Phil Mushnick is the crankiest of cranky-pant sportswriters. He hates everything. Well, he doesn't hate how things used to be back when athletes didn't show off (you know, show off in a way like pointing to centerfield when he was predicting he would hit a home run), didn't say things for attention (you know, like predict a Super Bowl victory while lounging at the pool), and certainly weren't me-first athletes like today's athlete is. Phil Mushnick misses those days that most certainly never actually occurred. Now it's just athletes out for themselves and the media looking to pander to these athletes. This just infuriates Phil. Much like everything outside of the existence of oxygen infuriates Phil. Mushnick knows David Cone agrees about how showboating is ruining sports, despite Cone actually saying that he does not agree. It's just "The Man" forcing Cone to say these things and that's why he doesn't agree with Phil, not because he really doesn't agree the modern athlete is too much of a showboat. After all, sports ARE NOT intended to be entertainment, so Phil doesn't know where these athletes get off trying to be entertaining.
In the discourse of a week, how much of what we’re told to believe by experts is not even believed by the experts?
42.35%. That's how much we are told to believe on the air by experts is not actually believed by these experts. Well actually, these experts don't actually tell us to believe these things they don't believe, but they simply don't spend most of a game's broadcast ignoring the game in favor of railing against showboating in sports. Phil Mushnick takes this to mean these experts LOVE showboating, because they do their job, which is to call the game and not interject personal opinions on the downfall of sports civility into the broadcast at every possible chance.
John Madden, off air, claimed to dislike all the chest-pounding and trash-talking. He said he didn’t like show-offs. Who does?
It depends on your definition of a "show-off." I'd also like to add that John Madden coached the Raiders back when they were the hard-hitting and personality-driven Raiders teams, so the fact he claims to not like trash-talking and chest-pounding is kind of ironic given the teams Madden coached. Jack Tatum fucking paralyzed Darryl Stingley during a preseason game. But again, let's forget all this and paint John Madden as a guy who prefers straight-laced players. I like myths.
Yet on the air, over forced laughs, he said he loved the biggest
all-about-me guys — Deion Sanders and Randy Moss, for two — as great
entertainers.
Because that's what they are, entertainers. It's sports. Sports are supposed to be fun and entertaining, not boring. I realize the fact sports are supposed to be entertaining causes Phil Mushnick to stare disapprovingly over the top of his glasses and shake his head.
Of course, Madden’s big-selling video games were — still are — loaded
with excessively brutal images and showboating, a primary come-on as
seen in commercials and on the packaging. Madden made an added fortune
encouraging the young to believe what he doesn’t believe.
I'm pretty sure John Madden never came out on telecasts and said he loved showboating and how players talk trash all the time. Also, Madden wasn't deeply involved with the "Madden" football games to where he probably has a clue what sort of in-depth imagery the game is showing. And one more thing, it's a fucking video game. Brutal images and showboating? It's a video game that is supposed to be fun. Put the pitchforks back to wherever the hell you got them from.
Friday, the Yanks were down, 5-0, in the first, when Alex Rodriguez
took an inside first pitch that was called a strike. On YES, Rodriguez
was seen questioning the umpire. Also on YES, Paul O’Neill said this
about that:
A-Rod was questioning the umpire? What a terrible display of showboating from A-Rod to question the umpire. No old-school baseball player would EVER question an umpire's decision-making ability. These young kids (A-Rod is 40 years old) just don't know the respect that previous generations who absolutely refused to question the umpire knew.
(Phil Mushnick goes outside to get his paper and shakes his fist at the neighborhood kids who once again are playing near the curb, which is where his flowers are planted. Such a "me-first" attitude on these kids. Back in Phil's day, kids would stay as far away from flowers as possible, but these days because of video games, kids think it's perfectly fine to stand in close proximity to flowers.)
“That’s the count I don’t think umpires understand. Strike one or ball one changes the whole at bat.”
OK, but what was O’Neill suggesting? Umps should call the first pitch differently from all others?
I think it is very clear what O'Neill was suggesting. He's suggesting that the umpires pay great attention to making sure the call on the first pitch is the correct one. O'Neill isn't suggesting the umps call the first pitch differently, but wants them to pay extra special attention to making sure the call is correct on the first pitch. It would be nice if the home plate umpire would pay special attention to every pitch, but O'Neill was simply observing the first pitch sets up how the rest of the at-bat may go. There is a reason pitching coaches love their pitchers to throw first pitch strikes. I understand though. I understand Phil's job is to bitch about sports and not actually understand the sport he is bitching about.
Wouldn’t he prefer that umpires “understand” all pitches the same — as balls or strikes?
Yes, he would. He was simply observing the first pitch is very important because it decides the direction of an at-bat in some ways and an umpire needs to be sure he doesn't miss a call on the first pitch. That's all.
In the fourth, the Jays’ Edwin Encarnacion homered to make it 8-1.
Instead of quickly circling the bases, he took his time, extending his
right arm as if a bird were perched on it. “Walk-the-parrot” is the
latest in ESPN-rewarded check-me-out attention-grabs.
I remember the time (okay, I don't remember it, but I remember the story about it) Babe Ruth pointed to center field and predicted he would hit a home run in the World Series. ESPN wasn't around, so why did Ruth do this? Of course, this isn't showboating, it's just a fun story about a great baseball player.
“Does that bother you, Coney?” O’Neill asked David Cone.
And it likely bothered O’Neill, or he wouldn’t have asked.
Or it didn't bother O'Neill as an ex-hitter and he wondered if an ex-pitcher was also not bothered by Encarnacion's "parrot" walk. Phil Mushnick just makes the assumption that O'Neill was bothered because he asked the question of whether someone else was bothered. This is a potentially incorrect assumption. Perhaps O'Neill just wanted the perspective of an ex-pitcher on Encarnacion's walk.
But Phil Mushnick doesn't think like this. He assumes a conclusion and then fits his argument to fit that conclusion, even if the conclusion takes more assumptions to fit into the argument. Obviously O'Neill was bothered because he asked the question, obviously David Cone is bothered because Phil Mushnick wants him to be bothered and obviously when Cone says he isn't bothered then he is simply kowtowing to the corporate gods who he owes his broadcasting career to. So David Cone's opinion isn't his real opinion and Phil Mushnick knows this because he wants Cone's real opinion to agree with what he's writing in this column. Because any fan of the Braves knows the corporate gods who hand out broadcasting jobs would not immediately fire announcers who appear stodgy and behind the times. Joe Simpson and Chip Caray are so modern and allow their thoughts to be determined by what is currently popular. Mushnick is working under the assumption YES doesn't want their announcers sounding behind the times, while anyone who watches a baseball game on television and hears the announcers talk know this isn't true.
What we know personally and professionally about Cone is he must hate
it; hate it as a former pitcher, a dad, a sportsman and a right-headed
human.
The opinion Cone espouses on television to thousands watching and listening must not be his real opinion because it's not what Phil Mushnick wants David Cone to believe. Cone's own opinion isn't his real opinion. "The Man" is just keeping Cone down and Mushnick knows this is true because he wants it to be true so his opinion on showboating can be held as the correct opinion and not the opinion of an old man who needlessly complains about entertainment being too entertaining.
But he couldn’t or wouldn’t say it for fear of condemnation as
out-of-touch with an anything-goes, bereft-of-sport sports world, so he
took the modern media path and pandered to it, blessed wrong as right:
Because, again, baseball announcers are never saying anything that seems out-of-touch during a baseball broadcast. This never happens. I like how Phil creates his own reality where even those things that others say which may seem to disagree with a position Phil holds are not truly the opinion that person holds. It's all because "The Man" is going to keep them down and prevent any deviation from the modern media path. That's the only real explanation for why a person affiliated with sports would disagree with Phil's opinion. "The Man" is forcing them to hold an opinion they don't agree with. You know sort of the same thing, except using the opposing point of view, that Phil Mushnick does by insisting those who don't agree with him must really agree with him. He forces his opinion on others and won't allow anyone with a different opinion from him to hold that opinion.
“Nowadays, it’s a different game. Buck Showalter had an interesting
comment about it: Modern ballplayers are responsible for this, about
governing their play. If they’re OK with it, he’s OK with it. …
David Cone thinks baseball players should police themselves, which is definitely an old-school mentality. Perhaps "The Man" allows Cone to say some old-school things, but admitting he doesn't like showboating crosses the line. Or maybe, Phil Mushnick is wrong and David Cone's opinion really is his opinion.
“Some of it has been good for the game. The old days of keeping your
head down and not showing anyone up — that’s a thing of the past. And in
some ways, that’s a good thing. You still want to respect the game, but
there’s a fine line there and you know when you cross it.
Oh yeah, this is a totally modern point of view. Look at David Cone sticking hard to the party line. He's talking about respecting the game and there being a line you don't cross in terms of celebrating. It sounds pretty much like Cone believes the old-school way of players policing themselves and a player not celebrating too much, except that can't be true, because "The Man" has Cone under his thumb and is forcing Cone to not agree with Phil Mushnick on whether Edwin Encarnacion's "parrot" celebration is too much showboating. It's a huge conspiracy.
“If you hit a home run into the upper deck and you want to ‘walk the
parrot,’ go ahead, walk the parrot. … It’s definitely a more lenient
attitude toward the display of emotions, which for, the younger
generation is a good thing.”
Against every wish Phil Mushnick has, times change. Players display more emotions this day in age than they used to (or maybe they do, I'm not even sure this is true), so David Cone has come to terms with this and realizes it's not bad for the game. Of course, Phil Mushnick secretly thinks David Cone is lying. Or does he? Now, showing thorough senility, Phil manages to argue with the opinion that he doesn't truly believe David Cone holds. So Phil thinks Cone doesn't like celebrations like "walk the parrot," but then argues with Cone over an opinion he doesn't believe Cone really holds.
Really? Immodesty — often rehearsed and planned — is a good thing?
Cone didn't say anything about "immodesty" and therein lies the issue. Phil thinks it is immodest to celebrate a home run with a "walk the parrot" celebration, but Cone sees it as just a part of the game that is acceptable as long as the players find it acceptable. Phil can label this "immodesty," but that doesn't mean it's true.
The most conspicuous rewards such “natural enthusiasm” reaps are brawls,
personal fouls and striking home-run poses — posing doubles and into
singles.
Well, there are no personal fouls in baseball. Even in basketball, personal fouls are a part of the game and not always as a result of a player showboating. Also, baseball brawls were around well before Edwin Encarnacion started strutting around the bases like a parrot. So what was the reason for baseball brawls back in the good old days when athletes were modest and never celebrated? You know, those days that never existed which Phil clings so tightly to. Brawls happened then, but supposedly players didn't showboat. I wonder how Phil explains this.
Forgive me, but I don’t believe a word of what Cone or Showalter said; I
believe that they believe that it stinks, that showboating has no
tangible or next-generation upside, leaving our sports in further decay.
I don't need to forgive you for being senile and trying to force your point of view on others. I realize that you realize your argument sucks and so you need to make many assumptions in order to even churn out 250 words on a topic. Regardless of your opinion on showboating, pretending someone agrees with you because you so desperately want them to is pathetic. In fact, just assuming people agree with your opinion is immodest isn't it?
Showing posts with label celebrations. Show all posts
Showing posts with label celebrations. Show all posts
Monday, October 5, 2015
Monday, December 9, 2013
9 comments Gregg Easterbrook Introduces a Way to Predict the Super Bowl Matchup
Gregg Easterbrook introduces his "Authentic Game" metric this week in TMQ. Without even knowing anything about the metric then you can probably already guess it is an arbitrary measurement and it's only purpose will be to prove a point that Gregg wants to prove. Creating a fake metric to measure how well a team has played is certainly a lot easier than outright lying. Gregg, of course, also criticizes Nick Saban for trying a game-winning field goal and not having speed guys on the field to match the Auburn speed guys on the field on Saturday. This just one week after Gregg criticized the Vikings for not going for a 70-yard free kick, at which time in last week's TMQ post I pointed out the opposing team could have simply run the free kick back for a touchdown. So rather than admit he didn't pay attention to that little fact once it became reality, Gregg criticizes Nick Saban for trying to hit a long field goal, when Auburn has speed guys on the field.
Authentic Games are those against other potent teams.
The Authentic metric values most W's over best percentage. Thus I rank the Denver Broncos at 4-2 ahead of the Cincinnati Bengals and Indianapolis Colts at 3-1. The reasoning is that the more wins a team has versus power opponents, the better prepared the team is for the postseason.
Of course since teams play other "potent" teams (and Gregg never defines what a "potent" team actually is other than saying "equal caliber" and of course a team's record changes every week which means what teams are "potent" changes every week, thereby sorting of making "potent" being a constantly moving metric that has to be re-evaluated every week) when the schedule calls for it then it's not exactly fair to rank the Colts behind the Bengals simply because the Colts haven't had the chance to play the two additional "potent" teams the Bengals have. Not that I would expect Gregg to think of a metric that isn't shit, of course.
Because some teams start slow and finish strong, while others do the reverse, I judge opponents as "authentic" based on current records.
Meaning the Authentic metric only has meaning for one week and then Seattle's Authentic metric could change completely because Dallas beat Chicago or something else completely out of the Seahawks control. Does that make the Seahawks victory over the Bears any less authentic or worthy just because the Bears have a 6-6 record now, but had a 5-1 record when they played the Seahawks? What if the Bears played three "authentic" teams during that time? Gregg's metric also doesn't factor in where the games were played, whether it is on the road or at home. Where the game against an authentic team is being played, whether at home or on the road, is important if you ask me.
There is one exception. The asterisk in this ranking is the Green Bay Packers, since Green Bay is entirely a different team without Aaron Rodgers. Thus the San Francisco 49ers get credit for an authentic win for defeating the Packers, with Rodgers, to open the season. The Eagles don't get credit for defeating the Packers with Scott Tolzien at QB.
Gregg can't arbitrarily change the rankings when he wants to simply because he doesn't like what they reflect. It causes the metric to mean nothing if it is changed simply because the person running the metric doesn't like the result it shows.
Detroit's early loss to Green Bay with Rodgers counts as an authentic defeat, while Detroit's later win over the Pack led by Matt Flynn does not count as an authentic victory.
This metric is essentially the equivalent of Gregg Easterbrook brainstorming at 10pm on a Monday night realizing he has no lede for his TMQ, so he makes something up. Even Bill Simmons would be embarrassed to create such a half-assed metric.
Here are the Authentic Games standings:
Seattle: 4-1
Denver and New Orleans: 4-2
Cincinnati and Indianapolis: 3-1
Detroit: 3-3
Arizona: 3-4
Carolina, Kansas City and New England: 2-2
San Francisco: 2-4
Philadelphia: 1-3
Dallas: 1-4
This metric predicts a Super Bowl pairing of Broncos versus Seahawks.
And of course New Orleans is being punished for having played too many authentic teams. Which of course makes no sense to me. The metric is predicting this Super Bowl matchup this week, but if the Saints beat the Panthers this upcoming weekend and Seattle loses then the Super Bowl will be New Orleans versus the Broncos. At that point the metric is ignoring the fact the Seahawks destroyed the Saints in Seattle. The Seahawks look like they could get homefield advantage throughout the playoffs so in order to make it to the Super Bowl the Saints would possibly have to beat the Seahawks in Seattle, which they are clearly not able to do at this point. But hey, I'm getting ahead of myself. Let's see what this metric thinks a few weeks from now once teams that aren't authentic are included in Gregg's current calculations and teams that aren't authentic become authentic over the next few weeks.
Whatever happens to Romo, doubt not the Sports Illustrated curse. Cover boy of the issue before the Dallas quarterback was AJ McCarron, with the headline, "On The Brink Of A Third National Title." No more!
Well, he was on the cover two weeks ago when Alabama won a game, while Tony Romo was actually on the Sports Illustrated over when Alabama lost to Auburn. I know, I know...details that help to ruin Gregg's point are so boring.
Sweet Play of the Week: Seattle facing third-and-1 on its 36, the Bluish Men Group lined up in a three-tight end power set, suggesting run; the Seahawks are that rare contemporary NFL team that rushes more than it passes. Two tight ends were in line. The third lined up as a fullback, then went in motion left; two linebackers moved with the motion man, guessing toss left, a play Seattle uses a lot. At the snap, Russell Wilson bootlegged right with the tailback in front of him and the left-side in-line tight end running a short "drag" right.
But where was the tight end from the right side, Zach Miller? He stutter-stepped once, then went deep. Tight end going deep is a surprise at every level of football, even professional. ILB David Hawthorne, who should have taken Miller in the New Orleans 3-4 scheme, instead let him bolt past,
And of course the Saints safeties are in no way supposed to help Hawthorne out on this play. The defense was designed for the linebacker to have single-coverage on the tight end coming out of the backfield with absolutely no safety help. What could go wrong?
Football IQ also says if what you're doing has been figured out, change tactics. Early in the season, the Chiefs' defense was surprising offenses with eight-man fronts and aggressive press corners. Nobody is surprised now.
But what if this type of defense is what Bob Sutton's scheme calls for and plays to the strengths of the Chiefs defense? It's entirely possible for the Chiefs to change tactics, but the tactics the Chiefs are using plays to the strengths of the defense. Certainly the Chiefs could have (should have?) changed tactics, but this change in tactics could also bring forth more weaknesses in the Chiefs defense.
The press corners are being torched, including on a 77-yard completion on which Demaryius Thomas just blew past press corner Marcus Cooper, who never so much as touched him. Pressing backfires if receivers run right past.
Doesn't Gregg mean that highly-drafted glory boy Demaryius Thomas just blew past lowly-drafted, hard-working press corner Marcus Cooper? Rest assured if an undrafted free agent or a 7th round pick had run by a highly-drafted cornerback Gregg would mention the corner's draft position as well as claim the corner got caught "looking into the backfield."
City of Tampa leading 3-0, Carolina lined up on the Buccaneers' 16 with flanker Brandon LaFell left, plus tight end Greg Olsen and a wide receiver forming a stack right. Olsen came in motion until he formed a stack left with LaFell, who ran uncovered for a touchdown catch. Sweet.
At the snap, a Bucs corner and linebacker were pointing and arguing about who should cover whom. The combo move is so common in the NFL that, by December, defenses should not be confused about how to react. At the snap, rookie Johnathan Banks, the confused corner, simply covered no one, standing like a piece of topiary. Sour.
I believe it is actually the Buccaneers safety that tried to cover the wrong receiver and allowed LaFell to be open in the end zone. But yeah, let's just blame the linebacker and cornerback for not covering the back end of the end zone in what appeared to be a zone defense.
Sweet 'N' Sour Play II: Trailing Cleveland 28-25, Jacksonville faced third-and-9 on the Browns' 20 with 45 seconds remaining. Cecil Shorts, of Division III Mount Union, ran a stop-and-go; Chad Henne pump-faked; cornerback Joe Haden bit; touchdown. And the Jags have followed an 0-8 streak with a 3-1 streak. Sweet. Sour was that Haden bit on the short fake and no safety was in sight deep, though Jax was already in field-goal range and nearly certain to try for the end zone.
Why were the Jaguars certain to go for the end zone on this very play? It's very possible the Jaguars were going to throw a short pass and get the first down, then run the field goal team out there or run another play. Sure, maybe the Jaguars would go for the end zone, but it's complete bullshit that they would go for the end zone on this very play. Haden has to play his man and he can't just keep backing up and let Shorts catch the pass and get the opportunity to go out of bounds or run for a touchdown after the pass. Haden shouldn't have bit on the fake, but he still has to defend his man on short routes and it's not certain at all the Jaguars were going for the end zone on this very play.
During the bye week, I will be the guest on NPR's "Diane Rehm Show." Date is Monday, Dec. 9, time is 11 a.m. till noon ET. Topic is, of course, "The King of Sports."
It's Bye Week Creep! Gregg hasn't even started his bye week yet and he is already talking about what radio shows he will be on to pimp his newest book.
Trailing 7-0 at Baltimore, Pittsburgh punted on fourth-and-6 from the Ravens' 37. Later, trailing 10-0, the Steelers punted on fourth-and-1 from their 31. Pittsburgh went on to lose by two points, dropping the team to 5-7 and close to elimination.
Had Steelers coach Mike Tomlin kept his offense on the field instead of launching these Preposterous Punts, the outcome might have been different.
Or the outcome of the game may not have been different.
But Tomlin is a traditionalist coach, and traditionalists punt on fourth down. Also, earlier in the contest, Tomlin gambled with a fake field goal, which failed. If a coin flip come ups tails five straight times, this tells nothing about the sixth flip. But it's human nature to think otherwise.
Wow, what a deep thought by Gregg. Unfortunately, he's not smart enough to understand a coin flip is a 50-50 proposition, while going for it on fourth down isn't a 50-50 proposition depending on the situation. So while I know Gregg feels he is being very smart, he's fundamentally misunderstanding that a team that goes for it on fourth down doesn't have a 50-50 chance of converting the fourth down in every situation. The odds in the situation are based on the down and distance.
In football, if a team tries to convert a fourth-and-1 five times and fails every time, then this could very well tell us something about the sixth time the team tries to go for it on fourth-and-1. Past information based on events in similar circumstances should go into what future strategy a coach decides to use.
Perhaps it's spitting into the wind to say there is too much materialism, not enough sense of gratitude or reflection. After all, no one put guns to Americans' heads and forced them to abandon their communal tables, forget the meaning of the day, and rush to stores.
But just be sure to buy Gregg's new book "The King of Sports" for $19.61 at Amazon.com or any of your local bookstores. Now let's have Gregg talk more about materialism and the rush to stores to buy products on Black Friday.
But Thanksgiving Day is supposedly a national celebration of thanks for America's freedom and plenty -- engaging all citizens regardless of religious or political beliefs. Now corporate America is methodically destroying Thanksgiving, too.
I hate it when corporate American destroys Thanksgiving. Now let Gregg continue to write TMQ for ESPN.com, part of a joint venture between Disney and Hearst Corporation, which are two very small companies that would in no way attempt to commercialize the holidays. Never. Ever.
Gregg wants to help save Thanksgiving and Christmas from the very corporate entities that employ him, pay his salary and give him a forum to publicize his book.
If a couple years pass without crowds rushing the doors of big-corporate stores on Thanksgiving, then retailers will go back to being closed and giving their workers a day off.
And if we all just hold hands and stop caring about ourselves more than other people we can end all war AND stop world hunger. Let's do it!
Lawsuits and legislation are not needed to return Thanksgiving to its original meaning -- all that's needed is for Americans to refuse to enter stores for one day of the year. Has materialism become such an almighty that Americans cannot do this?
Consumers go to retail stores on Black Friday because they believe they are saving money. People like saving money and will continue to shop on Black Friday as long as the prices are low. Not everyone has book profits that can help pay for Christmas gifts.
NFL teams are averaging 23.4 points per game, up slightly from the season record of 23.2. Don't count the chickens just yet -- scoring tends to tail off late, so a record season is far from assured.
I hope everyone remembers how earlier in this year Gregg stated that NFL scoring was up and he seemed to indicate he believed scoring would stay increased. Now that scoring has fallen, Gregg has fallen back on his old adage of "well, scoring decreases as the season goes along," which conveniently is an adage that Gregg didn't recite earlier in this season when he wasn't sure scoring would tail off. As always, if Gregg plays both sides of an issue he can't ever be seen as wrong. He writes that scoring is increasing and warns of runaway offenses in the NFL, but then falls back on "scoring tails off late in the season" when the runaway offenses start to come back down to Earth.
But if the record is beaten, bear this in mind: The best-ever NFL season for scoring per game was 1948.
Today's pass-wacky offenses are fun to watch, and the season may end with a record pace for overall points production. But nothing is new under the sun: Shootouts would seem normal to Dutch Meyer.
Here is Gregg Easterbrook's October 8 TMQ.
Find the part in there where Gregg wrote the offensive explosion isn't new and scoring falls off late. I couldn't find it. What a terrible writer. Gregg has written before that offenses tail off at the end of the season, yet he writes an entire TMQ about runaway offenses and how this is the new norm in football when he knows this isn't necessarily true.
Here's what I wrote in that TMQ:
Also, if you will remember Gregg has stated prior to this season that there is no need to panic because runaway offenses always come back to Earth once defenses "solidify." I guess that football truth is no longer a truth? So Gregg doesn't think football defenses are eventually going to catch up to football offenses anymore, despite the fact he previously refuted his current "offense is out of control" argument by saying the defenses always catch up. It's always a sad state of affairs when Gregg is forced to contradict something he said just two years because reality doesn't match his beliefs.
Gregg Easterbrook in November 2011: "Everyone calm down about these runaway offenses. Stop acting stupid and assuming the offenses will always put up these large numbers. The numbers aren't permanent. The defense always ends up catching up around November. It's a football law."
Gregg Easterbrook in October 2013: "Look at all these runaway offenses. This must be a permanent change in football and the defenses aren't catching up EVER."
I figured once scoring tapered off Gregg would fall back on his adage that scoring decreases the season goes along. Of course, he conveniently doesn't mention this when trying to squeeze out a TMQ earlier in the year with the high-scoring offenses in football as his main topic of discussion.
This emerging theory is reflected in a book about to be released, "A Dreadful Deceit: The Myth of Race from the Colonial Era to Obama's America," by Jacqueline Jones, a highly regarded University of Texas historian. Your columnist just finished an advance copy, and was impressed -- the volume may have a lasting impact on American thought.
When will the commercialization and constant pimping of commercial products ever end? Gregg hates it how it is hard to do anything or go anywhere without someone selling a product to him.
When discussing this book, Gregg criticizes the author for providing a link that didn't state what the author claimed it stated.
From 2009 to 2012, federal spending on social services, health care, and benefits to seniors and the disadvantaged rose 12 percent, by about $263 billion: see page 55. So I checked the article Jones cited to back her fact about "drastic" cuts. The article is on a different subject -- trends in median household income of those nearing retirement -- and does not mention public services.
I'll just assume this is a joke or a parody, because when I think of authors who cite articles that don't state what he/she claims they state, then I immediately think of Gregg Easterbrook. Gregg just two weeks ago linked an article that was talking about Illinois when Gregg claimed the article was talking about Florida. I believe that Gregg doesn't even read some of the articles that he links in TMQ, because if he did then he would know these articles don't always support the point he wants to prove or don't state what he claims they state.
The call was a shotgun-spread buttonhook to Michigan's possession receiver. Ohio State came out in a dime as the Buckeyes were expecting pass. Pre-snap, there were five Ohio State defenders in the tackle box, versus five Michigan linemen, a tight end, a quarterback and a running back. Had Michigan rushed against the dime look, its chances were good.
Based on what evidence was Michigan's chances good of rushing for a touchdown in this situation? Simply because there were five linemen in the box with a tight end? The quarterback and running back certainly can't block on a running play that goes straight ahead, so Gregg is assuming all of the Ohio State defenders would have stayed where they were and not been able to tackle the Michigan ball carrier before he reaches the end zone. It was five-against-six in this situation, certainly not a situation where Ohio State had no chance of tackling the Michigan runner before he reaches the end zone. Plus, Michigan has struggled to run the ball all year against quality competition behind an offensive line that is relatively young. It always annoys me how Gregg states opinions like they are facts.
Buck-Buck-Brawkkkkkk: Miami leading 13-0 late in the third quarter at Jersey/B, the Jets faced fourth-and-goal on the Dolphins' 2. Don't wimp out! The field goal boomed, and that is all you need to know about the remainder of this contest,
All I really need to know is the Jets had not scored any points and it was late in the third quarter. Perhaps the Jets should have gone for the field goal, but getting points on the board was as much about confidence as it was about winning the game. I don't know if going for a field goal over a touchdown in this situation tells me about the outcome of the game any more than knowing the Jets had not scored any points by late in the third quarter tells me what I need to know about this game.
The Jets quietly are posting a disastrous season on offense,
Quietly? The Jets do nothing quietly and if Gregg thinks the Jets are quietly bad on offense then he isn't paying attention.
Before Jersey/B's fraidy-cat field goal, Miami twice went for it on fourth-and-1 and both times was denied. But the attempts communicated to Miami players that their coach was challenging them to win.
It also communicated that Joe Philbin knew the Jets couldn't score points on the Dolphins defense.
Blue-clad Dallas Cowboys leading 28-21, the Oakland Raiders faced third-and-9 on the hosts' 20 with nine minutes remaining. Presnap, third-string quarterback Matt McGloin saw speed receiver Jacoby Ford in single-man coverage with corner Brandon Carr playing press, and no safety over the top. Any quarterback would audible to a "go" in that situation. McGloin audibled to a go.
Just before the snap, Carr began to backpedal. Either because of the coverage called or because Carr correctly guessed the play,
I would say Carr began to backpedal because of the coverage called and he was attempting to disguise his coverage. I am fairly confident that Carr didn't begin to backpedal because he guessed the play and just decided he was no longer going to run the defensive play call made by Monte Kiffin. Gregg Easterbrook works under the assumption that defensive players can just do whatever the hell they want to do on defense. I'm not sure why, but Gregg thinks defensive players can ignore the play called and just start freelancing in the secondary. This isn't true for the majority of defensive players.
by the time McGloin started his throw, a best-case scenario had become a worst-case scenario -- the corner he thought would bump-and-run had instead "turned his hips" and was retreating at maximum speed.
I can't believe this undrafted free agent was tricked like this by a highly-paid glory boy like Brandon Carr. And yes, you know if the situation was reversed Gregg would have mentioned an undrafted player confused and intercepted a highly-paid glory boy. Because this interception doesn't fit the narrative Gregg furthers, he mentions neither player's draft position.
Jacoby Jones of the Baltimore Ravens was sprinting up the sideline in front of the Pittsburgh Steelers' bench for what seemed a likely kick return touchdown when Steelers coach Mike Tomlin put his feet onto the field in Jones' path. The Baltimore player sidestepped Tomlin, slowing down enough that he was caught from behind at the Steelers' 27. Tomlin wasn't flagged.
And it does not matter whether Tomlin stepped into Jones' path on purpose or just made a knucklehead mistake; many sports penalties are unintentional. TMQ's question is: Why wasn't Baltimore awarded a touchdown?
Because Tomlin wasn't even flagged on the play. If the officials don't think Tomlin did anything wrong to where his actions would merit a flag, why would they award the Ravens a touchdown? This is like saying, "If Person X wasn't arrested for manslaughter when he ran over a little girl with his car while drunk, why wasn't he arrested for first degree murder?"
If the officials didn't think Tomlin's actions deserved a flag, why would they believe Tomlin did something so wrong as to merit the Ravens being awarded a touchdown?
The NFL rules list five ways a touchdown may be recorded, the fifth being, "The Referee awards a touchdown to a team that has been denied one by a palpably unfair act." An opposition coach steps directly into the path of a runner who is likely to score. The rules give the referee broad authority to determine what constitutes "palpably unfair" action.
But the officials didn't even believe Tomlin committed an unfair act, much less a "palpably" unfair act. This shouldn't be hard to understand.
What the Hey??? Trailing San Francisco 16-6, the Rams punted on fourth-and-1. On the next possession, margin still 16-6, the Rams went for it on fourth-and-8 from their own 22. It resulted in a loss of yardage and an immediate 49ers touchdown.
But I thought going for it on fourth down told the Rams team that Jeff Fisher was very serious about winning the game and this would help the Rams convert this fourth down? Is this suddenly not true anymore?
This is part of the reason Gregg is full of crap when he makes these hard-and-fast rules on when to go for it on fourth down. The Rams go for it on fourth down and then the 49ers score an immediate touchdown after the attempt fails. If the Rams had punted then Gregg would write, "The Rams booted the ball and it took the 49ers less than X amount of plays to get back where the Rams would have gone for it on fourth down" as if the punt is what caused the 49ers to go down the field and score. Gregg is so outcome-oriented it annoys me.
The attempt was a fake punt that was so confused, it was hard to tell what Les Mouflons were trying to do. Later, the Rams went on fourth-and-11. The time to go for it on fourth down is fourth-and-short.
So the Rams should have punted on fourth-and-11 when it was later in the game and they needed to score in order to win the game? Or should they have secretly tried to move the ball up 9-10 yards so it would be fourth-and-short and hope the officials or 49ers wouldn't notice? There's always a reason given for why a fourth down attempt doesn't work and this reason never infringes on the black-and-white idea that going for it on fourth down tells a coach's team that coach is playing to win the game, which obviously makes the team play better. So I guess teams should not go for it on fourth down now if it isn't fourth-and-short. I'm pretty sure Gregg makes these rules up as he goes along.
Last Week's Ohio State Item: A reader questioned whether "leisure studies" and "exercise science" should be majors at a four-year university. Steven Hansen of Fort Worth, Texas, writes, "I graduated from college with a major in exercise science, which was a popular major, but not for reasons that people may assume. I am now in my second year of medical school, and can report that my degree prepared me more for my classes in medical school than the classes of some of my friends who majored in neuroscience, molecular neology or microbiology. For my exercise science degree, I was required to take human anatomy, human physiology, biology, molecular biology, tissue biology, physics, general chemistry and organic chemistry before going on to courses such as exercise physiology, orthopedic impairments and biomechanics. Exercise science may not sound prestigious, but is a legitimate major."
Yeah, the guy who wrote in last week talking about how exercise science is a crap major is an asshole. I wish Gregg wouldn't print a person's email when that person clearly doesn't seem to understand what he is talking about.
I found it wrong that a New York City psychic should be sentenced to five years in prison, as opposed to just put out of business, considering that spiritual-world claims made by psychics are uncomfortably similar to claims made with full respectability by clergy.
Remy Taborga of New York City writes, "Many victims in psychic scams are people who are in emotional distress and in their desperation turn to someone who exploits their circumstances to steal from them. This was a rare victory in which a psychic was held accountable for her despicable acts." But clergy, televangelists and organizations such as the Salvation Army may pressure people for donations in cash or via will, and some of those pressured may have come toward religion because they are in "emotional distress."
But these organizations provide the service regardless of whether you pay the money or not. It's not a business transaction. You can attend church or watch a televangelist and learn about God without having to pay money to do so. I don't know what the Salvation Army has to do with anything since any donations to them are also purely voluntary.
Fuze has a TV commercial in which a dog rides a surf board. The tiny-type crawl says "Do not attempt." Are the dogs in the audience supposed to read that?
No idiot, the message is for humans to know they shouldn't be putting their dog on a surfboard. I don't know why Gregg tries to be cutesy like this. Dogs can't drive to the beach or purchase a surfboard to ride in the ocean, so obviously a human will have to get the dog to the beach and put the dog on the surfboard.
Hidden plays are ones that never make highlight reels, but sustain or stop drives. Chicago leading 20-17, Minnesota faced fourth-and-11 deep in its territory inside the two-minute warning of regulation. Chicago big-blitzed; conversion; Minnesota went on to win in overtime.
If Gregg is arguing the fourth down conversion that extended the game and allowed the Vikings to eventually win the game in overtime is a hidden play, then he is dumber than I had originally thought. If anything, this was one of the most important plays of the game. I'm pretty sure this would make a highlight reel too since this is the play that kept the Vikings game-tying drive going late in the fourth quarter.
Game tied 28-28 at Auburn, an Alabama runner stepped out-of-bounds as the clock expired in regulation, sending the contest to overtime. Then a second was put back on the clock, and Alabama attempted a 57-yard field goal that was returned for a touchdown with the clock expired.
Just last week Gregg thought the Vikings should attempt a 70-yard field goal. Naturally, because he sees the downside of the Vikings trying this kick now he won't remind his readers that he was just spouting off at the mouth and didn't think this opinion through all the way.
Nick Saban demanded the extra play on which his charges were defeated. Why did Saban argue vehemently to put one second back on the clock?
Haha...to try the long field goal, just like you had suggested the Vikings try last week. Gregg is acting like he didn't suggest an NFL team should kick a long field goal just last week.
The Crimson Tide had already gone 0-for-3 with field goal attempts on the night; a 57-yarder seemed improbable.
Yeah, but you know. Flip of the coin, 50-50 shot all that stuff. I'll let Gregg sum it up better:
Also, earlier in the contest, Tomlin gambled with a fake field goal, which failed. If a coin flip come ups tails five straight times, this tells nothing about the sixth flip. But it's human nature to think otherwise.
So using Gregg's own words, the three failed field goal attempts on the night tells us nothing about the fourth field goal attempt. Right? Isn't that the logic he used earlier in this column to explain why he thinks Mike Tomlin should have gone for it on fourth down? All of a sudden Gregg doesn't use this logic anymore because it doesn't fit what he wants to prove.
I absolutely think Nick Saban and Alabama should have tried to factor in that the kick could have been run back for a touchdown, but that's the risk they took in trying the field goal, and that's a risk Gregg suggested the Vikings should take just last week.
As Saban sent the kicking unit onto the field, Gus Malzahn called timeout. Why? To take out big guys and put in speed guys. When the kick boomed, the Tigers had five speed players on the field; Saban didn't seem aware of this.
Maybe he was aware, but what could he do other than not go for the field goal? If Saban puts speed guys on the field then the field goal could be blocked. Sure, Saban shouldn't have had his kicker try the kick in retrospect, but there wasn't a strategy he could have used to combat Auburn trying to return the punt while also ensuring the field goal attempt isn't blocked. Speed guys generally aren't great blockers.
Alabama demanded the extra second that caused its own demise, then failed to prepare for a return despite a bright flashing warning that was Auburn's plan. Nick Saban, you are guilty of the single worst play of the season. So far.
I don't understand how Alabama could have blocked for the field goal attempt, while also preparing for Auburn to return the kick. Alabama had to have blockers in to avoid the field goal attempt from being blocked and these blockers generally aren't the fastest players. So Saban took a risk and it didn't pay off.
I'll be back Dec. 17, and on the case through that Super Bowl thing you might have heard about.
I won't look forward to it.
Authentic Games are those against other potent teams.
The Authentic metric values most W's over best percentage. Thus I rank the Denver Broncos at 4-2 ahead of the Cincinnati Bengals and Indianapolis Colts at 3-1. The reasoning is that the more wins a team has versus power opponents, the better prepared the team is for the postseason.
Of course since teams play other "potent" teams (and Gregg never defines what a "potent" team actually is other than saying "equal caliber" and of course a team's record changes every week which means what teams are "potent" changes every week, thereby sorting of making "potent" being a constantly moving metric that has to be re-evaluated every week) when the schedule calls for it then it's not exactly fair to rank the Colts behind the Bengals simply because the Colts haven't had the chance to play the two additional "potent" teams the Bengals have. Not that I would expect Gregg to think of a metric that isn't shit, of course.
Because some teams start slow and finish strong, while others do the reverse, I judge opponents as "authentic" based on current records.
Meaning the Authentic metric only has meaning for one week and then Seattle's Authentic metric could change completely because Dallas beat Chicago or something else completely out of the Seahawks control. Does that make the Seahawks victory over the Bears any less authentic or worthy just because the Bears have a 6-6 record now, but had a 5-1 record when they played the Seahawks? What if the Bears played three "authentic" teams during that time? Gregg's metric also doesn't factor in where the games were played, whether it is on the road or at home. Where the game against an authentic team is being played, whether at home or on the road, is important if you ask me.
There is one exception. The asterisk in this ranking is the Green Bay Packers, since Green Bay is entirely a different team without Aaron Rodgers. Thus the San Francisco 49ers get credit for an authentic win for defeating the Packers, with Rodgers, to open the season. The Eagles don't get credit for defeating the Packers with Scott Tolzien at QB.
Gregg can't arbitrarily change the rankings when he wants to simply because he doesn't like what they reflect. It causes the metric to mean nothing if it is changed simply because the person running the metric doesn't like the result it shows.
Detroit's early loss to Green Bay with Rodgers counts as an authentic defeat, while Detroit's later win over the Pack led by Matt Flynn does not count as an authentic victory.
This metric is essentially the equivalent of Gregg Easterbrook brainstorming at 10pm on a Monday night realizing he has no lede for his TMQ, so he makes something up. Even Bill Simmons would be embarrassed to create such a half-assed metric.
Here are the Authentic Games standings:
Seattle: 4-1
Denver and New Orleans: 4-2
Cincinnati and Indianapolis: 3-1
Detroit: 3-3
Arizona: 3-4
Carolina, Kansas City and New England: 2-2
San Francisco: 2-4
Philadelphia: 1-3
Dallas: 1-4
This metric predicts a Super Bowl pairing of Broncos versus Seahawks.
And of course New Orleans is being punished for having played too many authentic teams. Which of course makes no sense to me. The metric is predicting this Super Bowl matchup this week, but if the Saints beat the Panthers this upcoming weekend and Seattle loses then the Super Bowl will be New Orleans versus the Broncos. At that point the metric is ignoring the fact the Seahawks destroyed the Saints in Seattle. The Seahawks look like they could get homefield advantage throughout the playoffs so in order to make it to the Super Bowl the Saints would possibly have to beat the Seahawks in Seattle, which they are clearly not able to do at this point. But hey, I'm getting ahead of myself. Let's see what this metric thinks a few weeks from now once teams that aren't authentic are included in Gregg's current calculations and teams that aren't authentic become authentic over the next few weeks.
Whatever happens to Romo, doubt not the Sports Illustrated curse. Cover boy of the issue before the Dallas quarterback was AJ McCarron, with the headline, "On The Brink Of A Third National Title." No more!
Well, he was on the cover two weeks ago when Alabama won a game, while Tony Romo was actually on the Sports Illustrated over when Alabama lost to Auburn. I know, I know...details that help to ruin Gregg's point are so boring.
Sweet Play of the Week: Seattle facing third-and-1 on its 36, the Bluish Men Group lined up in a three-tight end power set, suggesting run; the Seahawks are that rare contemporary NFL team that rushes more than it passes. Two tight ends were in line. The third lined up as a fullback, then went in motion left; two linebackers moved with the motion man, guessing toss left, a play Seattle uses a lot. At the snap, Russell Wilson bootlegged right with the tailback in front of him and the left-side in-line tight end running a short "drag" right.
But where was the tight end from the right side, Zach Miller? He stutter-stepped once, then went deep. Tight end going deep is a surprise at every level of football, even professional. ILB David Hawthorne, who should have taken Miller in the New Orleans 3-4 scheme, instead let him bolt past,
And of course the Saints safeties are in no way supposed to help Hawthorne out on this play. The defense was designed for the linebacker to have single-coverage on the tight end coming out of the backfield with absolutely no safety help. What could go wrong?
Football IQ also says if what you're doing has been figured out, change tactics. Early in the season, the Chiefs' defense was surprising offenses with eight-man fronts and aggressive press corners. Nobody is surprised now.
But what if this type of defense is what Bob Sutton's scheme calls for and plays to the strengths of the Chiefs defense? It's entirely possible for the Chiefs to change tactics, but the tactics the Chiefs are using plays to the strengths of the defense. Certainly the Chiefs could have (should have?) changed tactics, but this change in tactics could also bring forth more weaknesses in the Chiefs defense.
The press corners are being torched, including on a 77-yard completion on which Demaryius Thomas just blew past press corner Marcus Cooper, who never so much as touched him. Pressing backfires if receivers run right past.
Doesn't Gregg mean that highly-drafted glory boy Demaryius Thomas just blew past lowly-drafted, hard-working press corner Marcus Cooper? Rest assured if an undrafted free agent or a 7th round pick had run by a highly-drafted cornerback Gregg would mention the corner's draft position as well as claim the corner got caught "looking into the backfield."
City of Tampa leading 3-0, Carolina lined up on the Buccaneers' 16 with flanker Brandon LaFell left, plus tight end Greg Olsen and a wide receiver forming a stack right. Olsen came in motion until he formed a stack left with LaFell, who ran uncovered for a touchdown catch. Sweet.
At the snap, a Bucs corner and linebacker were pointing and arguing about who should cover whom. The combo move is so common in the NFL that, by December, defenses should not be confused about how to react. At the snap, rookie Johnathan Banks, the confused corner, simply covered no one, standing like a piece of topiary. Sour.
I believe it is actually the Buccaneers safety that tried to cover the wrong receiver and allowed LaFell to be open in the end zone. But yeah, let's just blame the linebacker and cornerback for not covering the back end of the end zone in what appeared to be a zone defense.
Sweet 'N' Sour Play II: Trailing Cleveland 28-25, Jacksonville faced third-and-9 on the Browns' 20 with 45 seconds remaining. Cecil Shorts, of Division III Mount Union, ran a stop-and-go; Chad Henne pump-faked; cornerback Joe Haden bit; touchdown. And the Jags have followed an 0-8 streak with a 3-1 streak. Sweet. Sour was that Haden bit on the short fake and no safety was in sight deep, though Jax was already in field-goal range and nearly certain to try for the end zone.
Why were the Jaguars certain to go for the end zone on this very play? It's very possible the Jaguars were going to throw a short pass and get the first down, then run the field goal team out there or run another play. Sure, maybe the Jaguars would go for the end zone, but it's complete bullshit that they would go for the end zone on this very play. Haden has to play his man and he can't just keep backing up and let Shorts catch the pass and get the opportunity to go out of bounds or run for a touchdown after the pass. Haden shouldn't have bit on the fake, but he still has to defend his man on short routes and it's not certain at all the Jaguars were going for the end zone on this very play.
During the bye week, I will be the guest on NPR's "Diane Rehm Show." Date is Monday, Dec. 9, time is 11 a.m. till noon ET. Topic is, of course, "The King of Sports."
It's Bye Week Creep! Gregg hasn't even started his bye week yet and he is already talking about what radio shows he will be on to pimp his newest book.
Trailing 7-0 at Baltimore, Pittsburgh punted on fourth-and-6 from the Ravens' 37. Later, trailing 10-0, the Steelers punted on fourth-and-1 from their 31. Pittsburgh went on to lose by two points, dropping the team to 5-7 and close to elimination.
Had Steelers coach Mike Tomlin kept his offense on the field instead of launching these Preposterous Punts, the outcome might have been different.
Or the outcome of the game may not have been different.
But Tomlin is a traditionalist coach, and traditionalists punt on fourth down. Also, earlier in the contest, Tomlin gambled with a fake field goal, which failed. If a coin flip come ups tails five straight times, this tells nothing about the sixth flip. But it's human nature to think otherwise.
Wow, what a deep thought by Gregg. Unfortunately, he's not smart enough to understand a coin flip is a 50-50 proposition, while going for it on fourth down isn't a 50-50 proposition depending on the situation. So while I know Gregg feels he is being very smart, he's fundamentally misunderstanding that a team that goes for it on fourth down doesn't have a 50-50 chance of converting the fourth down in every situation. The odds in the situation are based on the down and distance.
In football, if a team tries to convert a fourth-and-1 five times and fails every time, then this could very well tell us something about the sixth time the team tries to go for it on fourth-and-1. Past information based on events in similar circumstances should go into what future strategy a coach decides to use.
Perhaps it's spitting into the wind to say there is too much materialism, not enough sense of gratitude or reflection. After all, no one put guns to Americans' heads and forced them to abandon their communal tables, forget the meaning of the day, and rush to stores.
But just be sure to buy Gregg's new book "The King of Sports" for $19.61 at Amazon.com or any of your local bookstores. Now let's have Gregg talk more about materialism and the rush to stores to buy products on Black Friday.
But Thanksgiving Day is supposedly a national celebration of thanks for America's freedom and plenty -- engaging all citizens regardless of religious or political beliefs. Now corporate America is methodically destroying Thanksgiving, too.
I hate it when corporate American destroys Thanksgiving. Now let Gregg continue to write TMQ for ESPN.com, part of a joint venture between Disney and Hearst Corporation, which are two very small companies that would in no way attempt to commercialize the holidays. Never. Ever.
Gregg wants to help save Thanksgiving and Christmas from the very corporate entities that employ him, pay his salary and give him a forum to publicize his book.
If a couple years pass without crowds rushing the doors of big-corporate stores on Thanksgiving, then retailers will go back to being closed and giving their workers a day off.
And if we all just hold hands and stop caring about ourselves more than other people we can end all war AND stop world hunger. Let's do it!
Lawsuits and legislation are not needed to return Thanksgiving to its original meaning -- all that's needed is for Americans to refuse to enter stores for one day of the year. Has materialism become such an almighty that Americans cannot do this?
Consumers go to retail stores on Black Friday because they believe they are saving money. People like saving money and will continue to shop on Black Friday as long as the prices are low. Not everyone has book profits that can help pay for Christmas gifts.
NFL teams are averaging 23.4 points per game, up slightly from the season record of 23.2. Don't count the chickens just yet -- scoring tends to tail off late, so a record season is far from assured.
I hope everyone remembers how earlier in this year Gregg stated that NFL scoring was up and he seemed to indicate he believed scoring would stay increased. Now that scoring has fallen, Gregg has fallen back on his old adage of "well, scoring decreases as the season goes along," which conveniently is an adage that Gregg didn't recite earlier in this season when he wasn't sure scoring would tail off. As always, if Gregg plays both sides of an issue he can't ever be seen as wrong. He writes that scoring is increasing and warns of runaway offenses in the NFL, but then falls back on "scoring tails off late in the season" when the runaway offenses start to come back down to Earth.
But if the record is beaten, bear this in mind: The best-ever NFL season for scoring per game was 1948.
Today's pass-wacky offenses are fun to watch, and the season may end with a record pace for overall points production. But nothing is new under the sun: Shootouts would seem normal to Dutch Meyer.
Here is Gregg Easterbrook's October 8 TMQ.
Find the part in there where Gregg wrote the offensive explosion isn't new and scoring falls off late. I couldn't find it. What a terrible writer. Gregg has written before that offenses tail off at the end of the season, yet he writes an entire TMQ about runaway offenses and how this is the new norm in football when he knows this isn't necessarily true.
Here's what I wrote in that TMQ:
Also, if you will remember Gregg has stated prior to this season that there is no need to panic because runaway offenses always come back to Earth once defenses "solidify." I guess that football truth is no longer a truth? So Gregg doesn't think football defenses are eventually going to catch up to football offenses anymore, despite the fact he previously refuted his current "offense is out of control" argument by saying the defenses always catch up. It's always a sad state of affairs when Gregg is forced to contradict something he said just two years because reality doesn't match his beliefs.
Gregg Easterbrook in November 2011: "Everyone calm down about these runaway offenses. Stop acting stupid and assuming the offenses will always put up these large numbers. The numbers aren't permanent. The defense always ends up catching up around November. It's a football law."
Gregg Easterbrook in October 2013: "Look at all these runaway offenses. This must be a permanent change in football and the defenses aren't catching up EVER."
I figured once scoring tapered off Gregg would fall back on his adage that scoring decreases the season goes along. Of course, he conveniently doesn't mention this when trying to squeeze out a TMQ earlier in the year with the high-scoring offenses in football as his main topic of discussion.
This emerging theory is reflected in a book about to be released, "A Dreadful Deceit: The Myth of Race from the Colonial Era to Obama's America," by Jacqueline Jones, a highly regarded University of Texas historian. Your columnist just finished an advance copy, and was impressed -- the volume may have a lasting impact on American thought.
When will the commercialization and constant pimping of commercial products ever end? Gregg hates it how it is hard to do anything or go anywhere without someone selling a product to him.
When discussing this book, Gregg criticizes the author for providing a link that didn't state what the author claimed it stated.
From 2009 to 2012, federal spending on social services, health care, and benefits to seniors and the disadvantaged rose 12 percent, by about $263 billion: see page 55. So I checked the article Jones cited to back her fact about "drastic" cuts. The article is on a different subject -- trends in median household income of those nearing retirement -- and does not mention public services.
I'll just assume this is a joke or a parody, because when I think of authors who cite articles that don't state what he/she claims they state, then I immediately think of Gregg Easterbrook. Gregg just two weeks ago linked an article that was talking about Illinois when Gregg claimed the article was talking about Florida. I believe that Gregg doesn't even read some of the articles that he links in TMQ, because if he did then he would know these articles don't always support the point he wants to prove or don't state what he claims they state.
The call was a shotgun-spread buttonhook to Michigan's possession receiver. Ohio State came out in a dime as the Buckeyes were expecting pass. Pre-snap, there were five Ohio State defenders in the tackle box, versus five Michigan linemen, a tight end, a quarterback and a running back. Had Michigan rushed against the dime look, its chances were good.
Based on what evidence was Michigan's chances good of rushing for a touchdown in this situation? Simply because there were five linemen in the box with a tight end? The quarterback and running back certainly can't block on a running play that goes straight ahead, so Gregg is assuming all of the Ohio State defenders would have stayed where they were and not been able to tackle the Michigan ball carrier before he reaches the end zone. It was five-against-six in this situation, certainly not a situation where Ohio State had no chance of tackling the Michigan runner before he reaches the end zone. Plus, Michigan has struggled to run the ball all year against quality competition behind an offensive line that is relatively young. It always annoys me how Gregg states opinions like they are facts.
Buck-Buck-Brawkkkkkk: Miami leading 13-0 late in the third quarter at Jersey/B, the Jets faced fourth-and-goal on the Dolphins' 2. Don't wimp out! The field goal boomed, and that is all you need to know about the remainder of this contest,
All I really need to know is the Jets had not scored any points and it was late in the third quarter. Perhaps the Jets should have gone for the field goal, but getting points on the board was as much about confidence as it was about winning the game. I don't know if going for a field goal over a touchdown in this situation tells me about the outcome of the game any more than knowing the Jets had not scored any points by late in the third quarter tells me what I need to know about this game.
The Jets quietly are posting a disastrous season on offense,
Quietly? The Jets do nothing quietly and if Gregg thinks the Jets are quietly bad on offense then he isn't paying attention.
Before Jersey/B's fraidy-cat field goal, Miami twice went for it on fourth-and-1 and both times was denied. But the attempts communicated to Miami players that their coach was challenging them to win.
It also communicated that Joe Philbin knew the Jets couldn't score points on the Dolphins defense.
Blue-clad Dallas Cowboys leading 28-21, the Oakland Raiders faced third-and-9 on the hosts' 20 with nine minutes remaining. Presnap, third-string quarterback Matt McGloin saw speed receiver Jacoby Ford in single-man coverage with corner Brandon Carr playing press, and no safety over the top. Any quarterback would audible to a "go" in that situation. McGloin audibled to a go.
Just before the snap, Carr began to backpedal. Either because of the coverage called or because Carr correctly guessed the play,
I would say Carr began to backpedal because of the coverage called and he was attempting to disguise his coverage. I am fairly confident that Carr didn't begin to backpedal because he guessed the play and just decided he was no longer going to run the defensive play call made by Monte Kiffin. Gregg Easterbrook works under the assumption that defensive players can just do whatever the hell they want to do on defense. I'm not sure why, but Gregg thinks defensive players can ignore the play called and just start freelancing in the secondary. This isn't true for the majority of defensive players.
by the time McGloin started his throw, a best-case scenario had become a worst-case scenario -- the corner he thought would bump-and-run had instead "turned his hips" and was retreating at maximum speed.
I can't believe this undrafted free agent was tricked like this by a highly-paid glory boy like Brandon Carr. And yes, you know if the situation was reversed Gregg would have mentioned an undrafted player confused and intercepted a highly-paid glory boy. Because this interception doesn't fit the narrative Gregg furthers, he mentions neither player's draft position.
Jacoby Jones of the Baltimore Ravens was sprinting up the sideline in front of the Pittsburgh Steelers' bench for what seemed a likely kick return touchdown when Steelers coach Mike Tomlin put his feet onto the field in Jones' path. The Baltimore player sidestepped Tomlin, slowing down enough that he was caught from behind at the Steelers' 27. Tomlin wasn't flagged.
And it does not matter whether Tomlin stepped into Jones' path on purpose or just made a knucklehead mistake; many sports penalties are unintentional. TMQ's question is: Why wasn't Baltimore awarded a touchdown?
Because Tomlin wasn't even flagged on the play. If the officials don't think Tomlin did anything wrong to where his actions would merit a flag, why would they award the Ravens a touchdown? This is like saying, "If Person X wasn't arrested for manslaughter when he ran over a little girl with his car while drunk, why wasn't he arrested for first degree murder?"
If the officials didn't think Tomlin's actions deserved a flag, why would they believe Tomlin did something so wrong as to merit the Ravens being awarded a touchdown?
The NFL rules list five ways a touchdown may be recorded, the fifth being, "The Referee awards a touchdown to a team that has been denied one by a palpably unfair act." An opposition coach steps directly into the path of a runner who is likely to score. The rules give the referee broad authority to determine what constitutes "palpably unfair" action.
But the officials didn't even believe Tomlin committed an unfair act, much less a "palpably" unfair act. This shouldn't be hard to understand.
What the Hey??? Trailing San Francisco 16-6, the Rams punted on fourth-and-1. On the next possession, margin still 16-6, the Rams went for it on fourth-and-8 from their own 22. It resulted in a loss of yardage and an immediate 49ers touchdown.
But I thought going for it on fourth down told the Rams team that Jeff Fisher was very serious about winning the game and this would help the Rams convert this fourth down? Is this suddenly not true anymore?
This is part of the reason Gregg is full of crap when he makes these hard-and-fast rules on when to go for it on fourth down. The Rams go for it on fourth down and then the 49ers score an immediate touchdown after the attempt fails. If the Rams had punted then Gregg would write, "The Rams booted the ball and it took the 49ers less than X amount of plays to get back where the Rams would have gone for it on fourth down" as if the punt is what caused the 49ers to go down the field and score. Gregg is so outcome-oriented it annoys me.
The attempt was a fake punt that was so confused, it was hard to tell what Les Mouflons were trying to do. Later, the Rams went on fourth-and-11. The time to go for it on fourth down is fourth-and-short.
So the Rams should have punted on fourth-and-11 when it was later in the game and they needed to score in order to win the game? Or should they have secretly tried to move the ball up 9-10 yards so it would be fourth-and-short and hope the officials or 49ers wouldn't notice? There's always a reason given for why a fourth down attempt doesn't work and this reason never infringes on the black-and-white idea that going for it on fourth down tells a coach's team that coach is playing to win the game, which obviously makes the team play better. So I guess teams should not go for it on fourth down now if it isn't fourth-and-short. I'm pretty sure Gregg makes these rules up as he goes along.
Last Week's Ohio State Item: A reader questioned whether "leisure studies" and "exercise science" should be majors at a four-year university. Steven Hansen of Fort Worth, Texas, writes, "I graduated from college with a major in exercise science, which was a popular major, but not for reasons that people may assume. I am now in my second year of medical school, and can report that my degree prepared me more for my classes in medical school than the classes of some of my friends who majored in neuroscience, molecular neology or microbiology. For my exercise science degree, I was required to take human anatomy, human physiology, biology, molecular biology, tissue biology, physics, general chemistry and organic chemistry before going on to courses such as exercise physiology, orthopedic impairments and biomechanics. Exercise science may not sound prestigious, but is a legitimate major."
Yeah, the guy who wrote in last week talking about how exercise science is a crap major is an asshole. I wish Gregg wouldn't print a person's email when that person clearly doesn't seem to understand what he is talking about.
I found it wrong that a New York City psychic should be sentenced to five years in prison, as opposed to just put out of business, considering that spiritual-world claims made by psychics are uncomfortably similar to claims made with full respectability by clergy.
Remy Taborga of New York City writes, "Many victims in psychic scams are people who are in emotional distress and in their desperation turn to someone who exploits their circumstances to steal from them. This was a rare victory in which a psychic was held accountable for her despicable acts." But clergy, televangelists and organizations such as the Salvation Army may pressure people for donations in cash or via will, and some of those pressured may have come toward religion because they are in "emotional distress."
But these organizations provide the service regardless of whether you pay the money or not. It's not a business transaction. You can attend church or watch a televangelist and learn about God without having to pay money to do so. I don't know what the Salvation Army has to do with anything since any donations to them are also purely voluntary.
Fuze has a TV commercial in which a dog rides a surf board. The tiny-type crawl says "Do not attempt." Are the dogs in the audience supposed to read that?
No idiot, the message is for humans to know they shouldn't be putting their dog on a surfboard. I don't know why Gregg tries to be cutesy like this. Dogs can't drive to the beach or purchase a surfboard to ride in the ocean, so obviously a human will have to get the dog to the beach and put the dog on the surfboard.
Hidden plays are ones that never make highlight reels, but sustain or stop drives. Chicago leading 20-17, Minnesota faced fourth-and-11 deep in its territory inside the two-minute warning of regulation. Chicago big-blitzed; conversion; Minnesota went on to win in overtime.
If Gregg is arguing the fourth down conversion that extended the game and allowed the Vikings to eventually win the game in overtime is a hidden play, then he is dumber than I had originally thought. If anything, this was one of the most important plays of the game. I'm pretty sure this would make a highlight reel too since this is the play that kept the Vikings game-tying drive going late in the fourth quarter.
Game tied 28-28 at Auburn, an Alabama runner stepped out-of-bounds as the clock expired in regulation, sending the contest to overtime. Then a second was put back on the clock, and Alabama attempted a 57-yard field goal that was returned for a touchdown with the clock expired.
Just last week Gregg thought the Vikings should attempt a 70-yard field goal. Naturally, because he sees the downside of the Vikings trying this kick now he won't remind his readers that he was just spouting off at the mouth and didn't think this opinion through all the way.
Nick Saban demanded the extra play on which his charges were defeated. Why did Saban argue vehemently to put one second back on the clock?
Haha...to try the long field goal, just like you had suggested the Vikings try last week. Gregg is acting like he didn't suggest an NFL team should kick a long field goal just last week.
The Crimson Tide had already gone 0-for-3 with field goal attempts on the night; a 57-yarder seemed improbable.
Yeah, but you know. Flip of the coin, 50-50 shot all that stuff. I'll let Gregg sum it up better:
Also, earlier in the contest, Tomlin gambled with a fake field goal, which failed. If a coin flip come ups tails five straight times, this tells nothing about the sixth flip. But it's human nature to think otherwise.
So using Gregg's own words, the three failed field goal attempts on the night tells us nothing about the fourth field goal attempt. Right? Isn't that the logic he used earlier in this column to explain why he thinks Mike Tomlin should have gone for it on fourth down? All of a sudden Gregg doesn't use this logic anymore because it doesn't fit what he wants to prove.
I absolutely think Nick Saban and Alabama should have tried to factor in that the kick could have been run back for a touchdown, but that's the risk they took in trying the field goal, and that's a risk Gregg suggested the Vikings should take just last week.
As Saban sent the kicking unit onto the field, Gus Malzahn called timeout. Why? To take out big guys and put in speed guys. When the kick boomed, the Tigers had five speed players on the field; Saban didn't seem aware of this.
Maybe he was aware, but what could he do other than not go for the field goal? If Saban puts speed guys on the field then the field goal could be blocked. Sure, Saban shouldn't have had his kicker try the kick in retrospect, but there wasn't a strategy he could have used to combat Auburn trying to return the punt while also ensuring the field goal attempt isn't blocked. Speed guys generally aren't great blockers.
Alabama demanded the extra second that caused its own demise, then failed to prepare for a return despite a bright flashing warning that was Auburn's plan. Nick Saban, you are guilty of the single worst play of the season. So far.
I don't understand how Alabama could have blocked for the field goal attempt, while also preparing for Auburn to return the kick. Alabama had to have blockers in to avoid the field goal attempt from being blocked and these blockers generally aren't the fastest players. So Saban took a risk and it didn't pay off.
I'll be back Dec. 17, and on the case through that Super Bowl thing you might have heard about.
I won't look forward to it.
Saturday, July 13, 2013
3 comments "Slate" Wants to Know Why LeBron James is So Serious
"Slate" magazine online likes to take on the serious and important sports stories. They aren't afraid to take these controversial topics head-on. Like what kind of sports parent am I, a guide to NBA players' tattoos, and now they are taking on why athletes, specifically they are talking about LeBron James because mentioning LeBron James is much better for pageviews than talking about a less popular athlete, don't smile and look so unhappy? Thankfully "Slate" is around to tackle these hard-hitting issues so we can talk about them with our children before they ask the tough questions like, "Why isn't Kevin Durant smiling?" and you have to explain this awkward subject to them.
But first, I read an article that has gotten some negative feedback around the Interwebs. It's about Johnny Manziel and the author criticizes Manziel for whining on Twitter about having to be Johnny Manziel. Specifically Manziel Tweeted,
Don't ever forget that I love A&M with all of my heart, but please please walk a day in my shoes
I was going to write and jump on this author as well, except I realized I think he has a point. Now I do understand Johnny Manziel is a young guy and if there was Twitter when I was college God only knows what kind of whining I would have done, but the basic point of the article is this:
Lounging in floor seats at an NBA game. Throwing out the first pitch at an MLB game. Going to the NBA Finals. Fanning cash he won at a casino. Going to Mexico on vacation.
He tweeted photos of him sitting courtside. He tweeted the wad of cash. He tweeted about hanging out with Hip-Hop stars. He – not anyone else – complained about living in a fishbowl after inviting everyone in.
The article really isn't about Manziel not having permission to make mistakes or be a kid. It's about Manziel attempting to gain sympathy from the public for being Johnny Manziel when he has created the persona and the issues he faces himself. I see what the author is trying to say. The author compares Manziel to A.J. McCarron, Marcus Lattimore, and Curt Phillips, guys who either suffered major setbacks while playing football or have gotten in the spotlight but not attempted to bask in it. No one is saying Manziel can't be a college student, but he has created all of this mayhem that surrounds him by showing the gambling money he has won on Twitter, sitting courtside at NBA games, and generally making an effort to be a celebrity. That's fine if Manziel doesn't like how it has turned out for him, and I feel sympathy he has gotten the fame he wants but doesn't like it, but I won't provide sympathy to have to walk a day in his shoes in order to understand him.
So while I understand the criticism of the author's criticism of Manziel, I think those criticizing the author are missing the point. Manziel can be a college student and make mistakes, that's allowed. What's not allowed is to put himself in the spotlight and then attempt to gain sympathy for being recognized and treated like the celebrity he is. Manziel isn't the only quarterback to ever have gained a ton of publicity and won the Heisman Trophy. Other quarterbacks and college athletes found a way to attend class on campus and manage to avoid taking pictures of cash they had won. Manziel has pursued fame beyond the football field and has gained that fame. I'm not going to sympathize with him that he can't always handle the fame he pursued with such glee. I am planning on writing a post about an article related to Manziel's parking fine here soon (don't act like you aren't excited).
Anyway, back to the very important matter of why LeBron James doesn't smile enough. Again, this column is about all athletes, but only talks about James in the title because it is easier to gain attention and pageviews that way.
LeBron James had to be happy as the buzzer sounded to end Game 1 of the Eastern Conference Finals.
Yet the world’s best basketball player was scowling when his feet hit the ground, and he continued scowling as he wandered around the court. His teammates appeared equally peeved by the outrageous good fortune he’d brought them.
The Heat were probably angry it took a last second shot to defeat the Pacers in Game 1 of the series. The Heat could be angry they gave up 102 points at home. In fact, here is what LeBron said after the game:
"We're excited about the win," James said. "But we have to get better going into Game 2."
LeBron knew the Heat had to play better in Game 2 and not rely on a last second shot to win the game for them. He says he is excited about the win, but he is concerned about the Heat's performance going forward, which it turns out he had reason to be concerned.
Study the replays of James’ layup and the ensuing seconds and you’ll find only one guy wearing both an NBA uniform and a smile: Pacers center Roy Hibbert, who was buried on the losers’ bench.
Those who watched the game or watched more than a YouTube clip of the game know Roy Hibbert wasn't smiling because he was happy. He he was smiling out of frustration because he thought Frank Vogel should have left him in the game so he could have blocked the layup LeBron hit to win the game. Hibbert isn't always buried on the bench, but his smile masks his frustration with not being in the game.
James reprised the hot and bothered act during Game 2 of the NBA Finals, when he tipped off a 35-second display of athletic greatestness by stopping a Tiago Splitter dunk attempt dead, superhero style, while they were both above the rim.
LeBron should have immediately cracked a smile after blocking this shot and begun cracking jokes with the Heat fans so they know for sure just how happy he is that he blocked this shot. I can't see how James would have garnered any criticism if he had done this.
With the ball still in play after the block and the rest of his team already downcourt, James stayed beneath San Antonio’s backboard, glaring at the grandstands as if he’d just heard somebody up there razzing his mom. He joined his mates in time to assist on a three-pointer from Ray Allen, then capped the freakish extravaganza by forcing a turnover and charging in for a breakaway slam.
And of course as opposed to continuing to play basketball and stay focused on what was going on during the game, LeBron should have taken the time to smile and do a little happy jig after blocking Splitter's shot, thereby ensuring he wouldn't have assisted on the Ray Allen three-pointer nor forced the turnover.
As play stopped, James meandered about the floor sorta like Jim Valvano did just after his North Carolina State Wolfpack won the 1983 NCAA Tournament on Lorenzo Charles’ drop-in bucket. Back in the day, Valvano was looking to celebrate his good fortune by hugging somebody; here, James looked furious enough to ground and pound whoever crossed his path.
I don't know, James looked pretty excited to be on the court and was extremely pumped up about how the Heat were playing. Jim Valvano could afford to find someone to hug because the game was over, but the game wasn't over when LeBron meandered about the floor, at least the game was not officially over even if the Heat were winning handily.
LeBron James, Kevin Durant, Kobe Bryant, Chris Paul, and even Pacers up-and-comer Paul George treat every great play as if it’s a rebuke to a crowd of unseen doubters.
I'm surprised the author doesn't try to go down the whole "LeBron is feeding into the angry black man stereotype" route. It feels like a natural progression from the conversation the author is trying to start in this column.
It’s a sad reality of big-time sports: Nobody smiles when he’s happy.
It's a sad reality that those who don't normally watch sports haven't realized: It doesn't fucking matter if a player looks happy when he competes in sports or not.
Now the author will list examples of athletes who have smiled when they were competing and the author will fail to realize most of these athletes were smiling because they had just won a title or achieved something great. Basically, the sporting event was over, so they could smile at that point. The author even states later in this column that LeBron smiles when he wins a title, just like the players in the other examples the author will use, but the author expects LeBron to crack a wide smile everytime he does something great on the court no matter whether the play has stopped or not. It's ridiculous.
As only a member of the get-off-my-lawn generation would, I went on a YouTube binge after watching LeBron’s walk-off scowlfest just to confirm that there really was a time when great athletes cracked a smile. And there was! I found: Carlton Fisk windmilling his arms as he coaxed a batted ball fair to give the Boston Red Sox Game 5 of the 1975 World Series.
This homerun ended the game so Fisk felt like he could celebrate he just hit the game-winning home run. Nearly every baseball player who hits a walk-off home run smiles and celebrates after doing so. LeBron didn't win a game by blocking Splitter, so he didn't smile, and he was displeased with how the Heat played against the Pacers so his reaction to the win was more muted...though he did say he was happy to have won.
And the U.S. hockey team throwing gloves in the air and hopping on ice after beating the unbeatable Soviet Union squad in the 1980 Olympics
They had just won the gold medal in hockey, they had time and reason to celebrate. The U.S. hockey team wasn't throwing their gloves in the air and hopping on the ice after simply scoring a goal against the Soviet Union were they? I think not. LeBron just doesn't naturally get all excited on the court. Watch the celebration after the Heat won their latest title. Dwayne Wade is skipping around like a little boy, while LeBron is hugging his teammates and (being classy as matter of fact) while congratulating the San Antonio Spurs on a well-played series. I'm not a big LeBron James fan, but the way he congratulated the Spurs after winning the title causes me to gain more respect for him. Later, he celebrated, took pictures with kids, and smiled. LeBron wins titles, LeBron celebrates. I'm trying to remember how many times Michael Jordan or Larry Bird smiled on the court and I don't remember them being a smiling ray of sunshine.
The list goes on: Magic Johnson beaming
AFTER winning a title. In the pregame interview he smiled once, but still seemed serious about the game being played. He didn't smile continuously and act happy until the game was won.
and Ozzie Smith flipping and Joe Carter galloping, and … yeah, it’s an old, old list.
Joe Carter had just won the World Series on a walk-off home run, and again, he wasn't galloping when he hit a leadoff home run in the fourth inning, which is what LeBron's block of Splitter is more comparable to.
I can’t pinpoint exactly when it happened, but it’s undeniable that bliss has become non grata on the playing fields.
In professional sports, the best way to get a baseball upside your head or get fouled incredibly hard on the next possession is to start smiling and over-celebrating a good play you have made. Surely you understand and aren't serious about this.
For me, forward Michael Graham became the godfather of modern mean mugging while staring down everybody in his path during the 1983–1984 season. That was a championship year for the Hoyas.
Now everybody glares when good things happen.
But first, I read an article that has gotten some negative feedback around the Interwebs. It's about Johnny Manziel and the author criticizes Manziel for whining on Twitter about having to be Johnny Manziel. Specifically Manziel Tweeted,
Don't ever forget that I love A&M with all of my heart, but please please walk a day in my shoes
I was going to write and jump on this author as well, except I realized I think he has a point. Now I do understand Johnny Manziel is a young guy and if there was Twitter when I was college God only knows what kind of whining I would have done, but the basic point of the article is this:
Lounging in floor seats at an NBA game. Throwing out the first pitch at an MLB game. Going to the NBA Finals. Fanning cash he won at a casino. Going to Mexico on vacation.
He tweeted photos of him sitting courtside. He tweeted the wad of cash. He tweeted about hanging out with Hip-Hop stars. He – not anyone else – complained about living in a fishbowl after inviting everyone in.
The article really isn't about Manziel not having permission to make mistakes or be a kid. It's about Manziel attempting to gain sympathy from the public for being Johnny Manziel when he has created the persona and the issues he faces himself. I see what the author is trying to say. The author compares Manziel to A.J. McCarron, Marcus Lattimore, and Curt Phillips, guys who either suffered major setbacks while playing football or have gotten in the spotlight but not attempted to bask in it. No one is saying Manziel can't be a college student, but he has created all of this mayhem that surrounds him by showing the gambling money he has won on Twitter, sitting courtside at NBA games, and generally making an effort to be a celebrity. That's fine if Manziel doesn't like how it has turned out for him, and I feel sympathy he has gotten the fame he wants but doesn't like it, but I won't provide sympathy to have to walk a day in his shoes in order to understand him.
So while I understand the criticism of the author's criticism of Manziel, I think those criticizing the author are missing the point. Manziel can be a college student and make mistakes, that's allowed. What's not allowed is to put himself in the spotlight and then attempt to gain sympathy for being recognized and treated like the celebrity he is. Manziel isn't the only quarterback to ever have gained a ton of publicity and won the Heisman Trophy. Other quarterbacks and college athletes found a way to attend class on campus and manage to avoid taking pictures of cash they had won. Manziel has pursued fame beyond the football field and has gained that fame. I'm not going to sympathize with him that he can't always handle the fame he pursued with such glee. I am planning on writing a post about an article related to Manziel's parking fine here soon (don't act like you aren't excited).
Anyway, back to the very important matter of why LeBron James doesn't smile enough. Again, this column is about all athletes, but only talks about James in the title because it is easier to gain attention and pageviews that way.
LeBron James had to be happy as the buzzer sounded to end Game 1 of the Eastern Conference Finals.
Yet the world’s best basketball player was scowling when his feet hit the ground, and he continued scowling as he wandered around the court. His teammates appeared equally peeved by the outrageous good fortune he’d brought them.
The Heat were probably angry it took a last second shot to defeat the Pacers in Game 1 of the series. The Heat could be angry they gave up 102 points at home. In fact, here is what LeBron said after the game:
"We're excited about the win," James said. "But we have to get better going into Game 2."
LeBron knew the Heat had to play better in Game 2 and not rely on a last second shot to win the game for them. He says he is excited about the win, but he is concerned about the Heat's performance going forward, which it turns out he had reason to be concerned.
Study the replays of James’ layup and the ensuing seconds and you’ll find only one guy wearing both an NBA uniform and a smile: Pacers center Roy Hibbert, who was buried on the losers’ bench.
Those who watched the game or watched more than a YouTube clip of the game know Roy Hibbert wasn't smiling because he was happy. He he was smiling out of frustration because he thought Frank Vogel should have left him in the game so he could have blocked the layup LeBron hit to win the game. Hibbert isn't always buried on the bench, but his smile masks his frustration with not being in the game.
James reprised the hot and bothered act during Game 2 of the NBA Finals, when he tipped off a 35-second display of athletic greatestness by stopping a Tiago Splitter dunk attempt dead, superhero style, while they were both above the rim.
LeBron should have immediately cracked a smile after blocking this shot and begun cracking jokes with the Heat fans so they know for sure just how happy he is that he blocked this shot. I can't see how James would have garnered any criticism if he had done this.
With the ball still in play after the block and the rest of his team already downcourt, James stayed beneath San Antonio’s backboard, glaring at the grandstands as if he’d just heard somebody up there razzing his mom. He joined his mates in time to assist on a three-pointer from Ray Allen, then capped the freakish extravaganza by forcing a turnover and charging in for a breakaway slam.
And of course as opposed to continuing to play basketball and stay focused on what was going on during the game, LeBron should have taken the time to smile and do a little happy jig after blocking Splitter's shot, thereby ensuring he wouldn't have assisted on the Ray Allen three-pointer nor forced the turnover.
As play stopped, James meandered about the floor sorta like Jim Valvano did just after his North Carolina State Wolfpack won the 1983 NCAA Tournament on Lorenzo Charles’ drop-in bucket. Back in the day, Valvano was looking to celebrate his good fortune by hugging somebody; here, James looked furious enough to ground and pound whoever crossed his path.
I don't know, James looked pretty excited to be on the court and was extremely pumped up about how the Heat were playing. Jim Valvano could afford to find someone to hug because the game was over, but the game wasn't over when LeBron meandered about the floor, at least the game was not officially over even if the Heat were winning handily.
LeBron James, Kevin Durant, Kobe Bryant, Chris Paul, and even Pacers up-and-comer Paul George treat every great play as if it’s a rebuke to a crowd of unseen doubters.
I'm surprised the author doesn't try to go down the whole "LeBron is feeding into the angry black man stereotype" route. It feels like a natural progression from the conversation the author is trying to start in this column.
It’s a sad reality of big-time sports: Nobody smiles when he’s happy.
It's a sad reality that those who don't normally watch sports haven't realized: It doesn't fucking matter if a player looks happy when he competes in sports or not.
Now the author will list examples of athletes who have smiled when they were competing and the author will fail to realize most of these athletes were smiling because they had just won a title or achieved something great. Basically, the sporting event was over, so they could smile at that point. The author even states later in this column that LeBron smiles when he wins a title, just like the players in the other examples the author will use, but the author expects LeBron to crack a wide smile everytime he does something great on the court no matter whether the play has stopped or not. It's ridiculous.
As only a member of the get-off-my-lawn generation would, I went on a YouTube binge after watching LeBron’s walk-off scowlfest just to confirm that there really was a time when great athletes cracked a smile. And there was! I found: Carlton Fisk windmilling his arms as he coaxed a batted ball fair to give the Boston Red Sox Game 5 of the 1975 World Series.
This homerun ended the game so Fisk felt like he could celebrate he just hit the game-winning home run. Nearly every baseball player who hits a walk-off home run smiles and celebrates after doing so. LeBron didn't win a game by blocking Splitter, so he didn't smile, and he was displeased with how the Heat played against the Pacers so his reaction to the win was more muted...though he did say he was happy to have won.
And the U.S. hockey team throwing gloves in the air and hopping on ice after beating the unbeatable Soviet Union squad in the 1980 Olympics
They had just won the gold medal in hockey, they had time and reason to celebrate. The U.S. hockey team wasn't throwing their gloves in the air and hopping on the ice after simply scoring a goal against the Soviet Union were they? I think not. LeBron just doesn't naturally get all excited on the court. Watch the celebration after the Heat won their latest title. Dwayne Wade is skipping around like a little boy, while LeBron is hugging his teammates and (being classy as matter of fact) while congratulating the San Antonio Spurs on a well-played series. I'm not a big LeBron James fan, but the way he congratulated the Spurs after winning the title causes me to gain more respect for him. Later, he celebrated, took pictures with kids, and smiled. LeBron wins titles, LeBron celebrates. I'm trying to remember how many times Michael Jordan or Larry Bird smiled on the court and I don't remember them being a smiling ray of sunshine.
The list goes on: Magic Johnson beaming
AFTER winning a title. In the pregame interview he smiled once, but still seemed serious about the game being played. He didn't smile continuously and act happy until the game was won.
and Ozzie Smith flipping and Joe Carter galloping, and … yeah, it’s an old, old list.
Joe Carter had just won the World Series on a walk-off home run, and again, he wasn't galloping when he hit a leadoff home run in the fourth inning, which is what LeBron's block of Splitter is more comparable to.
I can’t pinpoint exactly when it happened, but it’s undeniable that bliss has become non grata on the playing fields.
In professional sports, the best way to get a baseball upside your head or get fouled incredibly hard on the next possession is to start smiling and over-celebrating a good play you have made. Surely you understand and aren't serious about this.
For me, forward Michael Graham became the godfather of modern mean mugging while staring down everybody in his path during the 1983–1984 season. That was a championship year for the Hoyas.
Now everybody glares when good things happen.
(And no, I don't know why the formatting changed here. I tried to fix it and couldn't)
Damn you Michael Graham for ruining everything for everyone. You have ruined the author's perception and bizarre pedophilic (wasn't a word, but now it is) need to have grown men act like children while competing in professional sports.
Lately, a preteen baseball player known as Lil Papi has become an Internet star on account of videos in which he acts mad beyond his years after hitting what for a kid his age qualify as tape-measure homers.
He's not mad, he's showboating. If you look at the entire video the author linked the kid was clearly very happy after touching home plate when he ran to the dugout. But again, don't pay attention to the whole clip, but simply pay attention to the author's misconception the child was angry about hitting a home run.
Even Tim Tebow promotes a joy-is-soft ethos when in uniform. His name’s synonymous with making a joyful noise. Yet when he scored his first TD as a pro in 2010, his celebration was less heavenly than Beelzebubbly
Are you fucking serious? The author is either completely blind or praying that no one clicks that link. Tebow immediately flexes his muscles after scoring the touchdown, then jumps up and celebrates with teammates, and then runs joyfully (I use the word since the author likes that word) back to the bench.
When Lisa Leslie completed the first-ever WNBA dunk in 2002, she smiled wide, threw her arms over her head, and pranced to center court and into the arms of her Los Angeles Sparks teammates. Compare that to Brittney Griner’s insolence after her first two WNBA slams—still only the fifth and sixth dunks in the history of a league that is now in its 17th season.
For God's sake, watch the video. Griner had to get back on defense. She didn't have time to prance around like she had just cured cancer. The author (whose name is Dave McKenna if that matters) reminds me of Gregg Easterbrook in a few ways. He's simplistic in his sports observations. He also posts links that don't support his argument and he acts like he can't easily be proven wrong. Griner did not have time to start celebrating because the game was still being played.
For LeBron, expressionlessness is a way to broadcast that he cares about the team above all else. In naming him its 2012 Sportsman of the Year, Sports Illustrated attributed James’ first championship season at least in part to his having “muted his on-court celebrations” and “cut the jokes in film sessions.”
There is background to LeBron not celebrating and being more serious on the court. Remember back when he used to joke around with his Cavs teammates and pretend to take group pictures before each game? He was criticized for not being serious enough on the court, so he gets more serious and now he gets criticized by some for being too serious. Obviously he can't win, but there is background as to why LeBron is being more serious on the court.
When he made that shot to win Game 1 of the Pacers series, James was asked in the post-game press conference why he didn’t celebrate. “I made a layup,” he said. “I’ve been doing that since I was 8 years old.”
Remember when Larry Bird used to celebrate making a layup? You don't?
Given the championship-or-else bar that he’s set for himself, James only gives himself permission to smile under two circumstances: when he wins a title
Sort of like the 1980 U.S. Hockey team and Joe Carter did?
Earlier this year, a 50-year-old named Michael Drysch won $75,000 during one of those bread-and-circusish sponsored events that all NBA teams now inflict on the fans during timeouts.
So even when the NBA or LeBron tries to show some joy that the fans can see, Dave McKenna will have none of it. There's only joy displayed when he says there can be joy displayed!
James was so overcome with glee that he abandoned the Heat bench to tackle Drysch and roll around on the floor with the fan at center court.
And LeBron was able to be overcome with joy because there wasn't a game being played at that point. See the correlation between when LeBron celebrates and when he doesn't? When a title is won or the game isn't being played, LeBron shows more joy, but when the game is still being play he mutes his joy in favor of continuing to do his job.
In an interview after the game, NBA TV commentators told James they were struck by the “genuine joy” he showed when Drysch’s shot went through the hoop. Everybody who saw it was.
But "athletes" (meaning: LeBron James and LeBron James only) are too serious and we shall ignore all evidence to the contrary.
LeBron and the Heat don’t need Drysch. But, win or lose, they’d be a whole lot more fun to watch if LeBron celebrated his own skillful feats with as much bliss as he did that fan’s lucky shot.
Sort like this?
So, c’mon, LeBron. Turn that frown upside down. If you win another title, act like you haven’t been there before.
LeBron did smile after winning a title. In fact, the author states that LeBron smiled after the Heat won the 2012 NBA Title so I'm not sure why he thinks LeBron wouldn't have smiled after winning the title this past season. Thanks for having the guts to tackle the tough, pertinent and controversial sports topics "Slate" magazine. We as sports fans owe you a debt of gratitude.
Damn you Michael Graham for ruining everything for everyone. You have ruined the author's perception and bizarre pedophilic (wasn't a word, but now it is) need to have grown men act like children while competing in professional sports.
Lately, a preteen baseball player known as Lil Papi has become an Internet star on account of videos in which he acts mad beyond his years after hitting what for a kid his age qualify as tape-measure homers.
He's not mad, he's showboating. If you look at the entire video the author linked the kid was clearly very happy after touching home plate when he ran to the dugout. But again, don't pay attention to the whole clip, but simply pay attention to the author's misconception the child was angry about hitting a home run.
Even Tim Tebow promotes a joy-is-soft ethos when in uniform. His name’s synonymous with making a joyful noise. Yet when he scored his first TD as a pro in 2010, his celebration was less heavenly than Beelzebubbly
Are you fucking serious? The author is either completely blind or praying that no one clicks that link. Tebow immediately flexes his muscles after scoring the touchdown, then jumps up and celebrates with teammates, and then runs joyfully (I use the word since the author likes that word) back to the bench.
When Lisa Leslie completed the first-ever WNBA dunk in 2002, she smiled wide, threw her arms over her head, and pranced to center court and into the arms of her Los Angeles Sparks teammates. Compare that to Brittney Griner’s insolence after her first two WNBA slams—still only the fifth and sixth dunks in the history of a league that is now in its 17th season.
For God's sake, watch the video. Griner had to get back on defense. She didn't have time to prance around like she had just cured cancer. The author (whose name is Dave McKenna if that matters) reminds me of Gregg Easterbrook in a few ways. He's simplistic in his sports observations. He also posts links that don't support his argument and he acts like he can't easily be proven wrong. Griner did not have time to start celebrating because the game was still being played.
For LeBron, expressionlessness is a way to broadcast that he cares about the team above all else. In naming him its 2012 Sportsman of the Year, Sports Illustrated attributed James’ first championship season at least in part to his having “muted his on-court celebrations” and “cut the jokes in film sessions.”
There is background to LeBron not celebrating and being more serious on the court. Remember back when he used to joke around with his Cavs teammates and pretend to take group pictures before each game? He was criticized for not being serious enough on the court, so he gets more serious and now he gets criticized by some for being too serious. Obviously he can't win, but there is background as to why LeBron is being more serious on the court.
When he made that shot to win Game 1 of the Pacers series, James was asked in the post-game press conference why he didn’t celebrate. “I made a layup,” he said. “I’ve been doing that since I was 8 years old.”
Remember when Larry Bird used to celebrate making a layup? You don't?
Given the championship-or-else bar that he’s set for himself, James only gives himself permission to smile under two circumstances: when he wins a title
Sort of like the 1980 U.S. Hockey team and Joe Carter did?
Earlier this year, a 50-year-old named Michael Drysch won $75,000 during one of those bread-and-circusish sponsored events that all NBA teams now inflict on the fans during timeouts.
So even when the NBA or LeBron tries to show some joy that the fans can see, Dave McKenna will have none of it. There's only joy displayed when he says there can be joy displayed!
James was so overcome with glee that he abandoned the Heat bench to tackle Drysch and roll around on the floor with the fan at center court.
And LeBron was able to be overcome with joy because there wasn't a game being played at that point. See the correlation between when LeBron celebrates and when he doesn't? When a title is won or the game isn't being played, LeBron shows more joy, but when the game is still being play he mutes his joy in favor of continuing to do his job.
In an interview after the game, NBA TV commentators told James they were struck by the “genuine joy” he showed when Drysch’s shot went through the hoop. Everybody who saw it was.
But "athletes" (meaning: LeBron James and LeBron James only) are too serious and we shall ignore all evidence to the contrary.
LeBron and the Heat don’t need Drysch. But, win or lose, they’d be a whole lot more fun to watch if LeBron celebrated his own skillful feats with as much bliss as he did that fan’s lucky shot.
Sort like this?
So, c’mon, LeBron. Turn that frown upside down. If you win another title, act like you haven’t been there before.
LeBron did smile after winning a title. In fact, the author states that LeBron smiled after the Heat won the 2012 NBA Title so I'm not sure why he thinks LeBron wouldn't have smiled after winning the title this past season. Thanks for having the guts to tackle the tough, pertinent and controversial sports topics "Slate" magazine. We as sports fans owe you a debt of gratitude.
Wednesday, July 18, 2012
4 comments Terence Moore Hates Celebrations, Rituals and Small Children Because They Always Look so Smug
Terence Moore, the same guy who thinks umpires do an excellently above average job correctly calling close plays, hates baseball rituals. He thinks baseball rituals are not creative enough anymore and they are becoming copycat. The issue is that celebrations are just that, celebrations, not original works of expression intended to be creative and new. Something exciting happens and people will start celebrating this happening. The originality of the celebration isn't really thought of in the moment. Terence sounds like a depressed teenager. Everything is ripped off and nothing means anything anymore.
Here's just one example why a slew of baseball rituals deserve more yawns than applauds. As soon as Oakland Athletics rookie Derek Norris reached home plate last weekend after his walk-off blast against the San Francisco Giants, he (all together now) flipped off his helmet, and then he (uh-huh) jumped on the plate with (you've guessed it) nearly everybody in Alameda County surrounding him.
Derek Norris is a rookie and hit a game-winning home run. Maybe the celebration isn't original, but it is deserved. There is a video of the home run accompanying this article and you clearly see only his teammates surrounding him. Hyperbole and exaggerating is so played-out.
That "thing" has gotten old, and so have a bunch of other things that suddenly have become baseball rituals.
Like "running the bases" and "not using chewing tobacco."
(Looks up the definition of "ritual" and it turns out it is an established procedure for doing something)
That said, even though I am a traditionalist, who still cringes at the thought of baseball without sunshine at Wrigley Field,
I roll my eyes at the thought of Terence Moore cringing at the thought of baseball without sunshine at Wrigley Field.
I'm perturbed by players, fans and teams in general who take somebody else's thing and pretend it is their thing to the point of making the original thing irrelevant.
Yeah, I know! Complaining about things that don't matter, such as this, are so played-out and irrelevant. I'm sure another writer has complained about baseball rituals in the past, so Terence Moore is just taking that original complaining and pretending it his own complaining. How dare he does this? Actually, I'm sure my complaining about Terence Moore complaining about baseball rituals is probably copycatting someone else complaining about another sportswriter complaining about baseball rituals...which leads me to the conclusion the success of Maroon 5 in the mainstream does indeed mean that life has no meaning or value.
The bottom line is, only folks who invented a particular thing in baseball should have the right to do it. Otherwise it should go the way of flannel uniforms.
Most of the people who "invent" these rituals are either retired or dead, so suggesting the ritual should die/retire with this person seems a bit extreme.
Like The Silent Thing.
It happened after Nick Punto slammed a shot into the second deck of Rogers Centre in Toronto for the Boston Red Sox.
It's Nick Punto. He hit a home run into the second deck of Rogers Centre. Nick Punto isn't supposed to do this. So they gave him the Silent Treatment. Big deal.
It also happened after Atlanta Braves rookie Andrelton Simmons ripped the first home run of his career, and I'll expound on this one.
Simmons told reporters afterward, "I saw the guys sitting down. I've got a good read on them. I knew what they were doing."
The first time The Silent Thing was done, great. Funny. Clever. But now? Who cares?
So who was the first team to do the Silent Treatment? This is important information, since after all this team is the only team in MLB history who has Terence Moore's permission to do this celebration. Who knows who the first team to do this was...
Terence Moore doesn't tell us what team was the first to do this, which gives me the impression he doesn't know.
In no particular order, let's return to that "throwing back of the home run" thing that should only be a Chicago Cubs thing.
You should remember that, along the way to the Cubs' infamous collapse of 1969, the Bleacher Bums became particularly vibrant. As a result, they began an oddity by throwing back home run balls that were slammed into their midst by sluggers from the opposing teams. Just like that, a Wrigley Field tradition was born.
So thereby no other teams should ever be able to throw a home run ball back on the field?
It was only a Wrigley Field tradition for years -- and even for decades -- and then it wasn't. It was everywhere,
Then all of a sudden every fan base was throwing baseballs back on the field and absolute madness descended upon the game of baseball until the Cubs were forced to field a terrible team again in an effort to make the act of throwing the plethora of home runs balls hit by the opponent back onto the field their own ritual again.
Unlike the Cubs' tradition with home-run balls, the genesis of The Shaving Cream Pie Thing is more difficult to determine.
But that's not going to stop Terence Moore from complaining the original team who did the Shaving Cream Pie Thing, whichever team that may be, should be the only team who can take part in this ritual.
But it was at least prominent during the early 1990s in Philadelphia, where reliever Mitch Williams loved smashing shaving cream pies into the faces of his fellow Phillies during interviews.
And we all know any baseball tradition started by Mitch Williams must forever stay pure and untainted by the disgusting imitators who will sully the good name associated with Mitch Williams.
The Rally Cap Thing belonged solely to the 1985 New York Mets (if you don't include its cameo appearances with the Texas Rangers during the late 1970s).
So, the Rangers pretty much invented the rally cap and the 1985 Mets had no business ever doing it? That's how I'm reading this. What the hell is the "cameo" of a tradition? The Rangers either started it in the 70's, so the '85 Mets were ripping them off, or the Rangers didn't start the tradition. I would think this distinction is important to Terence Moore since he is such a hardass about baseball rituals.
To promote rallies, Mets players turned their caps inside out or put them on backward, and they continued the practice through 1986 along the way to a World Series championship.
Doesn't this mean the 1986 Mets copied the 1985 Mets by turning their hats backwards? HOW IN THE HELL IS THIS ACCEPTABLE HUMAN BEHAVIOR?
If that wasn't enough, baseball went from The Rally Cap to the Rally Monkey, which actually was an ingenious idea. In 2002, the Angels started playing a video of a jumping monkey on their video screen at home games to inspire players and fans. It helped propel the team to a World Series title.
Still, given the ties of St. Louis and the Cardinals to Clydesdales and a certain brewery, the Cardinals do play that Budweiser jingle during every home game.
Braves fans do the Tomahawk Chop because they are a racist, inconsiderate assholes who would only care they are stereotyping American Indians and change their behavior if they weren't so apathetic to the whole "baseball" thing.
The Bleacher Creatures in the Bronx yell the names of each player on the Yankees team because the bandwagon Yankees fans need to know which player is which on the field.
Mets fans have a ritual of throwing batteries at people because they have a severe distaste for recycling.
Marlins fans have a ritual of not showing up for Marlins games, because that's the way it has always been done.
Most teams have a city-specific ritual like the Budweiser jingle.
Then again, I was there in Oakland in October 1981 when something called The Wave made its national television debut. It seemed as if that crowd-pleasing thing would be the Athletics' "thing" forever.
Now that I think about it, the Wave isn't really a celebration or a ritual done during a celebration by players. I thought that's what Terence Moore didn't like. Apparently he hates all indications of excitement from players and fans alike. It seemed at first Terence hated player-initiated celebrations, but now it appears he hates it when fans act like they are enjoying a game. Enjoyment is so played-out.
(turns on his favorite Morrissey song)
You know the rest.
Now these rituals are everywhere and baseball has been completely ruined.
I know I have said this before, which means it is all played-out and tired by now, but this has to be the most pointless column I've read in a long time.
Here's just one example why a slew of baseball rituals deserve more yawns than applauds. As soon as Oakland Athletics rookie Derek Norris reached home plate last weekend after his walk-off blast against the San Francisco Giants, he (all together now) flipped off his helmet, and then he (uh-huh) jumped on the plate with (you've guessed it) nearly everybody in Alameda County surrounding him.
Derek Norris is a rookie and hit a game-winning home run. Maybe the celebration isn't original, but it is deserved. There is a video of the home run accompanying this article and you clearly see only his teammates surrounding him. Hyperbole and exaggerating is so played-out.
That "thing" has gotten old, and so have a bunch of other things that suddenly have become baseball rituals.
Like "running the bases" and "not using chewing tobacco."
Or shall I say ripped-off baseball rituals.
Everything is ripped off in some fashion or another. What does it matter? Does every celebration have to be original? Besides, if something is a "ritual" then doesn't that mean it is repeated in the same manner every time?(Looks up the definition of "ritual" and it turns out it is an established procedure for doing something)
That said, even though I am a traditionalist, who still cringes at the thought of baseball without sunshine at Wrigley Field,
I roll my eyes at the thought of Terence Moore cringing at the thought of baseball without sunshine at Wrigley Field.
I'm perturbed by players, fans and teams in general who take somebody else's thing and pretend it is their thing to the point of making the original thing irrelevant.
Yeah, I know! Complaining about things that don't matter, such as this, are so played-out and irrelevant. I'm sure another writer has complained about baseball rituals in the past, so Terence Moore is just taking that original complaining and pretending it his own complaining. How dare he does this? Actually, I'm sure my complaining about Terence Moore complaining about baseball rituals is probably copycatting someone else complaining about another sportswriter complaining about baseball rituals...which leads me to the conclusion the success of Maroon 5 in the mainstream does indeed mean that life has no meaning or value.
The bottom line is, only folks who invented a particular thing in baseball should have the right to do it. Otherwise it should go the way of flannel uniforms.
Most of the people who "invent" these rituals are either retired or dead, so suggesting the ritual should die/retire with this person seems a bit extreme.
Like The Silent Thing.
A guy hits a home run, rounds the bases and returns to the dugout to find his teammates, coaches and manager acting as if they are preparing for a funeral. After a while, everybody celebrates, with all of this supposedly coming as a surprise to the home-run guy.
The Silent Treatment isn't intended to be creative or earth-shatteringly original in any way. It's intended to needle the person hitting the home run by acting as if they don't care. It's funny, and even if you don't like it, teams aren't giving the Silent Treatment that often.It happened after Nick Punto slammed a shot into the second deck of Rogers Centre in Toronto for the Boston Red Sox.
It's Nick Punto. He hit a home run into the second deck of Rogers Centre. Nick Punto isn't supposed to do this. So they gave him the Silent Treatment. Big deal.
It also happened after Atlanta Braves rookie Andrelton Simmons ripped the first home run of his career, and I'll expound on this one.
When Simmons returned to the Braves dugout, all of his teammates ignored him. They didn't even look in his direction despite his homer pushing the Braves closer to victory. Then, out of nowhere, they all leaped from their seats, formed the widest of smiles and rushed to congratulate the star of the moment.
The horror! So they were quiet at first and then went crazy to congratulate him? Why wasn't the team punished for these actions? Perhaps beheaded or forced to hear Jason Whitlock's full opinion of this fantastic and earth-shattering column he has just written? He puts everyone in a vacant you know!Simmons told reporters afterward, "I saw the guys sitting down. I've got a good read on them. I knew what they were doing."
See what I'm saying?
No. Not at all. The Silent Treatment isn't supposed to be creative and original. It is a way to tease a player who hit a home run. Of course the player who hit the home run is going to know what his teammates are up to. The idea every single player in the dugout missed the home run or doesn't care to celebrate the home run is ridiculous. So the player who hit the home run and is on his way back to the dugout usually knows what's going on. The celebration doesn't have to be completely original to be fun.The first time The Silent Thing was done, great. Funny. Clever. But now? Who cares?
So who was the first team to do the Silent Treatment? This is important information, since after all this team is the only team in MLB history who has Terence Moore's permission to do this celebration. Who knows who the first team to do this was...
Terence Moore doesn't tell us what team was the first to do this, which gives me the impression he doesn't know.
In no particular order, let's return to that "throwing back of the home run" thing that should only be a Chicago Cubs thing.
I mean, the Cubs haven't much of anything else to cherish, so why take even that away from them?
You shouldn't.
Well, I won't then. Glad we have this settled.You should remember that, along the way to the Cubs' infamous collapse of 1969, the Bleacher Bums became particularly vibrant. As a result, they began an oddity by throwing back home run balls that were slammed into their midst by sluggers from the opposing teams. Just like that, a Wrigley Field tradition was born.
So thereby no other teams should ever be able to throw a home run ball back on the field?
It was only a Wrigley Field tradition for years -- and even for decades -- and then it wasn't. It was everywhere,
Then all of a sudden every fan base was throwing baseballs back on the field and absolute madness descended upon the game of baseball until the Cubs were forced to field a terrible team again in an effort to make the act of throwing the plethora of home runs balls hit by the opponent back onto the field their own ritual again.
Unlike the Cubs' tradition with home-run balls, the genesis of The Shaving Cream Pie Thing is more difficult to determine.
But that's not going to stop Terence Moore from complaining the original team who did the Shaving Cream Pie Thing, whichever team that may be, should be the only team who can take part in this ritual.
But it was at least prominent during the early 1990s in Philadelphia, where reliever Mitch Williams loved smashing shaving cream pies into the faces of his fellow Phillies during interviews.
And we all know any baseball tradition started by Mitch Williams must forever stay pure and untainted by the disgusting imitators who will sully the good name associated with Mitch Williams.
The Rally Cap Thing belonged solely to the 1985 New York Mets (if you don't include its cameo appearances with the Texas Rangers during the late 1970s).
So, the Rangers pretty much invented the rally cap and the 1985 Mets had no business ever doing it? That's how I'm reading this. What the hell is the "cameo" of a tradition? The Rangers either started it in the 70's, so the '85 Mets were ripping them off, or the Rangers didn't start the tradition. I would think this distinction is important to Terence Moore since he is such a hardass about baseball rituals.
To promote rallies, Mets players turned their caps inside out or put them on backward, and they continued the practice through 1986 along the way to a World Series championship.
Doesn't this mean the 1986 Mets copied the 1985 Mets by turning their hats backwards? HOW IN THE HELL IS THIS ACCEPTABLE HUMAN BEHAVIOR?
If that wasn't enough, baseball went from The Rally Cap to the Rally Monkey, which actually was an ingenious idea. In 2002, the Angels started playing a video of a jumping monkey on their video screen at home games to inspire players and fans. It helped propel the team to a World Series title.
Nine years after that, the St. Louis Cardinals countered with their Rally Squirrel.
The Cardinals had a Rally Squirrel because an actual squirrel came on the field during a playoff game. The Angels didn't have a monkey randomly enter the field of play during a playoff game, though I would love to see that happen, so I don't see the Cardinals as ripping off the Angels.Still, given the ties of St. Louis and the Cardinals to Clydesdales and a certain brewery, the Cardinals do play that Budweiser jingle during every home game.
Nobody else can do that with a straight face.
And no one else would want to do that because that is a ritual specific to the city of St. Louis. Other teams have city-specific rituals too.Braves fans do the Tomahawk Chop because they are a racist, inconsiderate assholes who would only care they are stereotyping American Indians and change their behavior if they weren't so apathetic to the whole "baseball" thing.
The Bleacher Creatures in the Bronx yell the names of each player on the Yankees team because the bandwagon Yankees fans need to know which player is which on the field.
Mets fans have a ritual of throwing batteries at people because they have a severe distaste for recycling.
Marlins fans have a ritual of not showing up for Marlins games, because that's the way it has always been done.
Most teams have a city-specific ritual like the Budweiser jingle.
Then again, I was there in Oakland in October 1981 when something called The Wave made its national television debut. It seemed as if that crowd-pleasing thing would be the Athletics' "thing" forever.
Now that I think about it, the Wave isn't really a celebration or a ritual done during a celebration by players. I thought that's what Terence Moore didn't like. Apparently he hates all indications of excitement from players and fans alike. It seemed at first Terence hated player-initiated celebrations, but now it appears he hates it when fans act like they are enjoying a game. Enjoyment is so played-out.
(turns on his favorite Morrissey song)
You know the rest.
Now these rituals are everywhere and baseball has been completely ruined.
I know I have said this before, which means it is all played-out and tired by now, but this has to be the most pointless column I've read in a long time.
Thursday, March 17, 2011
5 comments To Celebrate Or Not To Celebrate
I'm all about big dunks and obnoxious celebrations. In the right circumstances, of course. Normally we watch awful player x celebrate a meaningless dunk in garbage time. In the video above, you'll notice that unfortunately Dwyane Wade has entered this lamentable group of players.
First let's take a look at the celebration. His sideways Dante Culpepper celebratory hand swinging has creepy-guy-at-a-club written all over it. But I'm not going to put all of the blame on D-Wade. It's clear that he had nothing prepared. But it's also clear that he's not a natural celebrator. Thankfully, he's not alone. We've already seen (in a clearly bigger moment) Alan Houston simply sprint after sinking a game winner. Kobe Bryant chooses to extend his lower jaw with each dagger. None of these celebrations is truly satisfactory. Give me something creative. Maybe take lessons from B.J. Raji. But more importantly, if you're not a natural, be prepared. Especially if you're a player of Dwyane Wade's quality. It's more than likely that that celebration will come in handy.
That said, there are some clear rules for warranted celebrations. After the above dunk, Miami was down 8 points. At most, a fist pump or a quick crowd stare down is permissible. Any further celebration both vastly overstates the enormity of the moment and seems a bit ridiculous. Granted, Wade's dunk was sweet. But he's full of highlight moments, so save the celebration for when it matters.
If you're not a star player, you barely have any celebratory rights. Outside of late-game big time shots or clear top 1o SportsCenter plays (during a close game), you shut your mouth and keep your arms and legs inside the vehicle. Nothing's worse than a J.R. Smith unprompted and unnecessary dance. It's almost as bad as the refs who think fans attend to watch the black and whites blow those whistles.
Sunday, February 13, 2011
7 comments In General, Rushing the Court Is Stupid
Usually Dylan does the insightful opinion-editorial type posts, but I have an issue that annoys me and I wanted to get it out there. I swear I have talked about this issue before, but I can't find it anywhere in the archives. So I will harp on this issue again and assume I haven't talked about it yet. I hate it when fans storm the court. I will detail some times when storming the court is fine, but in general I pretty much don't like it. I don't get why a group of fans would want to say, "We are such a terrible team, yet we won the game. Let's have a huge celebration on the court to celebrate the fact we are a lousy team yet won a big game."
Those of you who follow me on Twitter see me whine about this a lot. I am a huge fan of college basketball, but along with the stupid officiating (I'm not sure college officials really know how to call a charge correctly. They call it way too much...that and I pretty much have a problem with the proliferation of charges calls made), I see rushing the court as my next big college basketball annoyance.
Seth Davis address this issue in a recent mailbag and I sort of agree with his position.
How did you feel about the Washington State fans storming the floor after beating an 18th-ranked team in January? It was a big debate here in Seattle.
My second reaction is usually, "How lame." When the fans storm a court, they are saying that the other team is so much better than theirs that the simple act of scoring more points is cause for a wild, unhinged celebration. "We're so inferior, yet we won anyway! Yippee!"
Exactly. It is a fan base saying, "Wow, we are a terrible team but we somehow managed to beat this team anyway, we will excessively celebrate this accomplishment." Winning a game is a great thing, but an over-the-top celebration (which is what rushing the court is) isn't required every time a Top 25 team is beaten on the road.
Earlier this year, Indiana University students rushed the court after defeating Illinois. I initially have a problem with this because they are Indiana University. They were in the NCAA Championship game just a few years ago, but have had sanctions and made the error of having anything to do with Kelvin Sampson, so they are clearly rebuilding. On its face, I can't believe the fans for Indiana University would rush the court and I realize it is just kids having fun, but it just seems weird for me that Indiana would rush the court. Of course many of the students haven't seen a win over a ranked team, which says a lot about how far the program has fallen. Still, I cringed a bit in hearing this happened...but in the end I guess I don't have a huge problem with it, but barely.
Here is my opinion when it is never fine to rush the court, followed by the exceptions to this rule. I hope these rules make sense and I don't think they contradict each other (also, I am not egotistical enough to think I have covered every situation possible, but I did try):
1. When it is a rivalry game.
It is not acceptable to rush the court in a rivalry game. Washington State should not rush the court when they beat Washington. Have some respect for yourself and your program. Rivals should have close games where no one knows which team will win and the game is contested bitterly with something (tangible or intangible) at stake. Washington State made the Sweet Sixteen just two years ago. A rivalry should involve two teams that compete bitterly against each other to where one team hasn't traditionally overwhelmed the other team. To rush the court after a win is to essentially admit your team is inferior and it is a shock you won the game. That's not really too much of a rivalry if it is that shocking one of the teams won.
Exception:
A. When one team has gone through something difficult, like Indiana and their sanctions which was not the fault of their current players or current coaching staff, for 2-3 years which has put the rivalry into a one-sided affair. Simply being a terrible basketball team doesn't cut it. There have to be external forces other than the talent on one team isn't very good. Whether that is sanctions, a tragedy in the program or something like this.
Here's an easy example: Indiana had to deal with the loss of scholarship players due to Kelvin Sampson being a disgrace and so the entire program essentially had to be rebuilt from the ground floor back up. Rushing the court, while admitting the program has fallen, can be seen as acceptable to me. They have overcome a lot and got a big win. Still, it is Indiana University. It's not like they don't have a winning tradition, so on that end I wish they hadn't rushed the court.
Here's another example where rushing the court wasn't appropriate: If Indiana had fired Kelvin Sampson for being terrible and was terrible while trying to rebuild the team, it is not fine to rush the court. If there wasn't a loss of scholarships or the loss of a couple good recruiting classes, which is what happened to Indiana, then it is just a matter of your team being terrible. No need to rush the court in celebration the lack of competence in the past.
2. If both teams are ranked with in 10 spots of each other.
There is no reason to rush the court if both teams are ranked. I can't even think of huge exceptions to this rule. There are not too many. If you are ranked #11 and beat #1 at home, well you are obviously a good team so show some fucking pride in your school.
Exception:
If one team has made the move to D-I over the past five years. If a team is ranked #24 in the country and made the move to Division-I in the last five years then beating #20 at home may be a cause for celebration as a coronation of your program becoming a successful Division-I program.
3. If you are a part of the following rivalries. Obviously new rivalries can be added to this and subtracted over time, but here's the current list of rivalries where a win is not fine to rush the court:
Duke v. UNC
Kentucky v. Louisville
Kansas v. Missouri
Indiana v. Purdue
Michigan v. Michigan State
Florida v. Kentucky
Even lesser rivalries that have cropped up over the past couple of years, like the ones listed, it is not going to be fine anymore to rush the court:
UCLA-Arizona
West Virginia-Pittsburgh
UConn-Syracuse
Duke-Maryland
Kansas-Kansas State
Cincinnati-Xavier
Texas-Texas A&M
I am sure I missed a few, but there shouldn't be rushing the court in these instances.
Exception:
As in #1, the only exception if some external force, not related to the players on the team and their talent, forced one of the teams to not have a good team for 2-3 years.
4. If one of the teams has won a National Championship in the last 5 years.
There is no exception for this. Only players and officials should be on the court if you won a National Championship in the last five years and you beat a "better" team at home.
5. The team that rushed the court has a better overall record or was ranked higher than the team that was beaten. In this case, you are the better team so why rush the court and act like you are inferior? Wouldn't it be easier just to hold up signs that say, "We may be ranked highly but don't think of ourselves as a very good team." Maybe that's a lot to fit one sign, but still...
If one team has a better record than the other team then it is highly likely that team is better than the other team. So act like it.
Exception:
Obviously there is a limit to how many games could be played when comparing records. Small sample sizes don't count. If Team A is 3-0 and Team B is 2-1 then under certain circumstances it may be fine to rush the court.
Another exception (and this is obvious) is if the team that won is a Division-II team and the team that lost is a Division-I team. Otherwise, if you are ranked higher or have a better record, act like it.
6. Both teams play in the same conference. Don't join the conference if you don't think you can compete. Not to mention, in conference it is hard to win on the road sometimes.
Exceptions:
The team that wins the game in an upset is new to the conference over the last 5 years (there's that number again. 5 years is a good time to build a program and get a pipeline of a good team on campus). So if you are new to the conference, feel free to rush the court, but know it will be short-lived.
Exception to the exception:
It has to be an actual upset. If Kentucky joins the Big East the fans can't start rushing the court every game when they beat Syracuse or UConn.
7. It is also not fine to rush the court if your team has had a quality basketball team in the past 2-3 year but currently stinks. For example, Wake Forest has made the NCAA's the past two years and currently is a terrible, terrible team. If they beat UNC at home there is no excuse to rush the court. It should not happen.
Here is when it is fine, in my opinion, to rush the court:
1. When a Division-II team beats a Division-I team.
Exceptions: If it is a terrible Division-I team that gets beat (meaning a Division-I team that has less than 10 wins) or the Division-I team went D-I over the past five years. Don't rush the court in this instance.
2. The game is out-of-conference and the team that gets beat is a traditional national power. For example, if Oregon had beaten Duke earlier this year then it is fine to rush the court. If Florida loses to Oregon State, then it may be okay for Oregon State to rush the court. If Kansas State beats Duke in Manhattan, they should not rush the court though. Kansas State was a good team when they played Duke this year and should have expected to win the game.
I am a big fan of conference teams not rushing the court on each other. Out of conference if it is a true upset, then I am not as strict. I am weird that way. I would prefer teams NEVER rush the court. Even a mid-major should not rush the court if they beat an average team from a major conference. If it is an average mid-major that beats a very good major conference team at home then this is a different story.
3. It has to be an actual upset. I think the idea of an upset has been diminished over the past few years. If Kentucky loses to Tennessee in Tennessee, yes theoretically because Kentucky is ranked over Tennessee then it is an upset, but Tennessee is a good enough team to where they should have a chance at an upset. Northern Iowa beating a decent Big 10 team at home may not be an upset because Northern Iowa has shown itself to be a good team.
Rushing the court should be reserved for games where the fans and students really are not sure their team can win the game. UNC losing to Wake Forest at Wake Forest qualifies as an upset, but both teams are in the ACC and it isn't an upset worthy of rushing the court. The same thing goes for Kansas playing at a place like Florida. There is a disparity between the two teams, but not enough of a disparity to where Florida fans should rush the court.
The disparity between the two teams has to be clear and rushing the court shouldn't just be something that happens because your team beat an opponent that was better than them, but should be reserved for when the team that wins at home over a much better team, preferably an out-of-conference team that is considered an elite team. If you are a shitty mid-major team that beats a ranked major team at home, then possibly you could rush the court.
I get the idea of rushing the court and I am not completely against it, but it depresses me to see fans rush the court after a game where their team only had a minor upset or as a way of having a really grand celebration for a big win. A big win over a team doesn't mean the court should be rushed. Go tip over some cars outside or something after a big win, but don't rush the court every time the team wins a big game, because it only serves as a way of admitting your team was inferior and makes it look like you have little respect for the program.
I generally hate making steadfast rules, but I felt the need to do so here. Undoubtedly I will revise these rules over time.
Those of you who follow me on Twitter see me whine about this a lot. I am a huge fan of college basketball, but along with the stupid officiating (I'm not sure college officials really know how to call a charge correctly. They call it way too much...that and I pretty much have a problem with the proliferation of charges calls made), I see rushing the court as my next big college basketball annoyance.
Seth Davis address this issue in a recent mailbag and I sort of agree with his position.
How did you feel about the Washington State fans storming the floor after beating an 18th-ranked team in January? It was a big debate here in Seattle.
-- Jake, Seattle, Wash.
Washington State was 14-6 when they beat the 15-4 Washington Huskies AT HOME. It is embarrassing and stupid the fans stormed the court. Sure, Washington was ranked, but Washington State wasn't much worse of a team than Washington when they played this game. Why demean yourself and your program by storming the court? Especially in a rivalry game? Was it really that shocking your team won that the fans must celebrate excessively like this? If I were a Washington player I would take pride in the fact a team is supposed to be our rival didn't expect to beat us. Rushing the court should happen under a strict set of circumstances (as I will detail in a minute) and this game in no way comes close to meeting those circumstances.My second reaction is usually, "How lame." When the fans storm a court, they are saying that the other team is so much better than theirs that the simple act of scoring more points is cause for a wild, unhinged celebration. "We're so inferior, yet we won anyway! Yippee!"
Exactly. It is a fan base saying, "Wow, we are a terrible team but we somehow managed to beat this team anyway, we will excessively celebrate this accomplishment." Winning a game is a great thing, but an over-the-top celebration (which is what rushing the court is) isn't required every time a Top 25 team is beaten on the road.
Earlier this year, Indiana University students rushed the court after defeating Illinois. I initially have a problem with this because they are Indiana University. They were in the NCAA Championship game just a few years ago, but have had sanctions and made the error of having anything to do with Kelvin Sampson, so they are clearly rebuilding. On its face, I can't believe the fans for Indiana University would rush the court and I realize it is just kids having fun, but it just seems weird for me that Indiana would rush the court. Of course many of the students haven't seen a win over a ranked team, which says a lot about how far the program has fallen. Still, I cringed a bit in hearing this happened...but in the end I guess I don't have a huge problem with it, but barely.
Here is my opinion when it is never fine to rush the court, followed by the exceptions to this rule. I hope these rules make sense and I don't think they contradict each other (also, I am not egotistical enough to think I have covered every situation possible, but I did try):
1. When it is a rivalry game.
It is not acceptable to rush the court in a rivalry game. Washington State should not rush the court when they beat Washington. Have some respect for yourself and your program. Rivals should have close games where no one knows which team will win and the game is contested bitterly with something (tangible or intangible) at stake. Washington State made the Sweet Sixteen just two years ago. A rivalry should involve two teams that compete bitterly against each other to where one team hasn't traditionally overwhelmed the other team. To rush the court after a win is to essentially admit your team is inferior and it is a shock you won the game. That's not really too much of a rivalry if it is that shocking one of the teams won.
Exception:
A. When one team has gone through something difficult, like Indiana and their sanctions which was not the fault of their current players or current coaching staff, for 2-3 years which has put the rivalry into a one-sided affair. Simply being a terrible basketball team doesn't cut it. There have to be external forces other than the talent on one team isn't very good. Whether that is sanctions, a tragedy in the program or something like this.
Here's an easy example: Indiana had to deal with the loss of scholarship players due to Kelvin Sampson being a disgrace and so the entire program essentially had to be rebuilt from the ground floor back up. Rushing the court, while admitting the program has fallen, can be seen as acceptable to me. They have overcome a lot and got a big win. Still, it is Indiana University. It's not like they don't have a winning tradition, so on that end I wish they hadn't rushed the court.
Here's another example where rushing the court wasn't appropriate: If Indiana had fired Kelvin Sampson for being terrible and was terrible while trying to rebuild the team, it is not fine to rush the court. If there wasn't a loss of scholarships or the loss of a couple good recruiting classes, which is what happened to Indiana, then it is just a matter of your team being terrible. No need to rush the court in celebration the lack of competence in the past.
2. If both teams are ranked with in 10 spots of each other.
There is no reason to rush the court if both teams are ranked. I can't even think of huge exceptions to this rule. There are not too many. If you are ranked #11 and beat #1 at home, well you are obviously a good team so show some fucking pride in your school.
Exception:
If one team has made the move to D-I over the past five years. If a team is ranked #24 in the country and made the move to Division-I in the last five years then beating #20 at home may be a cause for celebration as a coronation of your program becoming a successful Division-I program.
3. If you are a part of the following rivalries. Obviously new rivalries can be added to this and subtracted over time, but here's the current list of rivalries where a win is not fine to rush the court:
Duke v. UNC
Kentucky v. Louisville
Kansas v. Missouri
Indiana v. Purdue
Michigan v. Michigan State
Florida v. Kentucky
Even lesser rivalries that have cropped up over the past couple of years, like the ones listed, it is not going to be fine anymore to rush the court:
UCLA-Arizona
West Virginia-Pittsburgh
UConn-Syracuse
Duke-Maryland
Kansas-Kansas State
Cincinnati-Xavier
Texas-Texas A&M
I am sure I missed a few, but there shouldn't be rushing the court in these instances.
Exception:
As in #1, the only exception if some external force, not related to the players on the team and their talent, forced one of the teams to not have a good team for 2-3 years.
4. If one of the teams has won a National Championship in the last 5 years.
There is no exception for this. Only players and officials should be on the court if you won a National Championship in the last five years and you beat a "better" team at home.
5. The team that rushed the court has a better overall record or was ranked higher than the team that was beaten. In this case, you are the better team so why rush the court and act like you are inferior? Wouldn't it be easier just to hold up signs that say, "We may be ranked highly but don't think of ourselves as a very good team." Maybe that's a lot to fit one sign, but still...
If one team has a better record than the other team then it is highly likely that team is better than the other team. So act like it.
Exception:
Obviously there is a limit to how many games could be played when comparing records. Small sample sizes don't count. If Team A is 3-0 and Team B is 2-1 then under certain circumstances it may be fine to rush the court.
Another exception (and this is obvious) is if the team that won is a Division-II team and the team that lost is a Division-I team. Otherwise, if you are ranked higher or have a better record, act like it.
6. Both teams play in the same conference. Don't join the conference if you don't think you can compete. Not to mention, in conference it is hard to win on the road sometimes.
Exceptions:
The team that wins the game in an upset is new to the conference over the last 5 years (there's that number again. 5 years is a good time to build a program and get a pipeline of a good team on campus). So if you are new to the conference, feel free to rush the court, but know it will be short-lived.
Exception to the exception:
It has to be an actual upset. If Kentucky joins the Big East the fans can't start rushing the court every game when they beat Syracuse or UConn.
7. It is also not fine to rush the court if your team has had a quality basketball team in the past 2-3 year but currently stinks. For example, Wake Forest has made the NCAA's the past two years and currently is a terrible, terrible team. If they beat UNC at home there is no excuse to rush the court. It should not happen.
Here is when it is fine, in my opinion, to rush the court:
1. When a Division-II team beats a Division-I team.
Exceptions: If it is a terrible Division-I team that gets beat (meaning a Division-I team that has less than 10 wins) or the Division-I team went D-I over the past five years. Don't rush the court in this instance.
2. The game is out-of-conference and the team that gets beat is a traditional national power. For example, if Oregon had beaten Duke earlier this year then it is fine to rush the court. If Florida loses to Oregon State, then it may be okay for Oregon State to rush the court. If Kansas State beats Duke in Manhattan, they should not rush the court though. Kansas State was a good team when they played Duke this year and should have expected to win the game.
I am a big fan of conference teams not rushing the court on each other. Out of conference if it is a true upset, then I am not as strict. I am weird that way. I would prefer teams NEVER rush the court. Even a mid-major should not rush the court if they beat an average team from a major conference. If it is an average mid-major that beats a very good major conference team at home then this is a different story.
3. It has to be an actual upset. I think the idea of an upset has been diminished over the past few years. If Kentucky loses to Tennessee in Tennessee, yes theoretically because Kentucky is ranked over Tennessee then it is an upset, but Tennessee is a good enough team to where they should have a chance at an upset. Northern Iowa beating a decent Big 10 team at home may not be an upset because Northern Iowa has shown itself to be a good team.
Rushing the court should be reserved for games where the fans and students really are not sure their team can win the game. UNC losing to Wake Forest at Wake Forest qualifies as an upset, but both teams are in the ACC and it isn't an upset worthy of rushing the court. The same thing goes for Kansas playing at a place like Florida. There is a disparity between the two teams, but not enough of a disparity to where Florida fans should rush the court.
The disparity between the two teams has to be clear and rushing the court shouldn't just be something that happens because your team beat an opponent that was better than them, but should be reserved for when the team that wins at home over a much better team, preferably an out-of-conference team that is considered an elite team. If you are a shitty mid-major team that beats a ranked major team at home, then possibly you could rush the court.
I get the idea of rushing the court and I am not completely against it, but it depresses me to see fans rush the court after a game where their team only had a minor upset or as a way of having a really grand celebration for a big win. A big win over a team doesn't mean the court should be rushed. Go tip over some cars outside or something after a big win, but don't rush the court every time the team wins a big game, because it only serves as a way of admitting your team was inferior and makes it look like you have little respect for the program.
I generally hate making steadfast rules, but I felt the need to do so here. Undoubtedly I will revise these rules over time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)