scary about that. Yet on the other hand, a lot more Aunt Beas in the world couldn't hurt. Turn a few thousand of those loose and all this alcohol and drug nonsense would quickly stop. Forget sports related drug agencies, special panels, and even Senate hearings flapping their gums and churning out mountains of paperwork that get about as much respect as Rodney Dangerfield ever did by the athletes. If they had to answer to an Aunt Bea, they'd sit up and pay attention.
Hmm. It seems I've segued from a valid topic into the world of make believe. Given that, why not one more gigantic leap into the absurd?
Aunt Beas good. Other Beas bad. As in Bea Arthurs. Can you imagine legions of Maudes patrolling the world? Brrr. Substance abuse would be the least of our worries.
Monday, April 1, 2013
Kim Mulkey and sour grapes
Jeez, I thought Geno Auriemma of the UConn Lady Huskies was bad with his whining when his team lost. He's now got company. Enter head coach Kim Mulkey of the Baylor Lady Bears. Riding a long winning streak and slightly favored to win another national title -- her nationally #1 ranked team got edged out and eliminated by 1 point in the NCAA women's tournament by Louisville, merely a #5 seed -- and a whopping 24 point underdog at that.
In the post-game press conference the lovely, if hardly gracious, Ms. M tried to blame the refs, even at her admitted risk of being fined for doing so. She even went so far as to encourage reporters to ask questions in that regard. This, despite her also admitting she couldn't see a controversial play late in the game because it happened at the other end of the court from where she happened to be standing. Well gee. If she couldn't see it, but the call went against her team, then it must be wrong somehow -- right?
Watching and listening to Mulkey chewing on her sour grapes, y'all, perhaps we're supposed to believe this was a massive conspiracy against Waco, the likes of which hasn't been seen since David Koresh and his Branch Davidians got smoked out by the feds in 1993.
Or maybe there's another possibility, however remote. Heaven forbid, could it be the Lady Bears, despite all their talent and expectations, just got beat fair and square? It happens.
Mulkey also went on to lecture the reporters they better not question, much less put any responsibility on the players for the loss, but rather put it all on her shoulders. That sounded a lot like some good old-fashioned Texas yee-hah logic at work again. If you're not fer us, you must be agin us. We don't lose. We get jobbed by those with other obvious biases. And even if we lose -- under no circumstances shall the people that actually played the game take any responsibility.
Well, guess what? That might work in high school where the coaches take the heat while shielding their youthful players from too much negative scrutiny after a bad game. Only compliments are allowed, and perhaps justifiably so. But a head coach of a high profile college program should know better. If they want to dance on the big stage and accept all the accolades that come with success, then they have to be willing to face the not-so-good music when things don't go their way. It goes with the territory and the reporters have a job to do too. Mulkey was horribly misguided when she tried to prompt the hopefully unbiased press in attendance into seeing things her way. She should be ashamed of herself.
Thing is, it seems there's no such thing as shame in Texas. In recent years past -- consider a world famous cyclist, perhaps the most dominant baseball pitcher of our time, and even a few very high ranking politicians, to name a few. Despite mountains of evidence against them, much of it gathered by totally impartial and objective people -- they will never flat-out admit they were wrong.
Yippee-ki-ay, and the beat goes on.
Given that apparent on-going pervasive attitude in the Lone Star state, we likely shouldn't expect any better from Mulkey.
Ah heck. Once her 6'8' freak and superstar player Brittney Griner disappears into women's pro basketball somewhere, Mulkey's currently vaunted program might well fade into oblivion faster than the above mentioned Branch Davidians.
But I'd still pay big bucks to see her and Geno in a mud wrestling contest.
In the post-game press conference the lovely, if hardly gracious, Ms. M tried to blame the refs, even at her admitted risk of being fined for doing so. She even went so far as to encourage reporters to ask questions in that regard. This, despite her also admitting she couldn't see a controversial play late in the game because it happened at the other end of the court from where she happened to be standing. Well gee. If she couldn't see it, but the call went against her team, then it must be wrong somehow -- right?
Watching and listening to Mulkey chewing on her sour grapes, y'all, perhaps we're supposed to believe this was a massive conspiracy against Waco, the likes of which hasn't been seen since David Koresh and his Branch Davidians got smoked out by the feds in 1993.
Or maybe there's another possibility, however remote. Heaven forbid, could it be the Lady Bears, despite all their talent and expectations, just got beat fair and square? It happens.
Mulkey also went on to lecture the reporters they better not question, much less put any responsibility on the players for the loss, but rather put it all on her shoulders. That sounded a lot like some good old-fashioned Texas yee-hah logic at work again. If you're not fer us, you must be agin us. We don't lose. We get jobbed by those with other obvious biases. And even if we lose -- under no circumstances shall the people that actually played the game take any responsibility.
Well, guess what? That might work in high school where the coaches take the heat while shielding their youthful players from too much negative scrutiny after a bad game. Only compliments are allowed, and perhaps justifiably so. But a head coach of a high profile college program should know better. If they want to dance on the big stage and accept all the accolades that come with success, then they have to be willing to face the not-so-good music when things don't go their way. It goes with the territory and the reporters have a job to do too. Mulkey was horribly misguided when she tried to prompt the hopefully unbiased press in attendance into seeing things her way. She should be ashamed of herself.
Thing is, it seems there's no such thing as shame in Texas. In recent years past -- consider a world famous cyclist, perhaps the most dominant baseball pitcher of our time, and even a few very high ranking politicians, to name a few. Despite mountains of evidence against them, much of it gathered by totally impartial and objective people -- they will never flat-out admit they were wrong.
Yippee-ki-ay, and the beat goes on.
Given that apparent on-going pervasive attitude in the Lone Star state, we likely shouldn't expect any better from Mulkey.
Ah heck. Once her 6'8' freak and superstar player Brittney Griner disappears into women's pro basketball somewhere, Mulkey's currently vaunted program might well fade into oblivion faster than the above mentioned Branch Davidians.
But I'd still pay big bucks to see her and Geno in a mud wrestling contest.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)