The alarm goes off at 4:45 a.m. It's early, and sometimes it's hard not to fall back to sleep. As in really, really hard. But somehow, some way, you get out of bed, telling yourself at the outset of the program that you really will feel better in the long run if you do this, if you change your behavior and work an exercise regimen into your day the way you have changed your eating habits. So, you get up, put on your gym clothes, tiptoe in the hallway so as not to wake anyone, and you go down to the basement.
It's not the type of basement that anyone would brag about on an HGTV show. It's one of those early 1960's basements, built for utility and some storage but not for comfort. For one thing, the ceiling is low, so you have to be careful if you are of average height or bigger. The ventilation is okay, the space good enough. Good enough to fit a fixed bike, rowing machine, some resistance bands and an exercise mat.
You adopt a routine after a while, varying it to some degree to break up the boredom. Sweats seem mandatory in winter time, and the room is cool to start in the summer because of the air conditioning. You get down there, turn on the TV, tilt it toward the bike, and get on and start pedaling. Sometimes you go just ten minutes to get your heart going; other times you put yourself through punishing paces and increasing difficulty for about a half an hour, ending up sweaty and ready for the next thing. Over the course of 75 minutes you'll have biked, rowed, stretched with stretch bands, done yoga stretches, worked your upper body with resistance bands and attacked your core through the use of medicine balls. On some days you'll have done push-ups, too, or planks, and on most days you'll have used a hard foam roller to pop muscles in different directions.
Your stretching follows guidance accumulated over the years from Kelly Starrett's book, from a physical therapist, from a personal trainer and from reading, as well as some stretches borrowed from yoga tapes or a few yoga classes. At the end of the workout, you'll feel good, tight, fully stretched and ready for whatever the day has to bring.
After you take your shower, you'll eat a breakfast pretty much daily that consists of plain, non-fat yogurt with some cinnamon (or a 100-cal variety that is low on sugar), some whole-grain flakes (flax is my favorite), some granola to top it off and some fresh fruit. Berries are preferred if they are in-season and cheap, and a banana is the old standby. That breakfast is the opening act for a diet that is rich on vegetables and fruit, modest on the bad fats and rich in the good ones, a reasonable amount of carbs, and, usually, no processed sugar.
The results, after 500 days and counting (okay, so I have skipped a workout perhaps on 10 of those 500 days) are very good. I feel better and more energetic and my numbers, so to speak, the type that the doctors give you after drawing blood and sending it to a laboratory, are good too.
Is it worth it? Getting up that early? Well, I'll say this -- getting up that early is somewhat zen because you own your day at that point. No one else is up, which means that this part of the day is entirely yours -- and the only interruptions are the ones you create. That aspect of my day is something I cherish -- alone with my workout, alone with my thoughts, shaping my day. Is it worth it? Watching ESPN in the morning and its loop of features on Sports Center? If the end is getting into better shape and staying that way and feeling good about it, absolutely. If one gets irked by self-absorption and some sports journalistic narcissism courtesy of certain ESPN anchors and reporters, well, change the channel. But try to go to a zen-oriented channel -- and not one of the national news channels that report on only two types of news -- bad and worse.
So, yes, it's worth it -- the ritual, the routine, the location, the time of day, the feeling you get as you're making your way through your workout and then finishing it -- that you have accomplished something at the start of the day and are on a pathway to better and sustained wellness. You're aging, yes, and you have seen people age, sometimes badly. You visit a relative in an assisted living facility, a likable fellow who never took good care of himself and is paying the price for it now. Thankfully, his genial nature helped give him a nice life with friends and good experiences, but his physical weaknesses have taken a huge toll on him, even mentally to a degree. We all know aging has started to take place and is a fact of life, but we deny it, we fight it, we tell ourselves that we'll be the one to transcend and do better, but that always cannot be the case. Sometimes it's nature, sometimes it's nurture, and sometimes it's just dumb luck. But you keep on going, arising early, pushing yourself as hard as you can, even if at times no one notices or no one really cares. The thing is that you do, that you feel better, and that you feel, at least at an odd moment, that you can do anything and even suspend time.
In the end, it's more than a workout, it's a lifestyle, one of lean, clean eating, resisting the temptation of the gourmet desserts and wines, of getting out there and wanting to feel better, not to be sedentary, even if the lure of the 60-inch screen and what's on it can tempt one away from walking, gardening, biking, golfing and just getting out there. That's the thing of it -- the workout leads to a happier life, to serenity, to better things. It's not for the feint of heart or those who want to roll out of bed and do their thing without taking measure of their health, that's for sure. But for those who like the ritual, want the zen, it's as precious -- if not more so than -- any fine dining experience or watching a movie marathon on a cold winter's day.
It's life, and trying to live it to its fullest.
Tuesday, June 13, 2017
Monday, June 12, 2017
Max Scherzer Has Reached 2,000 Strikeouts in the Fourth Fewest Amount of Innings
Great accomplishment, in the absolute sense, for sure. He is an outstanding pitcher and in great company.
That said, does anyone measure the relative nature of this accomplishment? My main question is the following: How good is Scherzer's accomplishment in light of the fact that players are striking out with much greater frequency than they did when Pedro Martinez, #1 on the list, pitched and when many other strikeout kings did -- Nolan Ryan, Steve Carlton, etc.
It would be interesting to see an allowance for that frequency or lack thereof.
That said, does anyone measure the relative nature of this accomplishment? My main question is the following: How good is Scherzer's accomplishment in light of the fact that players are striking out with much greater frequency than they did when Pedro Martinez, #1 on the list, pitched and when many other strikeout kings did -- Nolan Ryan, Steve Carlton, etc.
It would be interesting to see an allowance for that frequency or lack thereof.
Friday, June 09, 2017
Penn State Just Lost One of Its Top Recruits
James Franklin is on a roll in Happy Valley.
Penn State has resurrected its football program.
Perhaps they even have a chance to develop a bona fide NFL star QB some day.
Well, that was until the nation's top dual threat quarterback pulled out of his oral commitment, saying all the right things, but that he committed too early and needs to re-think the process.
And perhaps that's as it should be. The kid is 17 or 18 and the teenage brain isn't full developed and his thoughts and hormones might be swirling about this, that and the other thing, from football and dreams of stardom to girls, cars, even academics. The question is whether that brain really is capable of synthesizing all of the information to make the best decision for him, a decision that could be a gateway to fame, fortune and the risk of all sorts of debilitating future injuries.
I remember an article decades ago, an article in which Lefty Driesell, the old Maryland hoops coach, was interviewed. He was asked about recruits who committed early, and to the writer's astonishment he said that he loved it when recruits committed early (by this he meant, committed to other schools). The incredulous writer asked why. To which Driesell responded, "Because then I know who I've got to beat."
Bingo.
And that's what happened here and probably happens in every other case where a young man commits early and has yet to sign a national letter of intent. Commit to Ohio State? Well, then you have to defeat Urban Meyer. Tough to do? Sure. But suppose you know that he's sweet on a rising junior quarterback from Columbus or Cleveland, a kid who projects better than you? Would the rival school use that to their advantage? Why not? Because if that potential also-ran at Ohio State could be a game changer say, at Indiana, then what do the Hoosiers have to lose?
Schools should keep their recruits close but ask them not to orally commit publicly. But perhaps the price of the commitment from the school is the player's public declaration that he's going to XYZ so that every other school backs off. Perhaps, but if that's the case, then other schools might come at this player harder knowing that perhaps they can offer things that the school he just declared for cannot.
The winners? The losers?
It's hard to know. So much effort goes into recruiting, and unless your Alabama it can be an inexact science. Some kids don't get better, some get homesick, some don't know how to handle life on their own and party too much and some run into too much competition at their own position. Many leave; some transfer in.
And yet. . . I still think of what Lefty Driesell said.
And laugh about it, too. So many adults and institutions spend so much time and money to pursue high school sophomore and juniors with the hope that they will get a commitment when they are seniors.
Imagine having your livelihood depend on the caprices of a teenaged brain.
Imagine you are the one with the teenaged brain, either overconfident about your abilities, nervous about the snake oil salesmen or skeptical about whether any recruiting coordinator cares about anything other than what you can do on the football field.
High-class problem? Or, a situation borne equally of hope and desperation?
Penn State has resurrected its football program.
Perhaps they even have a chance to develop a bona fide NFL star QB some day.
Well, that was until the nation's top dual threat quarterback pulled out of his oral commitment, saying all the right things, but that he committed too early and needs to re-think the process.
And perhaps that's as it should be. The kid is 17 or 18 and the teenage brain isn't full developed and his thoughts and hormones might be swirling about this, that and the other thing, from football and dreams of stardom to girls, cars, even academics. The question is whether that brain really is capable of synthesizing all of the information to make the best decision for him, a decision that could be a gateway to fame, fortune and the risk of all sorts of debilitating future injuries.
I remember an article decades ago, an article in which Lefty Driesell, the old Maryland hoops coach, was interviewed. He was asked about recruits who committed early, and to the writer's astonishment he said that he loved it when recruits committed early (by this he meant, committed to other schools). The incredulous writer asked why. To which Driesell responded, "Because then I know who I've got to beat."
Bingo.
And that's what happened here and probably happens in every other case where a young man commits early and has yet to sign a national letter of intent. Commit to Ohio State? Well, then you have to defeat Urban Meyer. Tough to do? Sure. But suppose you know that he's sweet on a rising junior quarterback from Columbus or Cleveland, a kid who projects better than you? Would the rival school use that to their advantage? Why not? Because if that potential also-ran at Ohio State could be a game changer say, at Indiana, then what do the Hoosiers have to lose?
Schools should keep their recruits close but ask them not to orally commit publicly. But perhaps the price of the commitment from the school is the player's public declaration that he's going to XYZ so that every other school backs off. Perhaps, but if that's the case, then other schools might come at this player harder knowing that perhaps they can offer things that the school he just declared for cannot.
The winners? The losers?
It's hard to know. So much effort goes into recruiting, and unless your Alabama it can be an inexact science. Some kids don't get better, some get homesick, some don't know how to handle life on their own and party too much and some run into too much competition at their own position. Many leave; some transfer in.
And yet. . . I still think of what Lefty Driesell said.
And laugh about it, too. So many adults and institutions spend so much time and money to pursue high school sophomore and juniors with the hope that they will get a commitment when they are seniors.
Imagine having your livelihood depend on the caprices of a teenaged brain.
Imagine you are the one with the teenaged brain, either overconfident about your abilities, nervous about the snake oil salesmen or skeptical about whether any recruiting coordinator cares about anything other than what you can do on the football field.
High-class problem? Or, a situation borne equally of hope and desperation?
Tuesday, June 06, 2017
Someone Should Sign Colin Kaepernick
Several years back I flipped back and forth among the channels offering college football games. That's what a surplus does to you -- you have to choose. When I was a kid, there was one or perhaps two games on one of the three major networks. You cannot have the majesty of a Keith Jackson providing commentary today; there are just too many choices to distract you from the marquis name doing the marquis game.
I happened upon the University of Nevada, with its crazy read option offense and a big quarterback who could run like a deer and throw the ball like a cannon. My first reaction is that he must be really flawed if he wasn't in a top conference, or that his competition wasn't that good or that he was having a career game. I didn't think much about it, until I flipped channels a few weeks later and came upon one of the most obscure ESPN channels -- and saw him do it again.
That quarterback turned out to be Colin Kaepernick, good enough to help lead his team to a Super Bowl and controversial enough to have get along issues in a dysfunctional situation in San Francisco and then draw attention much more for his political stands than the quality of his play on the field. Perhaps the latter offered evidence that he had peaked, that his game isn't suited to the NFL, that his skills had waned or that he just wasn't that good. Or, perhaps, he was in the wrong system and needed a fresh start. Whatever the case, he is without a job.
The simplest solution as to why is because the NFL is really conservative. If it were legal to breed football players or to clone them in a laboratory so that you'd have the Stepford Wives of football players, each and every NFL team would do it. Some teams held it against the number one pick in this year's draft -- Myles Garrett -- because he has other interest. I spoke with the mother of an NFL prospect this weekend -- her kid has drawn attention mostly for immature off-the-field antics that eclipse some of the kind and humanitarian acts he has done. She offered that her son was an immature kid a few years ago, but that some in the league have stained her son's reputation and won't let him dig out of it. I countered by saying that his talent and results are undeniable, and that in the end someone will break ranks and sign him. She agreed -- but it is unclear as to how high the draft spot will be and what the money will be. Prospects fall -- sometimes because of self-inflicted wounds and other times because of a nasty, subterranean rumor mill. At the end of the day, though, listen to the mom -- the league is conservative.
Which is why Colin Kaepernick remains unsigned after the Seahawks, no strangers to controversial, outspoken players (among them Richard Sherman and Doug Baldwin) and they signed Austin Davis. Booger McFarland had a good point on ESPN 2 this morning on the "Mike and Mike Show" -- most of the back-up quarterbacks in the league are scrubs. The Austin Davises of the world don't scare anyone and will get exposed after time -- whereas Kaepernick should scare people if handled correctly and in the right system. McFarland then went on to list the back-up quarterbacks in the league and the guys who have gotten second, third and fourth chances -- among them Nick Foles, Matt Barkley, Geno Smith (he didn't mention Mark Sanchez, but should have) -- and Kaepernick is better than every one of them.
What is going on with Kaepernick is silly. Some team should have him in camp. If not, some team will sign him to help save their season a few weeks into it. And then the conservative lords who control the NFL will have forgotten.
Or at least most of them will have forgotten most of it.
Silly logic from the lords of the league, who continuously make erroneous draft picks despite the availability of predictive analytics that could aid greatly in smarter choices. The decision to not sign Kaepernick must have been made in a room full of abacuses, slide rules and unfiltered cigarettes.
Hard to believe.
I happened upon the University of Nevada, with its crazy read option offense and a big quarterback who could run like a deer and throw the ball like a cannon. My first reaction is that he must be really flawed if he wasn't in a top conference, or that his competition wasn't that good or that he was having a career game. I didn't think much about it, until I flipped channels a few weeks later and came upon one of the most obscure ESPN channels -- and saw him do it again.
That quarterback turned out to be Colin Kaepernick, good enough to help lead his team to a Super Bowl and controversial enough to have get along issues in a dysfunctional situation in San Francisco and then draw attention much more for his political stands than the quality of his play on the field. Perhaps the latter offered evidence that he had peaked, that his game isn't suited to the NFL, that his skills had waned or that he just wasn't that good. Or, perhaps, he was in the wrong system and needed a fresh start. Whatever the case, he is without a job.
The simplest solution as to why is because the NFL is really conservative. If it were legal to breed football players or to clone them in a laboratory so that you'd have the Stepford Wives of football players, each and every NFL team would do it. Some teams held it against the number one pick in this year's draft -- Myles Garrett -- because he has other interest. I spoke with the mother of an NFL prospect this weekend -- her kid has drawn attention mostly for immature off-the-field antics that eclipse some of the kind and humanitarian acts he has done. She offered that her son was an immature kid a few years ago, but that some in the league have stained her son's reputation and won't let him dig out of it. I countered by saying that his talent and results are undeniable, and that in the end someone will break ranks and sign him. She agreed -- but it is unclear as to how high the draft spot will be and what the money will be. Prospects fall -- sometimes because of self-inflicted wounds and other times because of a nasty, subterranean rumor mill. At the end of the day, though, listen to the mom -- the league is conservative.
Which is why Colin Kaepernick remains unsigned after the Seahawks, no strangers to controversial, outspoken players (among them Richard Sherman and Doug Baldwin) and they signed Austin Davis. Booger McFarland had a good point on ESPN 2 this morning on the "Mike and Mike Show" -- most of the back-up quarterbacks in the league are scrubs. The Austin Davises of the world don't scare anyone and will get exposed after time -- whereas Kaepernick should scare people if handled correctly and in the right system. McFarland then went on to list the back-up quarterbacks in the league and the guys who have gotten second, third and fourth chances -- among them Nick Foles, Matt Barkley, Geno Smith (he didn't mention Mark Sanchez, but should have) -- and Kaepernick is better than every one of them.
What is going on with Kaepernick is silly. Some team should have him in camp. If not, some team will sign him to help save their season a few weeks into it. And then the conservative lords who control the NFL will have forgotten.
Or at least most of them will have forgotten most of it.
Silly logic from the lords of the league, who continuously make erroneous draft picks despite the availability of predictive analytics that could aid greatly in smarter choices. The decision to not sign Kaepernick must have been made in a room full of abacuses, slide rules and unfiltered cigarettes.
Hard to believe.
Monday, June 05, 2017
New Reality Show: Tag-Team NFL Coaches in Bar Fights
Think about it. Former NFL players are looking for something to do. Some drop all their extra weight, and, yes, even for most of the players it is extra weight. You need look no further than the U.S. government's guide on body mass index to discern that even the 6', 195 pound free safety might be carrying too much baggage on him. The players retire, and their metabolism changes, both because of lesser physical activity for most of them and, also, because they are aging.
They also are looking for something to do if they don't have jobs.
Enter Rex and Rob Ryan, sons of the late Buddy, who was known to put out bounties on opposing players and who appreciated a good donnybrook or two. And check out this article and accompanying video. They clearly have too much free time on their hands.
I figure that if "Dancing with the Stars" can survive for 25 years, so could "Celebrity Bar Fighting." We could have different categories and even cross-market with other reality shows. I mean, who could resist watching MTV's "Jersey Shore" mix with "Housewives of Orange County." You'd have to bet on Snooki and J-Wow, but it would be good theatre just the same.
We could paint the Ryan brothers as the good ol' boys and perhaps pair them up against Eric Mangini and another former assistant who is on the wrong side of Bill Belichick's wrath. The possibilities are endless. I don't know if Gene Okerlund is around any more or in a position to announce the contests, but there are some very good potential match-ups out there. There also could be a celebrity panel of judges, amusing former gridders who could wax eloquent on technique. This would not be MMA for former coaches and players; that is too formal. This would be good, old-fashioned bar fighting.
Before you dismiss this as far-fetched, there are all sorts of reality shows that either defy description or belief, including one about modern-day moonshiners. If people who make all sorts of rotgut and apple jack have a platform, so should brawling ex-coaches.
Thank you, Rex and Rob, for mixing it up publicly. This could be your pathway to future riches.
They also are looking for something to do if they don't have jobs.
Enter Rex and Rob Ryan, sons of the late Buddy, who was known to put out bounties on opposing players and who appreciated a good donnybrook or two. And check out this article and accompanying video. They clearly have too much free time on their hands.
I figure that if "Dancing with the Stars" can survive for 25 years, so could "Celebrity Bar Fighting." We could have different categories and even cross-market with other reality shows. I mean, who could resist watching MTV's "Jersey Shore" mix with "Housewives of Orange County." You'd have to bet on Snooki and J-Wow, but it would be good theatre just the same.
We could paint the Ryan brothers as the good ol' boys and perhaps pair them up against Eric Mangini and another former assistant who is on the wrong side of Bill Belichick's wrath. The possibilities are endless. I don't know if Gene Okerlund is around any more or in a position to announce the contests, but there are some very good potential match-ups out there. There also could be a celebrity panel of judges, amusing former gridders who could wax eloquent on technique. This would not be MMA for former coaches and players; that is too formal. This would be good, old-fashioned bar fighting.
Before you dismiss this as far-fetched, there are all sorts of reality shows that either defy description or belief, including one about modern-day moonshiners. If people who make all sorts of rotgut and apple jack have a platform, so should brawling ex-coaches.
Thank you, Rex and Rob, for mixing it up publicly. This could be your pathway to future riches.
Sunday, June 04, 2017
College Reunion
My drive to my old school never fails to inspire and amaze me. There's a small town on the way that hosts a prestigious independent school, replete with a few restaurants, the obligatory pizza joint and, now, horrors, the seemingly standard issue Starbucks that announces to the town that well, it's not a charming, isolated small town, just another small town that Starbucks has found. There are old colonials, a high-end golf course and some farms, a nursery, an imitation Versailles mansion and lots of greenery. The rain had been ample, lately, and the bushes, plants and trees responded in kind. Nature created a beautiful gauntlet to guide me into the old college town.
It's a lot different from when we graduated. The restaurants then were of two kinds -- stodgy and mediocre or just mediocre. They tried, mind you, but they were nothing special and a far cry from the offerings of the cities from which many undergrads came. Some marquis retailers have taken up prominent spots, as have gourmet ice cream stores, one of which charges almost five bucks for a small and a sign that your college town has arrived -- a restaurant that offers small plates. Mind you, the ice cream would make an all-star team for ice cream were one to exist, but almost five bucks is a lot to pay for a small. A used book store manages to thrive, testimony that the need for hard copies to grab onto and sit in a oversized leather chair in the corner of the library on a rainy February afternoon outweighs the typical campus concern for sustainability and eBooks. (When we were there, there was no such thing as an eBook and it wasn't apparent that anyone was conceptualizing it -- perhaps because of a healthy fear of Orwellian editing that might persistently change sacred texts to conform to the morals of the day). And, of course, there's a university store that sells everything imaginable in the schools colors. The cooler reunions weekend is, the more swag they sell. As my better half observed, you cannot buy things at the store to make you cooler, but you certain can to make you warmer. The store should have thrived and perhaps set a record this weekend.
We did not go near it, as we're at an age where you try to shed things from your house, not add to them.
What I thought about driving to the reunion was how time had flown by, how we went to college and didn't have our own personal computers or cell phones, and whether I had made good choices since graduation. (Spouse -- most definitely; community -- yes; profession -- probably, although friends tell me I would have thrived doing something else -- something which my kids are going to pursue). You can drive yourself nuts with the latter, especially because there will always be someone to compare yourself to who has more, whether it's money or problems. I tend not to do that, owing to some time-honored advice that one should never say he wants someone else's life because you have no idea of what goes on in that person's life. And because, well, you have to have confidence in your decisions and know what you are doing.
Age is something we all try to defy and sometimes lie to ourselves about, that we feel as good as we did when we were in college, that we feel better than ever, that we look the same. What brought home the fact that decades have transpired since graduation was the offer of the use of a golf cart on campus should we need one. I doubt that the kids five years out had that put in their registration packets.
Decades out, you go back, and, well, you don't know totally what to expect. Will the truly famous alums deign to come back, stepping down from their luxury condos built on a contemporary Mount Olympus with a foundation of society's contemporary values and visit with us? (They didn't). Will we feel badly because other classmates' kids got into the school and yours didn't, with the result that when asked where your kids go to school you get a socially conventional but forced, "oh, that's great?" (Human nature being what it is, only in the case of someone we did not like) Were some of the football players dealing with the consequences of banging helmets for much of their young lives? (Not apparent) Or, did they lose a lot of weight and look thinner than some of their formerly smaller teammates (a resounding yes; a tight end looked like lineman and an all-league tackle looked like a small forward on the basketball team). Or were people, well, just people?
For the most part, they were. I had all sorts of conversations, some fraught with worry, others with happiness, others with an obsession toward one aspect of one's life or another. One classmate worried about retirement as a teacher in a troubled school district and the ability to procure health insurance. Another talked about the effects of a history of concussions on his once star-athlete son. There were recent separations and divorces and reminiscences of classmates who passed away since the last reunion -- from cancer and from an accident. Talk about those people centered around their kindness and their decency and that we should all do more to keep in touch and enjoy life because, well, you never know.
There were the former athletes with their encyclopedic knowledge of knee and hip anatomy and when someone needs a replacement. There were people who were with the same company for a long time and those who were constantly on the move. The finance guys seemed among the most content, and perhaps a cushion of tens of millions does that to you, although one allowed that he was so consumed with work that he lost touch with many of us and had to do a better job. Wistfulness colored that comment; I could read in that friend's eyes that he was sorry that he lost some precious youthful time that he could not get back. The doctors worry about the future of medicine and how and why the best country in the world, so to speak, does not offer the best healthcare. As for the lawyers, there seem to be a lot of them, the competition is fierce and artificial intelligence and predictive analytics could fundamentally and inexpensively guide clients in ways to make some of their services obsolete. Plus, decades of figuratively banging heads tends to wear down all but the predatory. Those folks might not be worried potentially about the head banging the football players are concerned with, but years of aggressive advocacy can take a toll on one's psyche.
A physics professor wanted to catch up but had to go Skype on a project. A roommate who teaches law talked of life on a college campus and advisory committees he served on. Time and Outlook calendars didn't seem to put his brain in the vice that those in the commercial, capitalistic world have to contend with. A close friend's company is struggling mightily; he's been in an industry where people who help run companies get used to it. My guess is that he'll have a different job in eighteen months. Those in the not-for-profit world worry about donations and governmental support.
We talked of our communities, our lives, our kids. Many have lost both parents; others have to look out for them. The kids are in their formative years; New York remains a mecca for the young professional as it did in our day. While many cities need their best and brightest to return, the kid from Sheboygan or Shamokin does not want to return. As we advance in age, the parties don't tend to go as late, and the luster of hanging out at a party with a loud band and trying to talk over it and into the ear of an old friend dissipates. Some migrated to local restaurants or to a quieter place -- yes, there is a Starbucks in this town as well as a charming town square -- just to talk.
Even if the beer they serve is a lot better than the lowest-common-denominator Schlitz they liked to serve years ago.
The spouses get high marks for putting up with the long days and trying to summon facts about old friends from the last reunion so that they can engage in conversations and do more than just imitate a bobbing head doll and nod constantly. My spouse did a particularly good deed when an irritating classmate gave us a big hello and wanted to engage in a conversation about a problem that he created and found tremendous resistance on. She pulled me onto the dance floor, and while we didn't quite re-create the scene near the end in "Dirty Dancing," we did enjoy some pretty good imitation old Motown.
The alumni processional is a particular highlight. The 25th Reunion class leads it off, followed by the Old Guard. The dazzling moment of the weekend was when a 102 year-old alum -- the oldest returning alumnus -- walked the entire route. People always stop their conversations to witness the Old Guard, perhaps wondering who among us will live that long and be able to return to march, or perhaps excited because you never know how many alums you will see in their nineties and what shape they are in. After the Old Guard passes, you resume your conversations. One old friend shared that he really didn't enjoy the place, just never got traction there. Another wore a spectacular outfit in the schools colors. One guy walked by smoking a stogie, perhaps more popular a half decade ago than now. Hugs abounded, a genuine happiness that life seemed to be treating an old friend well.
We wore masks then and perhaps do now. Then, we all wanted to do our best to excel, get a leadership position and fit in -- unless one really wanted to be a counter culture kid at a time when it wasn't as cool to be so as it might have been in the 1960's. The masks then were to show that we could be super young people, ready to join the most competitive places in the world and be the best of their best. The college told us that we could and needed us to do so in order to fill the coffers and pay for future excellence. Not making it and failure were things that happened to other people, but not everyone was meant to be a top fund manager, litigator, research physician, company founder or executive.
The masks today are harder to fathom, because we don't know why some who don't return do not do so. Do they not return because they hated the place then and did not have a good time, because their kid was not offered admission or because they do not think that they have much to talk about, especially when they read about the classmates who became well-known journalists, a popular writer or an actor? Or those who have donated a lot of money?
It's hard to know. Keeping score to me is when I go to a baseball game with a friend and do so because my father taught me and he's been dead for a while so it's still a good connection. It's not about anything else. The first international golf star, Harry Vardon, once wrote that in match play, which frequented his day, that one should play the course and not his opponent. When I read that wisdom several years ago, I nodded with a smile. Vardon was exactly right -- do the best you can with what you have and make the most of it. Don't worry about the other guy -- even if he gets publicity, his kids got into the school and yours won't or a number of other factors.
At the end of the day, well, it's a reunion. You travel back to when you were young and in formation, you tell stories of the professor who had a stamp that said "Avoid Passive Voice" and once shielded his eyes and then pointed to a part of a classmate's paper to point out a flaw, of another classmate whose compulsion with his band obscured his academic efforts, of the classmate who, when shorted flakes in a box of raisin bran, wrote a passionate letter to the cereal company, which rewarded her with cases of cereal (she subsequently became a plaintiff's lawyer). You laugh, you hug, and you take some measure of satisfaction in that there is some part of life that you'll always have, where you'll be accepted for the person that you are, and welcomed because if you were a nice person then people still will resonate with you now.
As with life, as quickly as the reunion comes up on you, it ends. There is no opportunity for a grand goodbye, as you're saying hello and goodbye at the same time, because after a conversation ends you don't know if you'll visit with that person again. Sure, you keep up with your friends, but this time you vow that you'll get together, touch base when you're in the other person's town or make a better effort to keep current.
For us, we danced, we walked, we talked, we ate ice cream, and we reminisced. It was fun and it was tiring -- you're on your feet a lot. But it also was a way to stop and turn back time, to be warm, to be caring and to savor the connection between the past and the present, to be grateful for everything you have.
To talk about how the younger classes look, well, so darned young, and to wonder where had all the time gone.
It's a lot different from when we graduated. The restaurants then were of two kinds -- stodgy and mediocre or just mediocre. They tried, mind you, but they were nothing special and a far cry from the offerings of the cities from which many undergrads came. Some marquis retailers have taken up prominent spots, as have gourmet ice cream stores, one of which charges almost five bucks for a small and a sign that your college town has arrived -- a restaurant that offers small plates. Mind you, the ice cream would make an all-star team for ice cream were one to exist, but almost five bucks is a lot to pay for a small. A used book store manages to thrive, testimony that the need for hard copies to grab onto and sit in a oversized leather chair in the corner of the library on a rainy February afternoon outweighs the typical campus concern for sustainability and eBooks. (When we were there, there was no such thing as an eBook and it wasn't apparent that anyone was conceptualizing it -- perhaps because of a healthy fear of Orwellian editing that might persistently change sacred texts to conform to the morals of the day). And, of course, there's a university store that sells everything imaginable in the schools colors. The cooler reunions weekend is, the more swag they sell. As my better half observed, you cannot buy things at the store to make you cooler, but you certain can to make you warmer. The store should have thrived and perhaps set a record this weekend.
We did not go near it, as we're at an age where you try to shed things from your house, not add to them.
What I thought about driving to the reunion was how time had flown by, how we went to college and didn't have our own personal computers or cell phones, and whether I had made good choices since graduation. (Spouse -- most definitely; community -- yes; profession -- probably, although friends tell me I would have thrived doing something else -- something which my kids are going to pursue). You can drive yourself nuts with the latter, especially because there will always be someone to compare yourself to who has more, whether it's money or problems. I tend not to do that, owing to some time-honored advice that one should never say he wants someone else's life because you have no idea of what goes on in that person's life. And because, well, you have to have confidence in your decisions and know what you are doing.
Age is something we all try to defy and sometimes lie to ourselves about, that we feel as good as we did when we were in college, that we feel better than ever, that we look the same. What brought home the fact that decades have transpired since graduation was the offer of the use of a golf cart on campus should we need one. I doubt that the kids five years out had that put in their registration packets.
Decades out, you go back, and, well, you don't know totally what to expect. Will the truly famous alums deign to come back, stepping down from their luxury condos built on a contemporary Mount Olympus with a foundation of society's contemporary values and visit with us? (They didn't). Will we feel badly because other classmates' kids got into the school and yours didn't, with the result that when asked where your kids go to school you get a socially conventional but forced, "oh, that's great?" (Human nature being what it is, only in the case of someone we did not like) Were some of the football players dealing with the consequences of banging helmets for much of their young lives? (Not apparent) Or, did they lose a lot of weight and look thinner than some of their formerly smaller teammates (a resounding yes; a tight end looked like lineman and an all-league tackle looked like a small forward on the basketball team). Or were people, well, just people?
For the most part, they were. I had all sorts of conversations, some fraught with worry, others with happiness, others with an obsession toward one aspect of one's life or another. One classmate worried about retirement as a teacher in a troubled school district and the ability to procure health insurance. Another talked about the effects of a history of concussions on his once star-athlete son. There were recent separations and divorces and reminiscences of classmates who passed away since the last reunion -- from cancer and from an accident. Talk about those people centered around their kindness and their decency and that we should all do more to keep in touch and enjoy life because, well, you never know.
There were the former athletes with their encyclopedic knowledge of knee and hip anatomy and when someone needs a replacement. There were people who were with the same company for a long time and those who were constantly on the move. The finance guys seemed among the most content, and perhaps a cushion of tens of millions does that to you, although one allowed that he was so consumed with work that he lost touch with many of us and had to do a better job. Wistfulness colored that comment; I could read in that friend's eyes that he was sorry that he lost some precious youthful time that he could not get back. The doctors worry about the future of medicine and how and why the best country in the world, so to speak, does not offer the best healthcare. As for the lawyers, there seem to be a lot of them, the competition is fierce and artificial intelligence and predictive analytics could fundamentally and inexpensively guide clients in ways to make some of their services obsolete. Plus, decades of figuratively banging heads tends to wear down all but the predatory. Those folks might not be worried potentially about the head banging the football players are concerned with, but years of aggressive advocacy can take a toll on one's psyche.
A physics professor wanted to catch up but had to go Skype on a project. A roommate who teaches law talked of life on a college campus and advisory committees he served on. Time and Outlook calendars didn't seem to put his brain in the vice that those in the commercial, capitalistic world have to contend with. A close friend's company is struggling mightily; he's been in an industry where people who help run companies get used to it. My guess is that he'll have a different job in eighteen months. Those in the not-for-profit world worry about donations and governmental support.
We talked of our communities, our lives, our kids. Many have lost both parents; others have to look out for them. The kids are in their formative years; New York remains a mecca for the young professional as it did in our day. While many cities need their best and brightest to return, the kid from Sheboygan or Shamokin does not want to return. As we advance in age, the parties don't tend to go as late, and the luster of hanging out at a party with a loud band and trying to talk over it and into the ear of an old friend dissipates. Some migrated to local restaurants or to a quieter place -- yes, there is a Starbucks in this town as well as a charming town square -- just to talk.
Even if the beer they serve is a lot better than the lowest-common-denominator Schlitz they liked to serve years ago.
The spouses get high marks for putting up with the long days and trying to summon facts about old friends from the last reunion so that they can engage in conversations and do more than just imitate a bobbing head doll and nod constantly. My spouse did a particularly good deed when an irritating classmate gave us a big hello and wanted to engage in a conversation about a problem that he created and found tremendous resistance on. She pulled me onto the dance floor, and while we didn't quite re-create the scene near the end in "Dirty Dancing," we did enjoy some pretty good imitation old Motown.
The alumni processional is a particular highlight. The 25th Reunion class leads it off, followed by the Old Guard. The dazzling moment of the weekend was when a 102 year-old alum -- the oldest returning alumnus -- walked the entire route. People always stop their conversations to witness the Old Guard, perhaps wondering who among us will live that long and be able to return to march, or perhaps excited because you never know how many alums you will see in their nineties and what shape they are in. After the Old Guard passes, you resume your conversations. One old friend shared that he really didn't enjoy the place, just never got traction there. Another wore a spectacular outfit in the schools colors. One guy walked by smoking a stogie, perhaps more popular a half decade ago than now. Hugs abounded, a genuine happiness that life seemed to be treating an old friend well.
We wore masks then and perhaps do now. Then, we all wanted to do our best to excel, get a leadership position and fit in -- unless one really wanted to be a counter culture kid at a time when it wasn't as cool to be so as it might have been in the 1960's. The masks then were to show that we could be super young people, ready to join the most competitive places in the world and be the best of their best. The college told us that we could and needed us to do so in order to fill the coffers and pay for future excellence. Not making it and failure were things that happened to other people, but not everyone was meant to be a top fund manager, litigator, research physician, company founder or executive.
The masks today are harder to fathom, because we don't know why some who don't return do not do so. Do they not return because they hated the place then and did not have a good time, because their kid was not offered admission or because they do not think that they have much to talk about, especially when they read about the classmates who became well-known journalists, a popular writer or an actor? Or those who have donated a lot of money?
It's hard to know. Keeping score to me is when I go to a baseball game with a friend and do so because my father taught me and he's been dead for a while so it's still a good connection. It's not about anything else. The first international golf star, Harry Vardon, once wrote that in match play, which frequented his day, that one should play the course and not his opponent. When I read that wisdom several years ago, I nodded with a smile. Vardon was exactly right -- do the best you can with what you have and make the most of it. Don't worry about the other guy -- even if he gets publicity, his kids got into the school and yours won't or a number of other factors.
At the end of the day, well, it's a reunion. You travel back to when you were young and in formation, you tell stories of the professor who had a stamp that said "Avoid Passive Voice" and once shielded his eyes and then pointed to a part of a classmate's paper to point out a flaw, of another classmate whose compulsion with his band obscured his academic efforts, of the classmate who, when shorted flakes in a box of raisin bran, wrote a passionate letter to the cereal company, which rewarded her with cases of cereal (she subsequently became a plaintiff's lawyer). You laugh, you hug, and you take some measure of satisfaction in that there is some part of life that you'll always have, where you'll be accepted for the person that you are, and welcomed because if you were a nice person then people still will resonate with you now.
As with life, as quickly as the reunion comes up on you, it ends. There is no opportunity for a grand goodbye, as you're saying hello and goodbye at the same time, because after a conversation ends you don't know if you'll visit with that person again. Sure, you keep up with your friends, but this time you vow that you'll get together, touch base when you're in the other person's town or make a better effort to keep current.
For us, we danced, we walked, we talked, we ate ice cream, and we reminisced. It was fun and it was tiring -- you're on your feet a lot. But it also was a way to stop and turn back time, to be warm, to be caring and to savor the connection between the past and the present, to be grateful for everything you have.
To talk about how the younger classes look, well, so darned young, and to wonder where had all the time gone.
Friday, May 12, 2017
Popovich the Great
Spurs lose their point guard.
Spurs lose their best player.
That player is one of the top 5 in the NBA.
They have Game 6 on the road in Houston.
Spurs win by 39, clinch series.
QED
Spurs lose their best player.
That player is one of the top 5 in the NBA.
They have Game 6 on the road in Houston.
Spurs win by 39, clinch series.
QED
Tuesday, April 25, 2017
Confounding Sports Issues
1. Professional baseball has been around for more than 100 years and pitchers seem to be getting hurt with increasing frequency. You would think that with all the data that is generated that someone will map the movements of successful and injury-free pitchers and either draft for that profile or teach people what those with successful and injury-free careers do in terms of diet, exercise, sleep and motion. Wouldn't you?
2. The NFL draft has been around for a long time, too, and teams continue to find ways not to get it right. Isn't there a football version of Nate Silver out there who could help a team get it right?
3. College basketball programs still go for the "one and done" kids, but it seems harder for teams populated with them -- Duke and Kentucky and perhaps Kansas -- to win the NCAA title. So would they consider the profile of the players they recruit?
4. MLB has thirty teams, and that can make scheduling tricky. The question is, are there cities where they might expand, if so, what are they?
5. The NFL remains the most popular spectator sport in the U.S., even as more veteran players announce that they have serious health issues. And those are the ones that we know about, as there must be some/many who suffer in silence in order to protect their privacy. Will fan interest drop off over time over the guilt of knowing that you are watching a sport that can ruin the health of many of its players for life? Shouldn't the fans worry about that and what it says about them?
6. College players in men's basketball and football at many programs (and in some cases ice hockey and women's basketball) generate a lot of revenue for their schools (yes, even if 80% of DI football programs and/or athletic departments lose money). Football players take great risks with respect to their health. When will the time come when they get paid for their efforts beyond a scholarship and room and board?
7. MLB's average fan is 55 years old, and the games take a long time to complete, about 3:15. I have been to two minor league games over the past two summers that ended in about 2:00. The reasons -- a pitch clock and an "in between" innings clock. When will MLB adopted both and make baseball more bearable to watch again?
8. College basketball is very popular. Yet, each coach gets about as many time outs as Elizabeth Taylor had husbands and the clock stops every four minutes for a media timeout. What used to be a compelling product is almost unwatchable. Basketball was not designed for the players to huddle every four minutes; basketball was designed to keep players moving. Can the NCAA and the big networks who play for broadcast rights do something to make the games more watchable again?
9. The NBA has a lot of pizzazz, it really does. Yet, the regular season seems endless, and then the playoffs do. The regular season doesn't decided a whole lot after 55 games or so. Assuming that's the case, can the NBA avoid the resting of players by cutting the season by a third and beginning the playoffs earlier? Scarcity can do wonders for a good product -- it can make it even more popular. No one wants to watch two twenty-win teams battle in March.
10. When will the MLS take its next big step? Can it, given the big bucks that Chinese teams are throwing at international stars. The league puts on a good product, just not a great one. It might never be the English Premier League, but could it rival another one of the top leagues? Ever?
2. The NFL draft has been around for a long time, too, and teams continue to find ways not to get it right. Isn't there a football version of Nate Silver out there who could help a team get it right?
3. College basketball programs still go for the "one and done" kids, but it seems harder for teams populated with them -- Duke and Kentucky and perhaps Kansas -- to win the NCAA title. So would they consider the profile of the players they recruit?
4. MLB has thirty teams, and that can make scheduling tricky. The question is, are there cities where they might expand, if so, what are they?
5. The NFL remains the most popular spectator sport in the U.S., even as more veteran players announce that they have serious health issues. And those are the ones that we know about, as there must be some/many who suffer in silence in order to protect their privacy. Will fan interest drop off over time over the guilt of knowing that you are watching a sport that can ruin the health of many of its players for life? Shouldn't the fans worry about that and what it says about them?
6. College players in men's basketball and football at many programs (and in some cases ice hockey and women's basketball) generate a lot of revenue for their schools (yes, even if 80% of DI football programs and/or athletic departments lose money). Football players take great risks with respect to their health. When will the time come when they get paid for their efforts beyond a scholarship and room and board?
7. MLB's average fan is 55 years old, and the games take a long time to complete, about 3:15. I have been to two minor league games over the past two summers that ended in about 2:00. The reasons -- a pitch clock and an "in between" innings clock. When will MLB adopted both and make baseball more bearable to watch again?
8. College basketball is very popular. Yet, each coach gets about as many time outs as Elizabeth Taylor had husbands and the clock stops every four minutes for a media timeout. What used to be a compelling product is almost unwatchable. Basketball was not designed for the players to huddle every four minutes; basketball was designed to keep players moving. Can the NCAA and the big networks who play for broadcast rights do something to make the games more watchable again?
9. The NBA has a lot of pizzazz, it really does. Yet, the regular season seems endless, and then the playoffs do. The regular season doesn't decided a whole lot after 55 games or so. Assuming that's the case, can the NBA avoid the resting of players by cutting the season by a third and beginning the playoffs earlier? Scarcity can do wonders for a good product -- it can make it even more popular. No one wants to watch two twenty-win teams battle in March.
10. When will the MLS take its next big step? Can it, given the big bucks that Chinese teams are throwing at international stars. The league puts on a good product, just not a great one. It might never be the English Premier League, but could it rival another one of the top leagues? Ever?
Tuesday, April 18, 2017
Phillies and Clay Buchholz: The Folly of Signing a Veteran with A Lot of Tread on His Tires
Signing Clay Buchholz to fill a hole in their rotation was a no brainer for the Phillies, or so they made it seem. After all, he once was one of the top starters for the Boston Red Sox, the very-much-better-than-the-Phillies Boston Red Sox, and, heck, at 32 he should have something left and could well benefit from a change of scenery. So, the team inked him to a one-year, $13.5 million deal with the hope that he could win double digits, eat innings and perhaps pitch well enough by mid-season that he would bring a prospect or two in a trade with a contender. Sounds reasonable?
Or not?
Well, Buchholz suffered a forearm injury in a start the other night, his second of the year, and he is out for the year. $13.5 million for two lousy starts and a 12.27 ERA. Tough luck?
Or not?
Read this article and then let's talk. The argument here is that the Phillies, had they done better and more modern due diligence, could have predicted this injury and avoided the investment.
Now, I don't know what the Phillies did in evaluating Buchholz. Presumably, they brought him in, gave him a fitness test, tested his flexibility, evaluated old injuries and looked at film on him. No, not tape of past games, but x-rays and MRIs, particularly on past problem areas. And then they pronounced him fit. Sounds reasonable?
Or not?
What if there are other ways to evaluate players? Such as. . . looking at a succession of recent film of them in their workouts and in games and assessing what they do in workouts, all with a view of predicting whether what they do puts undo emphasis on a certain muscle group. And, if an exercise regimen is not put in place to address that issue, the player will suffer an injury. A classic example is former NBA player Grant Hill. Injuries to an ankle plagued his career, so much so that he went to an advanced performance institute in California for an evaluation. As the story goes, the way Hill moved and worked out affected his hips, and that effort ended up putting undue stress on the ankle he kept on injuring. The institute prescribed a different workout regiment to address Hill's problem, and in the ensuing five years he missed only five games with the Suns, and none because of the ankle injury that had affected him previously.
I understand the theory that "no one washes a rental car," but at $13.5 million for a year Buchholz was going to be a pricey rental. And it's not that he had a ton of suitors. Wouldn't it have made sense, then, for the Phillies to run him through the type of evaluation I described? It could have evaluated Buchholz and anticipated this type of problem. Or, did the Phillies believe that at $13.5 million Buchholz was an acceptable risk and that they have enough starters in the minors who could rise to the occasion should Buchholz get hurt? But if that were the case, then why spend all that money on Buchholz? The answer -- clearly, they want the minor leaguers to get more seasoning.
Fast forward to potential free agents, where you would want to perform this evaluation to protect your investment and to ensure that you can get the most out of the player. It stands to reason that a hot free agent might not agree to such scrutiny out of a (probably irrational) risk that the tests would uncover something career threatening. Besides, free agency is an exercise in supply and demand. The hottest free agents will get the least amount of scrutiny because, well, they're in short supply.
But is the problem statement all backwards. Shouldn't MLB want to do this anyway? Shouldn't the players' union advocate for this? Players could get the best advice on fitness and excellence and that advice would benefit everyone, including the fans, who get tired of seeing pitchers break down year after year. If I were a player, I would get this type of evaluation to help my performance. Imagine the nagging injuries going away. Imagine doing targeted exercises to improve muscle groups that can help avoid injury, precisely because of the player's anatomy and movements. Sounds too good to be true, except that it is not.
So the Phillies now will have a not-completely-ready-for-prime-time starter come up to the big leagues to replace Clay Buchholz in the rotation. The sad fact is that the Phillies could have avoided the problem altogether.
And they are not alone.
Or not?
Well, Buchholz suffered a forearm injury in a start the other night, his second of the year, and he is out for the year. $13.5 million for two lousy starts and a 12.27 ERA. Tough luck?
Or not?
Read this article and then let's talk. The argument here is that the Phillies, had they done better and more modern due diligence, could have predicted this injury and avoided the investment.
Now, I don't know what the Phillies did in evaluating Buchholz. Presumably, they brought him in, gave him a fitness test, tested his flexibility, evaluated old injuries and looked at film on him. No, not tape of past games, but x-rays and MRIs, particularly on past problem areas. And then they pronounced him fit. Sounds reasonable?
Or not?
What if there are other ways to evaluate players? Such as. . . looking at a succession of recent film of them in their workouts and in games and assessing what they do in workouts, all with a view of predicting whether what they do puts undo emphasis on a certain muscle group. And, if an exercise regimen is not put in place to address that issue, the player will suffer an injury. A classic example is former NBA player Grant Hill. Injuries to an ankle plagued his career, so much so that he went to an advanced performance institute in California for an evaluation. As the story goes, the way Hill moved and worked out affected his hips, and that effort ended up putting undue stress on the ankle he kept on injuring. The institute prescribed a different workout regiment to address Hill's problem, and in the ensuing five years he missed only five games with the Suns, and none because of the ankle injury that had affected him previously.
I understand the theory that "no one washes a rental car," but at $13.5 million for a year Buchholz was going to be a pricey rental. And it's not that he had a ton of suitors. Wouldn't it have made sense, then, for the Phillies to run him through the type of evaluation I described? It could have evaluated Buchholz and anticipated this type of problem. Or, did the Phillies believe that at $13.5 million Buchholz was an acceptable risk and that they have enough starters in the minors who could rise to the occasion should Buchholz get hurt? But if that were the case, then why spend all that money on Buchholz? The answer -- clearly, they want the minor leaguers to get more seasoning.
Fast forward to potential free agents, where you would want to perform this evaluation to protect your investment and to ensure that you can get the most out of the player. It stands to reason that a hot free agent might not agree to such scrutiny out of a (probably irrational) risk that the tests would uncover something career threatening. Besides, free agency is an exercise in supply and demand. The hottest free agents will get the least amount of scrutiny because, well, they're in short supply.
But is the problem statement all backwards. Shouldn't MLB want to do this anyway? Shouldn't the players' union advocate for this? Players could get the best advice on fitness and excellence and that advice would benefit everyone, including the fans, who get tired of seeing pitchers break down year after year. If I were a player, I would get this type of evaluation to help my performance. Imagine the nagging injuries going away. Imagine doing targeted exercises to improve muscle groups that can help avoid injury, precisely because of the player's anatomy and movements. Sounds too good to be true, except that it is not.
So the Phillies now will have a not-completely-ready-for-prime-time starter come up to the big leagues to replace Clay Buchholz in the rotation. The sad fact is that the Phillies could have avoided the problem altogether.
And they are not alone.
Thursday, April 13, 2017
Which Records Will Not Be Broken?
Every time a significant record gets broken, discussions ensue. Russell Westbrook broke Oscar Robertson's record for triple-doubles in a season, so the talked move onto other records. So, I'll submit to you, will the following be broken:
1. Cy Young's 511 wins in baseball.
2. Joe DiMaggio's 56-game hitting streak.
3. Wilt Chamberlain's 100-point game.
4. Wilt Chamberlain's 55-rebound game.
5. Wilt Chamberlain's averaging over 50 points in a season.
6. Byron Nelson's 11 straight wins on the PGA tour.
7. Nolan Ryan's 7 no-hitters.
The list, of course, is endless. Some sports' records are more memorable and more conversation-worthy than others. Football stats, for some reason, don't carry as much interest in the conversation of sports fans. Hockey stats don't transcend hockey fans. But basketball stats -- in some measure because of the Herculean accomplishments of Wilt Chamberlain -- do. And baseball has been made for stats since it began, only to undergo a revolution that made it even more made for stats, the difference being the first wave of stats was the equivalent of a photograph and the current wave is the equivalent of an x-ray.
Let the discussion ensue.
1. Cy Young's 511 wins in baseball.
2. Joe DiMaggio's 56-game hitting streak.
3. Wilt Chamberlain's 100-point game.
4. Wilt Chamberlain's 55-rebound game.
5. Wilt Chamberlain's averaging over 50 points in a season.
6. Byron Nelson's 11 straight wins on the PGA tour.
7. Nolan Ryan's 7 no-hitters.
The list, of course, is endless. Some sports' records are more memorable and more conversation-worthy than others. Football stats, for some reason, don't carry as much interest in the conversation of sports fans. Hockey stats don't transcend hockey fans. But basketball stats -- in some measure because of the Herculean accomplishments of Wilt Chamberlain -- do. And baseball has been made for stats since it began, only to undergo a revolution that made it even more made for stats, the difference being the first wave of stats was the equivalent of a photograph and the current wave is the equivalent of an x-ray.
Let the discussion ensue.
Wednesday, April 12, 2017
In Memoriam -- Wayne Hardin
You might not remember his name. But you probably do if you rooted for Navy with Heisman winners Roger Staubach and Joe Bellino or Temple with some greats that included Joe Klecko or Penn State, whose teams in the late 1970's Hardin's Temple Owls tormented, losing two close ones, a one-point loss at Franklin Field and a three-point loss at Veterans Stadium where Temple had the ball late in a tie game only to caught it up and lose very late on a field goal by one of the Bahr brothers. This was a game where Hardin leveraged every advantage he had, including having his nation-leading punter Casey Murphy punt on third down to keep the Nittany Lions deep in their own part of the field for a significant portion of the game. But for that fumble, the strategy could well have led to a very sweet Temple win.
Wayne Hardin died today at 91.
It was Hardin who innovated, who elevated Temple's schedule, who engineered some outstanding seasons with talent that the linked obituary references. He prepared for a home game against powerful West Virginia by having his players practice carrying him off the field after they won the game. Big underdogs, they smoked the Mountaineers at the old Temple Stadium in the West Oak Lane section of Philadelphia off Cheltenham Avenue. He once deployed a "relief pitcher" strategy for his Maxwell Award winning quarterback, Steve Joachim, occasionally pulling him for a talented back-up, Marty Ginestra.
His teams played hard, his teams executed, and his teams won a lot more than they lost. It took decades to bring the program back to prominence. Sure, a young former Alabama assistant named Bruce Arians made a go of it right after Hardin left in the early 1980's, but even the very promising Arians struggled and a whole host of successors did the same, some mightily. It took the hiring of former Penn State player and assistant Al Golden a decade back to begin the turnaround; the Owls have been pretty darned good ever since.
I went to a lot of the games that Hardin coached; the Owls were in almost every one of them. The team was fun to watch. I'm sure Coach Hardin appreciated the turnaround on North Broad Street and at the Linc very much and probably jumped for joy when the Owls took it to Penn State two years ago. He is in the College Football Hall of Fame, and Temple was fortunate to have him for a good part of his career.
May he rest in peace.
Wayne Hardin died today at 91.
It was Hardin who innovated, who elevated Temple's schedule, who engineered some outstanding seasons with talent that the linked obituary references. He prepared for a home game against powerful West Virginia by having his players practice carrying him off the field after they won the game. Big underdogs, they smoked the Mountaineers at the old Temple Stadium in the West Oak Lane section of Philadelphia off Cheltenham Avenue. He once deployed a "relief pitcher" strategy for his Maxwell Award winning quarterback, Steve Joachim, occasionally pulling him for a talented back-up, Marty Ginestra.
His teams played hard, his teams executed, and his teams won a lot more than they lost. It took decades to bring the program back to prominence. Sure, a young former Alabama assistant named Bruce Arians made a go of it right after Hardin left in the early 1980's, but even the very promising Arians struggled and a whole host of successors did the same, some mightily. It took the hiring of former Penn State player and assistant Al Golden a decade back to begin the turnaround; the Owls have been pretty darned good ever since.
I went to a lot of the games that Hardin coached; the Owls were in almost every one of them. The team was fun to watch. I'm sure Coach Hardin appreciated the turnaround on North Broad Street and at the Linc very much and probably jumped for joy when the Owls took it to Penn State two years ago. He is in the College Football Hall of Fame, and Temple was fortunate to have him for a good part of his career.
May he rest in peace.
Guess Which Team is Baseball's Most Profitable Franchise?
I'll give you five guesses.
Let's start with some of the bellwethers. . . New York Yankees, Boston Red Sox, Los Angeles Dodgers, Chicago Cubs and St. Louis Cardinals. The first four are rather obvious, and, well, the Cardinals just do it about as well as anyone and have done so for a long time.
All are wrong. Want five more guesses? Sure, you got 'em.
New York Mets, San Francisco Giants, Washington Nationals, Kansas City Royals and Detroit Tigers.
All are wrong, too. I put those five in there because I figured that either the size of the city or recent success might figure into profitability. Or demography, in terms of how large the city is. You'd be closer there.
The answer, as it turns out, or at least according to one of the best chroniclers of American wealth, Forbes, is the Philadelphia Phillies. That's right, the team that won it all in 2008, lost in the World Series in 2009, lost in the NLCS in 2010, lost in the NLDS in 2011, was about .500 in 2012 and has been a bit like the shopping cart sliding off the side of the mountain over the past five years (including last night, where they lost 14-4 to the Mets at home, gave up 7 HRs and only put pitchers on the mound whose ERAs exceeded 10). This means that the Phillies have more operating income than any other team in the majors.
Of course, for the wealthy and rich and famous, winning does count for something. I'm cure Cubs fans are thrilled with their World Series and could care less about the club's profitability. That's not to say that their owners would tolerate a huge money loser -- who would or could -- but that they do want to spend money wisely because of two principles -- 1) you can't buy excellence, but you must pay for it and 2) the analytics show that the top teams also are among those who have the top payrolls. The Phillies haven't tried to buy excellence (in terms of free agents) in quite some time and haven't paid for it in recent years, either, preferring to let big contracts expire without committing to new, big contracts. As a result, their pitching staff is patchwork, their bullpen is an amalgamation of loose parts, and their lineup is waiting on the prospects down on the farm to deliver.
What they benefit from is a loyal fan base, a fun ballpark to attend and a large enough demographic to support the team, along with a good TV/radio contract. Now that this news is out, I'm sure that the sports talk radio hosts are having a field day with it and the fans will become more impatient for progress. The key for the team know is whether their alleged cornucopia of prospects really bears any fruit.
The news has to hurt Phillies' fans, as 2008 and the magic that was that season was not that long ago. But some bad strategy in the front office -- ignoring analytics and letting the roster age without a plan to infuse the team quickly with younger talent -- led to the place where they are now -- one of the bottom third of all teams in the Majors.
It's good that the team is showing a good profit.
They now will need to invest that money in the talent to be a good team, one that can contend.
If they do not, the fans will ensure that the profitability drops.
And then they won't be atop any lists.
Let's start with some of the bellwethers. . . New York Yankees, Boston Red Sox, Los Angeles Dodgers, Chicago Cubs and St. Louis Cardinals. The first four are rather obvious, and, well, the Cardinals just do it about as well as anyone and have done so for a long time.
All are wrong. Want five more guesses? Sure, you got 'em.
New York Mets, San Francisco Giants, Washington Nationals, Kansas City Royals and Detroit Tigers.
All are wrong, too. I put those five in there because I figured that either the size of the city or recent success might figure into profitability. Or demography, in terms of how large the city is. You'd be closer there.
The answer, as it turns out, or at least according to one of the best chroniclers of American wealth, Forbes, is the Philadelphia Phillies. That's right, the team that won it all in 2008, lost in the World Series in 2009, lost in the NLCS in 2010, lost in the NLDS in 2011, was about .500 in 2012 and has been a bit like the shopping cart sliding off the side of the mountain over the past five years (including last night, where they lost 14-4 to the Mets at home, gave up 7 HRs and only put pitchers on the mound whose ERAs exceeded 10). This means that the Phillies have more operating income than any other team in the majors.
Of course, for the wealthy and rich and famous, winning does count for something. I'm cure Cubs fans are thrilled with their World Series and could care less about the club's profitability. That's not to say that their owners would tolerate a huge money loser -- who would or could -- but that they do want to spend money wisely because of two principles -- 1) you can't buy excellence, but you must pay for it and 2) the analytics show that the top teams also are among those who have the top payrolls. The Phillies haven't tried to buy excellence (in terms of free agents) in quite some time and haven't paid for it in recent years, either, preferring to let big contracts expire without committing to new, big contracts. As a result, their pitching staff is patchwork, their bullpen is an amalgamation of loose parts, and their lineup is waiting on the prospects down on the farm to deliver.
What they benefit from is a loyal fan base, a fun ballpark to attend and a large enough demographic to support the team, along with a good TV/radio contract. Now that this news is out, I'm sure that the sports talk radio hosts are having a field day with it and the fans will become more impatient for progress. The key for the team know is whether their alleged cornucopia of prospects really bears any fruit.
The news has to hurt Phillies' fans, as 2008 and the magic that was that season was not that long ago. But some bad strategy in the front office -- ignoring analytics and letting the roster age without a plan to infuse the team quickly with younger talent -- led to the place where they are now -- one of the bottom third of all teams in the Majors.
It's good that the team is showing a good profit.
They now will need to invest that money in the talent to be a good team, one that can contend.
If they do not, the fans will ensure that the profitability drops.
And then they won't be atop any lists.
Tuesday, April 11, 2017
Daryl Morey is Right
I've blogged about this point from time to time over the years, with the question being: what is the purpose of having such a long regular season if so many teams make the playoffs? I like that question, but there are others that are better. Including in that group are the following: 1) how many games does it really take to differentiate among the teams and 2) if you cut the season in two, would the teams with the records that slot into the playoffs differ from the roster of teams after a full season?
The first question is as much rhetorical as anything else, but the NBA has a credibility problem because of Gregg Popovich's innovative brain. Needless to say, if you can rest players, the season is too long because you do not care if you lose a particular game when the stars are resting. Atop that, the advertisers and networks cannot be happy when their Saturday night marquis match-up is missing both teams' top three players (as happened recently). The second question is something that your average mathlete can solve with the right data. My guess is that a number between 50 and 60 as opposed to the current 82 might make sense. You could spread games out a bit more, not have back-to-back games, build in more rest, make the games, well, scarcer. Whether fans would be willing to pay say 1.5x the face value of a current ticket price if you reduce the number of games from 82 to 55 is an open question, however. My guess is for some games, absolutely. As for the last question above, Mike Greenberg of ESPN Radio asked and answered it this morning on his radio show. Apparently, this year only two teams that would have made the playoffs on January 31 are not making the playoffs right now. Perhaps the order of the teams in the standings is different, but the cream of the crop distinguished itself well before the All-Star break.
Atop that, there have to be all sorts of analytics that support a shortened season, including lengthening a player's career because he will have to take less pounding on his limbs as he runs down a wood floor that is positioned atop cement. The playoffs could start earlier and be better (no, I would not take more teams). The TV ratings will improve because each incremental regular season game means more.
This would be a gutsy decision, akin to the government's repealing reams of statutes. Why? Because why governments are usually best at passing laws, they aren't so great at refining them or removing them. Old laws remain on the books and sometimes can be used to prosecute people in ways that were long since forgotten. That said, why is it against any rule -- written or unwritten -- that a sports league cannot shorten a season? (Some leagues should also consider eliminating a few franchises). That would be a courageous decision for the NBA and could also open up the possibility of international expansion. For example, you could put a team in London, perhaps one in Madrid, Paris or Barcenlona. Eastern teams could take a trip to Western Europe; Western teams could take a loop through Tokyo and Shanghai, for example. The possibilities are endless.
Daryl Morey has been very successful as a GM and recently spoke out on the subject. You can read what he said here. He also is a very smart guy.
People should listen to him.
The first question is as much rhetorical as anything else, but the NBA has a credibility problem because of Gregg Popovich's innovative brain. Needless to say, if you can rest players, the season is too long because you do not care if you lose a particular game when the stars are resting. Atop that, the advertisers and networks cannot be happy when their Saturday night marquis match-up is missing both teams' top three players (as happened recently). The second question is something that your average mathlete can solve with the right data. My guess is that a number between 50 and 60 as opposed to the current 82 might make sense. You could spread games out a bit more, not have back-to-back games, build in more rest, make the games, well, scarcer. Whether fans would be willing to pay say 1.5x the face value of a current ticket price if you reduce the number of games from 82 to 55 is an open question, however. My guess is for some games, absolutely. As for the last question above, Mike Greenberg of ESPN Radio asked and answered it this morning on his radio show. Apparently, this year only two teams that would have made the playoffs on January 31 are not making the playoffs right now. Perhaps the order of the teams in the standings is different, but the cream of the crop distinguished itself well before the All-Star break.
Atop that, there have to be all sorts of analytics that support a shortened season, including lengthening a player's career because he will have to take less pounding on his limbs as he runs down a wood floor that is positioned atop cement. The playoffs could start earlier and be better (no, I would not take more teams). The TV ratings will improve because each incremental regular season game means more.
This would be a gutsy decision, akin to the government's repealing reams of statutes. Why? Because why governments are usually best at passing laws, they aren't so great at refining them or removing them. Old laws remain on the books and sometimes can be used to prosecute people in ways that were long since forgotten. That said, why is it against any rule -- written or unwritten -- that a sports league cannot shorten a season? (Some leagues should also consider eliminating a few franchises). That would be a courageous decision for the NBA and could also open up the possibility of international expansion. For example, you could put a team in London, perhaps one in Madrid, Paris or Barcenlona. Eastern teams could take a trip to Western Europe; Western teams could take a loop through Tokyo and Shanghai, for example. The possibilities are endless.
Daryl Morey has been very successful as a GM and recently spoke out on the subject. You can read what he said here. He also is a very smart guy.
People should listen to him.
Friday, April 07, 2017
Ruminations on a Middle-Aged Man's Diet and Exercise Program, Part I
I lost a bunch of weight about 15 years ago, only to gain it back incrementally when I told myself that eating ice cream with the kids wasn't so bad and that I could keep it off if I wanted to. The problem was that once you ate a little, you started to eat more. And then your life was so pediatric in nature that juggling spousehood, parenthood and work was too much to provide time to exercise. To stay awake, you ate foods to sustain you, usually of the variety that tasted much better than they offered nutritional value. I also lost a bunch of weight several years back, but suffered a few injuries that prevented me from exercising, and, yes, the incremental eating came back. Mind you, I tried, but I didn't have a nutritionist, coach, workout partner, healthcare professional or anyone helping me.
I was tired at the end of 2015, stiff, out of shape and weighing about 25 pounds more than I thought I should. I contemplated what to do next. I have a membership to a good gym, and I also have some good equipment to work out with at home. I went on line and read, enough at least to find a good diet app at the Mayo Clinic and to watch my portions and habits. It's been over a year since I started, and I'm down 25 pounds and in very good shape. I still have about 8 to go to get to my dream weight, and the final pounds are the hardest to lose and keep off. Especially when you need to socialize and are a foodie at heart.
So what did I do?
First, I did the right things diet-wise. I didn't go on a gimmicky diet. But I did cut down on fried food, sweets and red wine. I found that getting processed sugar mostly out of my diet, along with the alcohol, made me feel more relaxed and enabled me to sleep better at night. I also made sure that I ate plenty of fruits and vegetables; my daughter remarked that within the past 15 months she's seen me eat more fruit than she had during the time she's been on this earth. Typically, that can mean berries at breakfast, a banana with lunch, an orange or apple in the afternoon and some melon at night. Four servings, perhaps five, all good. I'll touch more upon the diet later.
As for exercise, as it turned out, I wasn't doing a great job of it. I did a lot of cardio and some stretching, but no weight training. By a lot of cardio I mean either 30 minutes on a rowing machine and then 20 minutes of a fixed bike. But I went at it either leisurely or very hard; no in between. I lost some weight because per the Mayo Clinic app I cut down on my portions and what I was eating. That was good. Then I went for a comprehensive physical.
As it turned out, I was doing too much cardio, not enough weights, not enough stretching, and not the right type of cardio. So, I adjusted my exercise program to start out with a few minutes of cardio to get the blood pumping, a solid stretching routine focusing on core exercises (I pulled a few exercises from a yoga class I had attended), and then interval work on a fixed bike or on the rowing machine. I worked out with a medicine ball and resistance bands, then lifted weights at the gym and did pushups at home. The goal was to take weight away from the midsection and to elevate it to the chest muscles. That coaching session with a personal trainer -- came with the comprehensive physical -- put my workouts on a good course.
As for the diet, I'll offer the following (all geared to try to eat about 1800 calories a day):
Breakfast -- nonfat yogurt with cinnamon, with a portion of flax flakes and a portion of low-sugar granola mixed in. A portion or two of berries. Water.
Work -- decaf coffee or green tea, drink more water.
Lunch -- salad with veggies, chick peas from the salad bar at a local supermarket, low-cal dressing. A piece of fruit.
Snack mid-afternoon -- piece of fruit.
Dinner -- some protein (fish, chicken mostly), perhaps more salad and then steamed vegetables. Also a change for a sweet potato every now and then, a small portion of whole-wheat pasta or a piece of bread. Some fruit after dinner, sometimes a banana, sometimes some cut melon.
Snack (if needed) -- small piece of dark chocolate or some unsalted, unbuttered popcorn.
The key things are will power (to keep up the impetus to exercise) and discipline (to stay focused on the diet and on exercise). Sure, you can have a steak to celebrate something and a piece of birthday cake every now and then. You just cannot do that or have a drink routinely.
I feel good -- stretched out, in shape and ready to go out into the world. Sure, it can be fun to have ice cream sundaes or brownies or both daily, but as we age our metabolism changes and health problems can magnify. I want to be one of those people who takes long walks when he is in his 80's and is flexible enough to keep moving and stay active. There's one way to do that -- take care of yourself.
I was tired at the end of 2015, stiff, out of shape and weighing about 25 pounds more than I thought I should. I contemplated what to do next. I have a membership to a good gym, and I also have some good equipment to work out with at home. I went on line and read, enough at least to find a good diet app at the Mayo Clinic and to watch my portions and habits. It's been over a year since I started, and I'm down 25 pounds and in very good shape. I still have about 8 to go to get to my dream weight, and the final pounds are the hardest to lose and keep off. Especially when you need to socialize and are a foodie at heart.
So what did I do?
First, I did the right things diet-wise. I didn't go on a gimmicky diet. But I did cut down on fried food, sweets and red wine. I found that getting processed sugar mostly out of my diet, along with the alcohol, made me feel more relaxed and enabled me to sleep better at night. I also made sure that I ate plenty of fruits and vegetables; my daughter remarked that within the past 15 months she's seen me eat more fruit than she had during the time she's been on this earth. Typically, that can mean berries at breakfast, a banana with lunch, an orange or apple in the afternoon and some melon at night. Four servings, perhaps five, all good. I'll touch more upon the diet later.
As for exercise, as it turned out, I wasn't doing a great job of it. I did a lot of cardio and some stretching, but no weight training. By a lot of cardio I mean either 30 minutes on a rowing machine and then 20 minutes of a fixed bike. But I went at it either leisurely or very hard; no in between. I lost some weight because per the Mayo Clinic app I cut down on my portions and what I was eating. That was good. Then I went for a comprehensive physical.
As it turned out, I was doing too much cardio, not enough weights, not enough stretching, and not the right type of cardio. So, I adjusted my exercise program to start out with a few minutes of cardio to get the blood pumping, a solid stretching routine focusing on core exercises (I pulled a few exercises from a yoga class I had attended), and then interval work on a fixed bike or on the rowing machine. I worked out with a medicine ball and resistance bands, then lifted weights at the gym and did pushups at home. The goal was to take weight away from the midsection and to elevate it to the chest muscles. That coaching session with a personal trainer -- came with the comprehensive physical -- put my workouts on a good course.
As for the diet, I'll offer the following (all geared to try to eat about 1800 calories a day):
Breakfast -- nonfat yogurt with cinnamon, with a portion of flax flakes and a portion of low-sugar granola mixed in. A portion or two of berries. Water.
Work -- decaf coffee or green tea, drink more water.
Lunch -- salad with veggies, chick peas from the salad bar at a local supermarket, low-cal dressing. A piece of fruit.
Snack mid-afternoon -- piece of fruit.
Dinner -- some protein (fish, chicken mostly), perhaps more salad and then steamed vegetables. Also a change for a sweet potato every now and then, a small portion of whole-wheat pasta or a piece of bread. Some fruit after dinner, sometimes a banana, sometimes some cut melon.
Snack (if needed) -- small piece of dark chocolate or some unsalted, unbuttered popcorn.
The key things are will power (to keep up the impetus to exercise) and discipline (to stay focused on the diet and on exercise). Sure, you can have a steak to celebrate something and a piece of birthday cake every now and then. You just cannot do that or have a drink routinely.
I feel good -- stretched out, in shape and ready to go out into the world. Sure, it can be fun to have ice cream sundaes or brownies or both daily, but as we age our metabolism changes and health problems can magnify. I want to be one of those people who takes long walks when he is in his 80's and is flexible enough to keep moving and stay active. There's one way to do that -- take care of yourself.
Who Will Have Drawn More People to Philadelphia (Who Will Spend Money) -- the NFL or the Pope?
Silly question, right?
As popular as the NFL is in the US, the Pope has a bigger following. As much as American football fans might dislike the notion, there are more football (read: soccer) fans who are Catholic than American football fans. The math is not that hard.
The Pope came to Philadelphia about a year and a half ago. The city spend so much time on advanced public relations and planning for safety that people were discouraged from coming. And, if they came, they might not have stayed in the city proper, and they most certainly did not patronize an amazing restaurant community in Philadelphia. The city just made it hard to get close to where the Pope was visiting and, if you don't agree with that comment, you have to agree with the notion that the city gave off the perception that it would be hard to move around.
Estimates were that 2 million of the faithful were going to descend upon Philadelphia; those dropped to 800,000, but then experts pointed out that the Benjamin Franklin Parkway would have had to be four times its size to accommodate that many worshippers As it turned out, 142,000 attended the papal mass on a Sunday in September.
Now the city and NFL are predicting that 200,000 will attend the NFL draft and related festivities on a three-day weekend at the end of April. Do the math -- that's 58,000 more than attended the papal mass. Then again, the last time a pope visited Philadelphia was about 35 years earlier; the NFL hasn't held a draft in the Cradle of Liberty for over 60 years. Advantage: NFL.
Of course, estimates are just that, and the weather will affect the number of attendees. Have great weather, possibly exceed the estimate. Have a nor'easter or a rain storm and 50 degree temperatures with wind, and the number will be much lower.
It seems like the city isn't over-communicating about the congestion the way it did for both the Papal visit and the Democratic convention. Which means that people might actually decide to come. Let's face it, the average NFL fan is much more likely to open up his wallet to partake of the local gourmet fare than the average pilgrim (where the visit was the thing, not tourism or dining) and the average Democrat (where politics were the priority and absent dinners at steakhouses to scratch others' backs, food also was an afterthought). The NFL Draft Party or whatever they are calling it is different -- first and foremost, sports tourism and food will be a priority. Yes, the fine dining establishments might not benefit, but it could be a banner time for places like Pat's, Geno's and Steve's, among others.
Let the fun begin!
As popular as the NFL is in the US, the Pope has a bigger following. As much as American football fans might dislike the notion, there are more football (read: soccer) fans who are Catholic than American football fans. The math is not that hard.
The Pope came to Philadelphia about a year and a half ago. The city spend so much time on advanced public relations and planning for safety that people were discouraged from coming. And, if they came, they might not have stayed in the city proper, and they most certainly did not patronize an amazing restaurant community in Philadelphia. The city just made it hard to get close to where the Pope was visiting and, if you don't agree with that comment, you have to agree with the notion that the city gave off the perception that it would be hard to move around.
Estimates were that 2 million of the faithful were going to descend upon Philadelphia; those dropped to 800,000, but then experts pointed out that the Benjamin Franklin Parkway would have had to be four times its size to accommodate that many worshippers As it turned out, 142,000 attended the papal mass on a Sunday in September.
Now the city and NFL are predicting that 200,000 will attend the NFL draft and related festivities on a three-day weekend at the end of April. Do the math -- that's 58,000 more than attended the papal mass. Then again, the last time a pope visited Philadelphia was about 35 years earlier; the NFL hasn't held a draft in the Cradle of Liberty for over 60 years. Advantage: NFL.
Of course, estimates are just that, and the weather will affect the number of attendees. Have great weather, possibly exceed the estimate. Have a nor'easter or a rain storm and 50 degree temperatures with wind, and the number will be much lower.
It seems like the city isn't over-communicating about the congestion the way it did for both the Papal visit and the Democratic convention. Which means that people might actually decide to come. Let's face it, the average NFL fan is much more likely to open up his wallet to partake of the local gourmet fare than the average pilgrim (where the visit was the thing, not tourism or dining) and the average Democrat (where politics were the priority and absent dinners at steakhouses to scratch others' backs, food also was an afterthought). The NFL Draft Party or whatever they are calling it is different -- first and foremost, sports tourism and food will be a priority. Yes, the fine dining establishments might not benefit, but it could be a banner time for places like Pat's, Geno's and Steve's, among others.
Let the fun begin!
Thursday, April 06, 2017
The Silliness of the Final Four Sites
Caverns. Canyons. Huge barns. Aircraft hangars. Monstrosities.
Call them what you will, but the recent sites for the NCAA Final Four for men's basketball are ridiculous. They are not designed for drama and they don't take any of basketball's history into account. They are clearly set up to maximize the revenue that the NCAA can make. Period.
Why anyone would want to purchase a ticket to sit up in the nosebleed section and watch the game with opera glasses when she/he can watching on a nicely sized television in her/his home is beyond me? You get a good view of the game along with your cable package; you get an expensive and bad seat to some cavernous arena in a town with zero history for good basketball (in this case, Phoenix).
I had a conversation with my son the other day about appropriate venues, and those in Los Angeles, Kentucky, Indiana, New York City and Philadelphia come to mind. First and foremost is Penn's Palestra, an amazing venue with about 9,200 seats that, when filled, makes every game there an exciting one. Sure, tickets on StubHub might go for $10,000 apiece and there might be little room to house fans after taking into account friends, family and school bands. But imagine the drama and the excitement in hosting the tournament's semifinals and finals at a place that is rife with college basketball's history. Failing that, travel east toward Broad Street and then south toward the Wells Fargo Center, just a few football fields south of where the Spectrum, host to the 1976 and 1981 Final Fours, used to reside. Bobby Knight won two titles there, and the atmosphere was electric, especially because it was intimate. You can make similar arguments for basketball-only arenas (or arenas that host basketball and ice hockey) too.
I know, I know, those in favor of the cavernous caves will argue that the best national final of all time took place in one of these supersized barns two years ago when Kris Jenkins and Villanova beat Carolina on a buzzer beater. Those proponents would argue that it did not take a Palestra to create that match-up, that it would have happened anywhere and that the experience for all fans was awesome and that as for the fans sitting in the outer zip codes of that cavernous arena, well, natural selection and free will combine to say that if they wanted to pay the money, let them pay the money. When you get deep, you see that they have a point (even if all the money goes to everyone other than the people who create the drama -- the college players, who, if they held any other job on campus -- such as a computer consultant for Microsoft while enrolled in school -- could earn money and keep it).
But still. . . does everything have to be about maximizing the bucks, the merchandise, the number of fans at the live event, the number of fans available to see an antiquated and dilapidated Steven Tyler play at a public site in Phoenix or Glendale or wherever he played on the eve of the big game? Can't we play a basketball game in a basketball arena?
The NCAA is rife with its hypocrisies, as are its member schools.
It's all about the bucks, and the game loses in the process.
The bucks dictate so many commercial breaks that it's hard for the game to flow, and those breaks plus a team's timeouts dictate how coaches coach. The product is not as watchable as it used to be. And when you put that game in an arena on steroids, it makes the long-time fan wonder if everyone involved with NCAA basketball has lost his mind.
Call them what you will, but the recent sites for the NCAA Final Four for men's basketball are ridiculous. They are not designed for drama and they don't take any of basketball's history into account. They are clearly set up to maximize the revenue that the NCAA can make. Period.
Why anyone would want to purchase a ticket to sit up in the nosebleed section and watch the game with opera glasses when she/he can watching on a nicely sized television in her/his home is beyond me? You get a good view of the game along with your cable package; you get an expensive and bad seat to some cavernous arena in a town with zero history for good basketball (in this case, Phoenix).
I had a conversation with my son the other day about appropriate venues, and those in Los Angeles, Kentucky, Indiana, New York City and Philadelphia come to mind. First and foremost is Penn's Palestra, an amazing venue with about 9,200 seats that, when filled, makes every game there an exciting one. Sure, tickets on StubHub might go for $10,000 apiece and there might be little room to house fans after taking into account friends, family and school bands. But imagine the drama and the excitement in hosting the tournament's semifinals and finals at a place that is rife with college basketball's history. Failing that, travel east toward Broad Street and then south toward the Wells Fargo Center, just a few football fields south of where the Spectrum, host to the 1976 and 1981 Final Fours, used to reside. Bobby Knight won two titles there, and the atmosphere was electric, especially because it was intimate. You can make similar arguments for basketball-only arenas (or arenas that host basketball and ice hockey) too.
I know, I know, those in favor of the cavernous caves will argue that the best national final of all time took place in one of these supersized barns two years ago when Kris Jenkins and Villanova beat Carolina on a buzzer beater. Those proponents would argue that it did not take a Palestra to create that match-up, that it would have happened anywhere and that the experience for all fans was awesome and that as for the fans sitting in the outer zip codes of that cavernous arena, well, natural selection and free will combine to say that if they wanted to pay the money, let them pay the money. When you get deep, you see that they have a point (even if all the money goes to everyone other than the people who create the drama -- the college players, who, if they held any other job on campus -- such as a computer consultant for Microsoft while enrolled in school -- could earn money and keep it).
But still. . . does everything have to be about maximizing the bucks, the merchandise, the number of fans at the live event, the number of fans available to see an antiquated and dilapidated Steven Tyler play at a public site in Phoenix or Glendale or wherever he played on the eve of the big game? Can't we play a basketball game in a basketball arena?
The NCAA is rife with its hypocrisies, as are its member schools.
It's all about the bucks, and the game loses in the process.
The bucks dictate so many commercial breaks that it's hard for the game to flow, and those breaks plus a team's timeouts dictate how coaches coach. The product is not as watchable as it used to be. And when you put that game in an arena on steroids, it makes the long-time fan wonder if everyone involved with NCAA basketball has lost his mind.
Princeton's Bubble
No, Princeton was not a bubble team for either the NCAA men's or women's basketball tournament. The Ivy winner gets in and, except for the season for last when Princeton got in as an at-large bid, no one else from the Ivies gets in.
And, no, the Ivies don't have an "admissions" bubble. It's not as if their single-digit acceptance rates (for at least half the schools) will swell to the low twenties because people stop applying to places like Princeton. So far as anyone can tell, the Ivies are in and will be in as long as in is in, there is an in and they have tons of money.
The bubble can best be explained in this article. Princeton built Princeton Stadium oh so many years ago (about 20 by my count), and then a wealthy alum named Powers gave enough money to name the football field after him. Princeton apparently has tried to persuade wealthy alums to give sufficient funds to name the stadium after them, but no one has anted up (in contrast, Penn's stadium is named after its most famous community member, Benjamin Franklin. Perhaps Princeton should name the stadium after one of its most famous community members -- Albert Einstein).
What the development office at Princeton did do was to persuade some wealthy alum to donate $3.5 million to put a bubble over Powers Field during the cold-weather months so that various athletic teams can avail themselves of the surface. You heard right -- $3.5 million for a bubble over a field. This for a school that has some pretty outstanding athletic facilities already.
The bubble? Well, are Princeton's fundamental needs so taken care of that they can luxuriate in raising funds to put a bubble over the football field for $3.5 million dollars. Sure, we know the game -- if the alum wants to give money to sports, there's no use asking him to endow a chair or to provide scholarship monies for deserving students. The development office tries to match up desires of alums with needs of the school.
But a bubble? There are so many schools in so many communities that could put that same $3.5 million to great use. Take Mercer County Community College several miles away, an excellent community college that serves a very broad part of the Princeton area. Imagine what MCCC could do with $3.5 million. It's hard to say that they would spend it on a bubble for their fields; they wouldn't. And with global warming, a bubble isn't as needed as it might have been 40 years ago.
There are times that I don't get the Ivies. I like sports, but to me they focus too much of their attention to playing on the fringes of Division I, trying to win certain win percentage trophies and get their mentions in national publications, all the while donating an extraordinary percentage of their spots to athletes, a much higher percentage than any of the schools that compete at the highest levels of Division I. And for what purpose? To mollify alums who keep them rolling in the dough that the sports they played will continue to be prioritized? To build better people with better endurance and character who will make the world a better place? Can anyone come close to proving that? And do the student-athletes have qualifications as good as some of the brightest minds that might opt away from schools like this because they have zero interest in sports? Might it be better to do away with intercollegiate participation totally and instead focus on intramural competitions that take less time but also could drive school spirit? Questions abound.
Back to the bubble. It seems that Princeton's development office has a ton of time on its hands and has obtained targeted gifts for Princeton's most important projects if it had the time to raise $3.5 million for a bubble. A bubble for a football field.
Sheesh.
And, no, the Ivies don't have an "admissions" bubble. It's not as if their single-digit acceptance rates (for at least half the schools) will swell to the low twenties because people stop applying to places like Princeton. So far as anyone can tell, the Ivies are in and will be in as long as in is in, there is an in and they have tons of money.
The bubble can best be explained in this article. Princeton built Princeton Stadium oh so many years ago (about 20 by my count), and then a wealthy alum named Powers gave enough money to name the football field after him. Princeton apparently has tried to persuade wealthy alums to give sufficient funds to name the stadium after them, but no one has anted up (in contrast, Penn's stadium is named after its most famous community member, Benjamin Franklin. Perhaps Princeton should name the stadium after one of its most famous community members -- Albert Einstein).
What the development office at Princeton did do was to persuade some wealthy alum to donate $3.5 million to put a bubble over Powers Field during the cold-weather months so that various athletic teams can avail themselves of the surface. You heard right -- $3.5 million for a bubble over a field. This for a school that has some pretty outstanding athletic facilities already.
The bubble? Well, are Princeton's fundamental needs so taken care of that they can luxuriate in raising funds to put a bubble over the football field for $3.5 million dollars. Sure, we know the game -- if the alum wants to give money to sports, there's no use asking him to endow a chair or to provide scholarship monies for deserving students. The development office tries to match up desires of alums with needs of the school.
But a bubble? There are so many schools in so many communities that could put that same $3.5 million to great use. Take Mercer County Community College several miles away, an excellent community college that serves a very broad part of the Princeton area. Imagine what MCCC could do with $3.5 million. It's hard to say that they would spend it on a bubble for their fields; they wouldn't. And with global warming, a bubble isn't as needed as it might have been 40 years ago.
There are times that I don't get the Ivies. I like sports, but to me they focus too much of their attention to playing on the fringes of Division I, trying to win certain win percentage trophies and get their mentions in national publications, all the while donating an extraordinary percentage of their spots to athletes, a much higher percentage than any of the schools that compete at the highest levels of Division I. And for what purpose? To mollify alums who keep them rolling in the dough that the sports they played will continue to be prioritized? To build better people with better endurance and character who will make the world a better place? Can anyone come close to proving that? And do the student-athletes have qualifications as good as some of the brightest minds that might opt away from schools like this because they have zero interest in sports? Might it be better to do away with intercollegiate participation totally and instead focus on intramural competitions that take less time but also could drive school spirit? Questions abound.
Back to the bubble. It seems that Princeton's development office has a ton of time on its hands and has obtained targeted gifts for Princeton's most important projects if it had the time to raise $3.5 million for a bubble. A bubble for a football field.
Sheesh.
Tuesday, April 04, 2017
Why Would Someone Play Division III Football?
There are obvious reasons to the question posed, including, "well, I just love to play the game and this was where I could continue my career." That is an answer, for sure. Another answer could be that football helped me get into a better school than I could have gotten into without it, so I have a sense of duty to continue playing. Another could be that one likes hitting people legally and figured that so long as someone would let him do it, he'd continue to do so. Yet another could be that it's the buddy sport that I am best at and there's nothing like playing with and next to your buddies and hanging out with them. Life will involve a lot of uneasy moments and requirements, so why not let it all out and have a lot of fun when I can?
But my question runs more deeply than that. Those answers assume that the question is about a sport that has no long-term health consequences for the participants. Basketball does not; football does. So if you don't get a scholarship (DIII schools do not offer athletic scholarships), if you don't play before big crowds (presumably these places are so small that they don't have enough kids to fill their stands or the kids they have are engaged in other activities that eclipse the importance of watching a game), and if you don't have a chance to play for money somewhere, why do it when four more years of continuous pounding could increase your likelihood of coming down with all sorts of ailments that will alter your quality of life and potentially shorten your life expectancy?
We can go through the justification loop in the first paragraph all that we want to. But DIII schools do not offer the argument that "well, these kids wouldn't even try to get there degrees if it weren't for football." Heck, that should not be the argument at any college anywhere at any time. That's the argument you hear from some people about why letting a high school basketball player with a challenging academic record to stay in school and play even though he is failing most of his subjects. The proferred reason: "well, he's in school, he's safe and it gives him something to do." Wow, that is a low bar, even if understandable in some circles and even justifiable in others. That is not this conversation, however.
Kids seek out DIII schools because of the outstanding education they should be able to receive. That education could propel them into a graduate or professional program or a career that they can enjoy and help make their communities better places. So, does banging one's limbs and head for 25 hours a week (plus the lengthy workouts with strength and conditioning coaches in the off-season) make any sense? Couldn't alternatives offer a good level of competition without the risk, whether they be intramurals or non-contact sports? For example, receivers and backs could be sprinters and linemen could toss the weights in the field events? There are intramurals as well, and even non-athletic competitions that could develop the players as people, as citizens, as community members.
The sports media focuses on the major health issues of former NFL players. Most recently in the news were Super Bowl hero Dwight Clark and former Eagles' running back Charlie Garner. Then there was the tragic case of Kevin Turner and the inspiring yet tragic case of former Saints player Steve Gleason. My sense is that if the sports media were to peel back the onion further, they'd find cases of former college football players suffering from similar maladies because of the accumulation of too many blows to the head and body since Pee Wee football.
The irony about the DIII players is that they are supposed to be smart guys, problem solvers who can play sports and excel in the classroom. They, themselves, should be able to figure out whether playing DIII football is a good proposition for them.
The country's population is such that these schools will continue to play the sport (risking the wrath of certain alumni were they to discontinue it) and there will be young men who find it glamorous and glorious to continue to play at this level. Then again, the administration of these schools along with parents of young men are smart, too, and they evolve. Perhaps the supply of potential players won't be the same, and perhaps the powers that be will evolve the game to the point that it ends up resembling Greco-Roman wrestling and lacrosse than the "three years and a cloud of dust" mentality that permeated the game forty years ago.
I have tried to find a compelling argument to support playing the sport at this level. I'm not sure it is there; I'm pretty much convinced it is not.
But my question runs more deeply than that. Those answers assume that the question is about a sport that has no long-term health consequences for the participants. Basketball does not; football does. So if you don't get a scholarship (DIII schools do not offer athletic scholarships), if you don't play before big crowds (presumably these places are so small that they don't have enough kids to fill their stands or the kids they have are engaged in other activities that eclipse the importance of watching a game), and if you don't have a chance to play for money somewhere, why do it when four more years of continuous pounding could increase your likelihood of coming down with all sorts of ailments that will alter your quality of life and potentially shorten your life expectancy?
We can go through the justification loop in the first paragraph all that we want to. But DIII schools do not offer the argument that "well, these kids wouldn't even try to get there degrees if it weren't for football." Heck, that should not be the argument at any college anywhere at any time. That's the argument you hear from some people about why letting a high school basketball player with a challenging academic record to stay in school and play even though he is failing most of his subjects. The proferred reason: "well, he's in school, he's safe and it gives him something to do." Wow, that is a low bar, even if understandable in some circles and even justifiable in others. That is not this conversation, however.
Kids seek out DIII schools because of the outstanding education they should be able to receive. That education could propel them into a graduate or professional program or a career that they can enjoy and help make their communities better places. So, does banging one's limbs and head for 25 hours a week (plus the lengthy workouts with strength and conditioning coaches in the off-season) make any sense? Couldn't alternatives offer a good level of competition without the risk, whether they be intramurals or non-contact sports? For example, receivers and backs could be sprinters and linemen could toss the weights in the field events? There are intramurals as well, and even non-athletic competitions that could develop the players as people, as citizens, as community members.
The sports media focuses on the major health issues of former NFL players. Most recently in the news were Super Bowl hero Dwight Clark and former Eagles' running back Charlie Garner. Then there was the tragic case of Kevin Turner and the inspiring yet tragic case of former Saints player Steve Gleason. My sense is that if the sports media were to peel back the onion further, they'd find cases of former college football players suffering from similar maladies because of the accumulation of too many blows to the head and body since Pee Wee football.
The irony about the DIII players is that they are supposed to be smart guys, problem solvers who can play sports and excel in the classroom. They, themselves, should be able to figure out whether playing DIII football is a good proposition for them.
The country's population is such that these schools will continue to play the sport (risking the wrath of certain alumni were they to discontinue it) and there will be young men who find it glamorous and glorious to continue to play at this level. Then again, the administration of these schools along with parents of young men are smart, too, and they evolve. Perhaps the supply of potential players won't be the same, and perhaps the powers that be will evolve the game to the point that it ends up resembling Greco-Roman wrestling and lacrosse than the "three years and a cloud of dust" mentality that permeated the game forty years ago.
I have tried to find a compelling argument to support playing the sport at this level. I'm not sure it is there; I'm pretty much convinced it is not.
Did the NHL Pick the Wrong Fight?
The NHL informed the players' union that the league will not permit its players to play for their national teams in the next Olympics.
On the face of it, it's a wise business decision. The international soccer world is rife with examples of players who travel extraordinary distances on their "international breaks" to play several games for their national teams despite whatever condition they might be in save unable to walk. I couldn't imagine how taxing it might be for Alexis Sanchez to travel from London to Santiago, Chile to play for his national team after a grueling round of games in the English Premier League, FA Cup and Champions League. But until they hit a certain age where it seems acceptable to retire from international competition and use breaks to re-charge, players seem duty-bound to put on their country's uniform and go full tilt for their national teams. Even in friendly matches, those that do count as attempts to get the team to qualify for a regional or international competition.
And, when they retire from international competition, it's a signal that they are close to the end of their careers and that they might not be as in demand on their professional teams or for the major professional teams any more. That retirement is bittersweet. Sure, they will get more rest, but they also are not as in demand as they once were.
Move over to the NHL, where the commitment to one's national team is not nearly as pronounced. Now, the NHL doesn't want to lend its players or see them get hurt, the latter a risk that is run continuously in soccer. It would be awful, for example, to see Diego Costa rupture an Achilles' tendon in a qualifying match between Spain and Monaco for the World Cup (presumably Monaco is not very good so the third-string striker for Spain would get the nod over Costa in that match, but you get the point). Except that this is not a qualifier, this is for the ultimate international competition in the hockey world -- the Olympics.
The NHL has told its players that their national teams are not important. The NHL is making players choose their profession over their country. In the business world, there's an old saying, especially when it comes to commitments from employees and having them come to work in extreme weather, that you should not make employees choose between their job and their families. People will elect to protect their homes and take care of their kids, who might have a day off from school, over their jobs. They have to -- it's a necessity. And unless they are required for an emergency and knew that when they accepted the job, they will harbor resentment for a while and you might "lose" them. So, managers are extremely careful in those situations.
How about country? How about telling a Swede, sorry, but you cannot play in the Olympics? Or any player? That's something that almost every player wants to do. The NHL is making players choose their jobs over their countries, and it just doesn't seem right. This is a leaden decision that puts business over raw emotion, over patriotism, over playing for your country and the love of the game. It's all because of money, and when that's the sole motivator, bad decisions can result and bad feelings will result. And these are bad feelings of the type that can last for a long time.
I doubt that this is the last step in the process. The NHL might think it has the right to do so and that it has good reasons, but they should remember another old adage, that one doesn't win by being right all the time. Public opinion and the players are against this decision, and the NHL cannot afford a lot of bad publicity. Their TV money isn't staggering, and their fan appeal is limited, no matter how vocal those who are about hockey advocate for it. There is no law out there that protects a league or its wealthy owners from themselves, but if there were one, it would get invoked here.
This is a bad decision. The NHL should fix it.
On the face of it, it's a wise business decision. The international soccer world is rife with examples of players who travel extraordinary distances on their "international breaks" to play several games for their national teams despite whatever condition they might be in save unable to walk. I couldn't imagine how taxing it might be for Alexis Sanchez to travel from London to Santiago, Chile to play for his national team after a grueling round of games in the English Premier League, FA Cup and Champions League. But until they hit a certain age where it seems acceptable to retire from international competition and use breaks to re-charge, players seem duty-bound to put on their country's uniform and go full tilt for their national teams. Even in friendly matches, those that do count as attempts to get the team to qualify for a regional or international competition.
And, when they retire from international competition, it's a signal that they are close to the end of their careers and that they might not be as in demand on their professional teams or for the major professional teams any more. That retirement is bittersweet. Sure, they will get more rest, but they also are not as in demand as they once were.
Move over to the NHL, where the commitment to one's national team is not nearly as pronounced. Now, the NHL doesn't want to lend its players or see them get hurt, the latter a risk that is run continuously in soccer. It would be awful, for example, to see Diego Costa rupture an Achilles' tendon in a qualifying match between Spain and Monaco for the World Cup (presumably Monaco is not very good so the third-string striker for Spain would get the nod over Costa in that match, but you get the point). Except that this is not a qualifier, this is for the ultimate international competition in the hockey world -- the Olympics.
The NHL has told its players that their national teams are not important. The NHL is making players choose their profession over their country. In the business world, there's an old saying, especially when it comes to commitments from employees and having them come to work in extreme weather, that you should not make employees choose between their job and their families. People will elect to protect their homes and take care of their kids, who might have a day off from school, over their jobs. They have to -- it's a necessity. And unless they are required for an emergency and knew that when they accepted the job, they will harbor resentment for a while and you might "lose" them. So, managers are extremely careful in those situations.
How about country? How about telling a Swede, sorry, but you cannot play in the Olympics? Or any player? That's something that almost every player wants to do. The NHL is making players choose their jobs over their countries, and it just doesn't seem right. This is a leaden decision that puts business over raw emotion, over patriotism, over playing for your country and the love of the game. It's all because of money, and when that's the sole motivator, bad decisions can result and bad feelings will result. And these are bad feelings of the type that can last for a long time.
I doubt that this is the last step in the process. The NHL might think it has the right to do so and that it has good reasons, but they should remember another old adage, that one doesn't win by being right all the time. Public opinion and the players are against this decision, and the NHL cannot afford a lot of bad publicity. Their TV money isn't staggering, and their fan appeal is limited, no matter how vocal those who are about hockey advocate for it. There is no law out there that protects a league or its wealthy owners from themselves, but if there were one, it would get invoked here.
This is a bad decision. The NHL should fix it.
You Cannot Tell Much from Opening Day Except That
the Padres are not a good baseball team and do not have much starting pitching. They could well lose more than 100 games. Just sayin'.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)