According to RandBall (which got the info from the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review), Troy Polamalu's legal last name used to be Aumua. And by used to be, I mean a few days ago. He has recently changed his legal name to Troy Polamalu.
But we've known him as Troy Polamalu for as long as we've known him! What the hell is going on?
This leads to all sorts of questions about identity. As an existentialist, I believe that an individual's identity is tied to his/her actions. But I also believe as individuals, we have control over our identities. What we are is how we act, but what we are is also what we want to be (or, if you prefer, we choose our actions that define our identities. I am a vegan not because I say I am, but because I choose not to eat animal products--but then, I choose not to eat animal products because I consider myself a vegan. The relationship between self-awareness, identity, and action is a convoluted web). Of course, there are aspects of our identities beyond our conscious control that we may end up tying closely to our identity (I'm left-handed, and didn't choose to be), but we still choose what we want to make important to our identities (whether I think being left-handed has anything to do with who I am is up to me). Perhaps this philosophy places too much control on the individual and doesn't give enough power to "fate": it's hard to say that an individual has total ownership over his/her identity if he/she is really short, deformed, mentally challenged, really tall, particularly ugly, deaf, etc. But it's still an empowering philosophy.
HOWEVER...
None of us pick our names. We have such control over our identities, but before we're even aware that having a name matters, somebody else picks a name for us. My son will eventually act as he chooses, and his identity will be what he chooses--but his name was given to him by his mother and me. He may eventually hate or love his name, but he had no control over that name. So that one thing, that one thing that is so critical to public and private identity, is beyond choice.
HOWEVER...
In some cases we do choose our names! I've chosen the names "Vegan Viking" and "Pacifist Viking"; my parents didn't give them to me. And so when we communicate online, we can choose to use our given names, or we can choose new identities and names.
FURTHERMORE...
What do we mean by "real name"? Just because Troy Polamalu's name wasn't "legally" Polamalu, does that mean his name wasn't "really" Polamalu? Are our identities only tied to what we are "legally" or "officially"? If he has been called Polamalu for years, if everybody else has called him Polamalu for years, if he's only known as Polamalu, isn't that what his "real" name was all along (or at least, according to the story, for the past 15 years)? What is "real," and what is "legal"? I suppose Nicholas Cage's "real" name is Nicholas Coppola, but is it "really"? What the hell do we mean by "real"?
AND...
Doesn't what others call us mean a lot? And doesn't taking ownership of a name mean a lot? Think of Kunta Kinte. Think of how members of one race or group take possession of slurs that other groups have for them, how they are "allowed" to use those terms. Think of whether you get called by your first name, or get called "Mr.," or get called "sir," or get called "boy." How people choose to address us often signals how much or little respect they have for us. Generally, if people call us what we want to be called, it means they are respecting us.
I'm not providing any answers here; seeing that Polamalu is officially changing his name to Polamalu merely raises many existential questions about identity and name.
Thursday, February 01, 2007
In which I make tenuous connections to sports to provide links I want to
Horse racing must be a sport; after all, sports bloggers can't resist talking about Barbaro. And Barbaro just died. Which gives us reason to talk about a play involving horses and animal cruelty, Peter Shaffer's Equus. There's an interesting story about a new guy starring in Equus, and I've already written about it and provided links for it over here.
Here's a bit about a French figure skater. Skating is a sport, so this link meets the criteria for PV.
And for real-real, you might enjoy this Cold, Hard Football Facts look at Peyton Manning. I agree with the basic premise: Peyton Manning is one of the all-time greatest NFL QBs, and a Super Bowl win might solidify him as THEE greatest QB of all-time.
Michael Silver has a nice SI column on the 80s Bears, as underachievers.
And don't forget another big NFL story this weekend: final HOF voting. Peter King talks about it (and I'm sure Dr. Z will write about it after the voting--I do like how open the SI HOF voters are about the process and their feelings).
Here's a bit about a French figure skater. Skating is a sport, so this link meets the criteria for PV.
And for real-real, you might enjoy this Cold, Hard Football Facts look at Peyton Manning. I agree with the basic premise: Peyton Manning is one of the all-time greatest NFL QBs, and a Super Bowl win might solidify him as THEE greatest QB of all-time.
Michael Silver has a nice SI column on the 80s Bears, as underachievers.
And don't forget another big NFL story this weekend: final HOF voting. Peter King talks about it (and I'm sure Dr. Z will write about it after the voting--I do like how open the SI HOF voters are about the process and their feelings).
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
The 2006 NFL Season: Rex Grossman
Some sports seasons become, even years later, synonymous to me with one particular figure or storyline. In the NBA, 92-93 was the year of Barkley, 94-95 the year or Rodman, and 95-96 the year of the Bulls. In the NFL, I always see 1994 as the year of the 49ers (in particular, Steve Young and Deion Sanders), 1993 as the year of Emmitt Smith, and 1998 as the year of Randy Moss. It's not a matter of using hindsight and looking at the eventual champion: it's looking at a particular year and seeing a story line that was prominent from beginning to end.
And that's why 2006 will always be, for me, the year of Rex Grossman. And it doesn't matter what happens in the Super Bowl.
In September the Bears were mauling just about everybody, winning huge blowouts and shutting down opposing offenses. But Rex Grossman was also playing like the Bears had found their best QB since Sid Luckman. He was chucking the ball downfield and showing us a real offense to compliment the always formidable Bear defense.
Then he starting sucking--hard. He was utterly awful in many games--and most of them, the Bears still won. He had some truly atrocious, miserable, completely unproductive and obviously detrimental to his team games: against the Cardinals (Rex is partly responsible for "They are who we thought they were" and "If you want to crown them, then crown their ass," quotes which football fans will forever be thankful), against the Vikings (he had like 0 yards and a bunch of turnovers as the Bear defense and special teams wrapped up victory), and against the Packers (a complete dud of a game, which he blamed on New Year's Eve). He had many other truly terrifying performances, and managed to scatter in a few competent games.
As it became clear that the Bears were head and shoulders above the rest of the NFC, the talk centered on Rex. Could he have three straight competent games once the playoffs came? Should Lovie Smith replace Rex with Brian Griese? How far could the Bears really get with Rex's streaky play? How do the Bear players feel about Rex? What is the meaning of Rex's statistics? Will he personally and single-handedly destroy the Bears' season in January?
And then he played well in a narrow playoff victory over the Seahawks, then he played pretty lousy in a big playoff victory against the Saints, and now the Bears are in the Super Bowl. If he plays well and the Bears lose, he'll still be the story of the season. If he plays awfully and the Bears lose (or he gets benched), he'll still be the story of the season. If he plays great and leads the Bears to a victory over the Colts, he'll be the story of the season. And if he plays utterly awful but the Bears still somehow win, he'll be the story of the season.
For better or worse, the 2006 NFL season is the season of Sexy Rexy.
And that's why 2006 will always be, for me, the year of Rex Grossman. And it doesn't matter what happens in the Super Bowl.
In September the Bears were mauling just about everybody, winning huge blowouts and shutting down opposing offenses. But Rex Grossman was also playing like the Bears had found their best QB since Sid Luckman. He was chucking the ball downfield and showing us a real offense to compliment the always formidable Bear defense.
Then he starting sucking--hard. He was utterly awful in many games--and most of them, the Bears still won. He had some truly atrocious, miserable, completely unproductive and obviously detrimental to his team games: against the Cardinals (Rex is partly responsible for "They are who we thought they were" and "If you want to crown them, then crown their ass," quotes which football fans will forever be thankful), against the Vikings (he had like 0 yards and a bunch of turnovers as the Bear defense and special teams wrapped up victory), and against the Packers (a complete dud of a game, which he blamed on New Year's Eve). He had many other truly terrifying performances, and managed to scatter in a few competent games.
As it became clear that the Bears were head and shoulders above the rest of the NFC, the talk centered on Rex. Could he have three straight competent games once the playoffs came? Should Lovie Smith replace Rex with Brian Griese? How far could the Bears really get with Rex's streaky play? How do the Bear players feel about Rex? What is the meaning of Rex's statistics? Will he personally and single-handedly destroy the Bears' season in January?
And then he played well in a narrow playoff victory over the Seahawks, then he played pretty lousy in a big playoff victory against the Saints, and now the Bears are in the Super Bowl. If he plays well and the Bears lose, he'll still be the story of the season. If he plays awfully and the Bears lose (or he gets benched), he'll still be the story of the season. If he plays great and leads the Bears to a victory over the Colts, he'll be the story of the season. And if he plays utterly awful but the Bears still somehow win, he'll be the story of the season.
For better or worse, the 2006 NFL season is the season of Sexy Rexy.
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
Barbaro (or, I have contempt for you all)
I can't recall a moment of my life when I cared about horseracing. I can't recall a moment when I cared about a horse. But as resident animal rights guy among sports bloggers, allow me to comment a bit on the death of Barbaro--a story that, frankly, I would not even be aware of if it were not for bloggers talking about it (so bloggers, if you've got contempt for the story, go look at your own damn sites). I have no interest in the story itself; I have interest in the reaction to the story.
I am not offended in the least that people are laughing about Barbaro's death. It's not because, as many are saying, it's "just a horse," but because I find it acceptable to laugh at death. Earlier this week "What was that bang?" suggested re-animating the corpse of Reggie White. When I read it, I laughed. Make all the fun you want: Barbaro doesn't care. Laughing into the face of death is one way to deal with death.
I also think a lot of grieving and mourning over Barbaro is silly, but not, as many of you would say, because it's "just a horse." It's because Barbaro is no better (and no worse) than any other animal that is exploited, abused, or harmed for human amusement, pleasure, or profit. If you are sad over Barbaro's death but are enjoying a hamburger or steak today, I want you to tell me why exactly a particular horse is better than a particular cow. Certainly personal awareness makes a difference: we cry when a close friend or relative dies but not when hundreds or thousands die in a tragedy far from us, or we cry when our dogs die even though pigs--just as smart and lively as dogs--are killed and eaten all the time. But if you're sad about Barbaro, you might just want to stop eating those burgers, and you might just want to get rid of that leather, because Barbaro is just like a lot of the animals that are being used for human pleasure.
If you are into horse racing and you are sad about Barbaro's death, just think about how you are partly responsible for Barbaro's death because you support horse racing. As I noted yesterday, horse racing shouldn't exist because it is by its very nature abusive toward the animals. It's not sad that one particular horse died because of a horse racing injury; it's sad that all sorts of horses are being used and mistreated for the sport of horse racing.
Here are some of the posts and articles I've looked at about Barbaro (many of these posts and articles I found because they were linked from other of the posts and articles listed here). Some of these writers make good points; others make lousy, illogical points.
The Big Lead
T.J. Simers
Lion in Oil
Why Don't We Get Drunk and Blog?
Pat Forde
Leave the Man Alone
The Mighty MJD
I Dislike Your Favorite Team
We Are the Postmen
The Big Picture
(I don't go out of the way to talk about animal rights on my sports blog, but when a sports story inspires it, then I will. Blogs are all about unique takes that you can't get everywhere else).
UPDATE: If you are interested, PETA has commented on Barbaro's death.
I am not offended in the least that people are laughing about Barbaro's death. It's not because, as many are saying, it's "just a horse," but because I find it acceptable to laugh at death. Earlier this week "What was that bang?" suggested re-animating the corpse of Reggie White. When I read it, I laughed. Make all the fun you want: Barbaro doesn't care. Laughing into the face of death is one way to deal with death.
I also think a lot of grieving and mourning over Barbaro is silly, but not, as many of you would say, because it's "just a horse." It's because Barbaro is no better (and no worse) than any other animal that is exploited, abused, or harmed for human amusement, pleasure, or profit. If you are sad over Barbaro's death but are enjoying a hamburger or steak today, I want you to tell me why exactly a particular horse is better than a particular cow. Certainly personal awareness makes a difference: we cry when a close friend or relative dies but not when hundreds or thousands die in a tragedy far from us, or we cry when our dogs die even though pigs--just as smart and lively as dogs--are killed and eaten all the time. But if you're sad about Barbaro, you might just want to stop eating those burgers, and you might just want to get rid of that leather, because Barbaro is just like a lot of the animals that are being used for human pleasure.
If you are into horse racing and you are sad about Barbaro's death, just think about how you are partly responsible for Barbaro's death because you support horse racing. As I noted yesterday, horse racing shouldn't exist because it is by its very nature abusive toward the animals. It's not sad that one particular horse died because of a horse racing injury; it's sad that all sorts of horses are being used and mistreated for the sport of horse racing.
Here are some of the posts and articles I've looked at about Barbaro (many of these posts and articles I found because they were linked from other of the posts and articles listed here). Some of these writers make good points; others make lousy, illogical points.
The Big Lead
T.J. Simers
Lion in Oil
Why Don't We Get Drunk and Blog?
Pat Forde
Leave the Man Alone
The Mighty MJD
I Dislike Your Favorite Team
We Are the Postmen
The Big Picture
(I don't go out of the way to talk about animal rights on my sports blog, but when a sports story inspires it, then I will. Blogs are all about unique takes that you can't get everywhere else).
UPDATE: If you are interested, PETA has commented on Barbaro's death.
Monday, January 29, 2007
Alternative Sports Perspectives
PETA on horse racing
According to Deadspin, horse Barbaro has been killed. Barbaro probably should have never existed--at least not in the form he did. PETA said as much when Barbaro was first injured. PETA has a strong stance against horse racing. Horse racing is a pretty rotten thing to do to these animals.
(Give me a break, it's not often a sports story gives me a legitimate opportunity to comment on animal rights!)
OutSports on the Super Bowl
Always a delightful column: Outsports does its Super Bowl preview from a gay perspective. A highlight:
HOMOEROTIC FOOTBALL TERMS: Tight end. Naked bootleg. Over the top. Line plunge. Going all the way. Getting penetration. Man in motion. Going deep. He scores.
I've always loved the "pound it up the middle" perspective on football.
According to Deadspin, horse Barbaro has been killed. Barbaro probably should have never existed--at least not in the form he did. PETA said as much when Barbaro was first injured. PETA has a strong stance against horse racing. Horse racing is a pretty rotten thing to do to these animals.
(Give me a break, it's not often a sports story gives me a legitimate opportunity to comment on animal rights!)
OutSports on the Super Bowl
Always a delightful column: Outsports does its Super Bowl preview from a gay perspective. A highlight:
HOMOEROTIC FOOTBALL TERMS: Tight end. Naked bootleg. Over the top. Line plunge. Going all the way. Getting penetration. Man in motion. Going deep. He scores.
I've always loved the "pound it up the middle" perspective on football.
PV's chronicle of worn-out metaphors: Peter King (4)
In "Politics and the English Language," George Orwell's first rule of good English usage is “Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.” We now seek out writers who overuse such uncreative language.
In an October column, Peter King used two cliches in one sentence as he made fun of Andre Ware for overusing cliches: "I even survived Andre (I Never Met a Cliché I Didn't Like) Ware and made it through the ESPN2 telecast." This inspired a Pacifist Viking gimmick of chronicling these cliches.
It's an exercise I hope you appreciate: I actually read King's MMQB from beginning to end looking for cliches, worn-out metaphors, and overused phrases.
I don't like to do it. But after seeing the title of this week's MMQB, I had to do it again.
The title is "Prodigal sons: Teams turn to young coaches for new energy"
"Wow, a cliche right in the title. King continually tops himself." But it got better. You see, this title makes no sense whatsoever in the context of his column. "Prodigal" means wasteful--the biblical parable refers to the son squandering his inheritence. We now often use the prodigal son parable to refer to a figure who leaves on bad terms but returns.
King's column makes no reference whatsoever to either of these uses. As the subtitle shows, he begins by talking about the league trend of hiring young head coaches. There is nothing about wastefulness. There is nothing about a black sheep leaving and returning to make good (the only possible meaningful reference is Norv Turner interviewing with the Cowboys). It was a thoughtless title choice.
So, we've returned this gimmick to lambast King's use of worn-out metaphor once again. But we can't even bother to document every overused phrase he writes--he barely writes without overused phrases (phrases like "With all due respect to" and "the benefit of the doubt" occur all the time. King can't seem to write without them. But these are mere overused phrases, not actual metaphors). So we're going to limit the chronicle to clear cliched language.
"Everything's still up in the air"
"to pick his brain"
"it was a near-photo finish"
"stop the presses"
"Where there's smoke, there's fire,"
"the rich getting richer"
"a clean nose"
"chess match"
King may be a good reporter--he seems to have good connections in the league. But he is an AWFUL writer and deserves our constant scorn.
In an October column, Peter King used two cliches in one sentence as he made fun of Andre Ware for overusing cliches: "I even survived Andre (I Never Met a Cliché I Didn't Like) Ware and made it through the ESPN2 telecast." This inspired a Pacifist Viking gimmick of chronicling these cliches.
It's an exercise I hope you appreciate: I actually read King's MMQB from beginning to end looking for cliches, worn-out metaphors, and overused phrases.
I don't like to do it. But after seeing the title of this week's MMQB, I had to do it again.
The title is "Prodigal sons: Teams turn to young coaches for new energy"
"Wow, a cliche right in the title. King continually tops himself." But it got better. You see, this title makes no sense whatsoever in the context of his column. "Prodigal" means wasteful--the biblical parable refers to the son squandering his inheritence. We now often use the prodigal son parable to refer to a figure who leaves on bad terms but returns.
King's column makes no reference whatsoever to either of these uses. As the subtitle shows, he begins by talking about the league trend of hiring young head coaches. There is nothing about wastefulness. There is nothing about a black sheep leaving and returning to make good (the only possible meaningful reference is Norv Turner interviewing with the Cowboys). It was a thoughtless title choice.
So, we've returned this gimmick to lambast King's use of worn-out metaphor once again. But we can't even bother to document every overused phrase he writes--he barely writes without overused phrases (phrases like "With all due respect to" and "the benefit of the doubt" occur all the time. King can't seem to write without them. But these are mere overused phrases, not actual metaphors). So we're going to limit the chronicle to clear cliched language.
"Everything's still up in the air"
"to pick his brain"
"it was a near-photo finish"
"stop the presses"
"Where there's smoke, there's fire,"
"the rich getting richer"
"a clean nose"
"chess match"
King may be a good reporter--he seems to have good connections in the league. But he is an AWFUL writer and deserves our constant scorn.
How the Vikings can go 14-2 in 2007
Over the weekend, I devised a way for the Vikings to make major improvements and compete for a Super Bowl championship next year.
Step One: Coax Dan Marino out of retirement
Marino almost signed with the Vikes in '00, but opted for retirement. I think he's still got some game left. Plus, he could throw more TD passes and hold off Brett Favre from breaking his TD record, which would of course please Vegan Viking to no end.
Step Two: Trade a fourth round pick for Randy Moss
Get perhaps the greatest playmaker in franchise history back on the franchise that he belongs on. Imagine Danny Boy hurling lasers out to Randy!
Step Three: Sign Dwight Freeney
The Vikings have a great interior defensive line (Pat Williams and Kevin Williams are both Pro Bowlers), but they have no pass rush off the edge. There's an easy way to get a pass rush--sign Dwight Freeney. He's a liability against the run, but so what? If that doesn't work, the Vikes could:
a. coax Bruce Smith out of retirement
b. resurrect the corpse of Reggie White and sign him to a one-year contract (you don't sign a resurrected corpse to a long-term deal--too many risks).
Step Four: Draft Adrian Peterson
Chester Taylor is fine and all that, but he's not really a big playmaker. On an offense devoid of playmakers, the Vikes need more, and Peterson would provide that. Of course, the Vikes WILL have playmakers once they get Marino and Moss, and Peterson would be great to keep the pressure off a QB nearing 50. It would be the first time Marino played with a competent RB, so that would be great.
If the Vikes are unable to draft Adrian Peterson out of Oklahoma, they should:
a. sign Adrian Peterson from the Bears and tell everybody they drafted Adrian Peterson of Oklahoma.
b. coax Emmitt Smith out of retirement.
Step Five: Hire Bud Grant as Defensive Coordinator
With Mike Tomlin gone, the Vikes have a need: why not go with the greatest Viking coach ever? If he doesn't want to come be the defensive coordinator, you could always make him the head coach and demote Brad Childress to defensive coordinator: after all, if there's anybody in the NFL that knows more about shutting down an offense than Childress, I'd like to see him. But I think Grant would happily be the defensive coordinator. If he won't do it, there are other guys we could ask:
a. Jimmy Johnson
b. Tom Landry
c. Chuck Noll
d. Buddy Ryan
That's it: my five-step plan to make the Vikings an winner in 2007.
Step One: Coax Dan Marino out of retirement
Marino almost signed with the Vikes in '00, but opted for retirement. I think he's still got some game left. Plus, he could throw more TD passes and hold off Brett Favre from breaking his TD record, which would of course please Vegan Viking to no end.
Step Two: Trade a fourth round pick for Randy Moss
Get perhaps the greatest playmaker in franchise history back on the franchise that he belongs on. Imagine Danny Boy hurling lasers out to Randy!
Step Three: Sign Dwight Freeney
The Vikings have a great interior defensive line (Pat Williams and Kevin Williams are both Pro Bowlers), but they have no pass rush off the edge. There's an easy way to get a pass rush--sign Dwight Freeney. He's a liability against the run, but so what? If that doesn't work, the Vikes could:
a. coax Bruce Smith out of retirement
b. resurrect the corpse of Reggie White and sign him to a one-year contract (you don't sign a resurrected corpse to a long-term deal--too many risks).
Step Four: Draft Adrian Peterson
Chester Taylor is fine and all that, but he's not really a big playmaker. On an offense devoid of playmakers, the Vikes need more, and Peterson would provide that. Of course, the Vikes WILL have playmakers once they get Marino and Moss, and Peterson would be great to keep the pressure off a QB nearing 50. It would be the first time Marino played with a competent RB, so that would be great.
If the Vikes are unable to draft Adrian Peterson out of Oklahoma, they should:
a. sign Adrian Peterson from the Bears and tell everybody they drafted Adrian Peterson of Oklahoma.
b. coax Emmitt Smith out of retirement.
Step Five: Hire Bud Grant as Defensive Coordinator
With Mike Tomlin gone, the Vikes have a need: why not go with the greatest Viking coach ever? If he doesn't want to come be the defensive coordinator, you could always make him the head coach and demote Brad Childress to defensive coordinator: after all, if there's anybody in the NFL that knows more about shutting down an offense than Childress, I'd like to see him. But I think Grant would happily be the defensive coordinator. If he won't do it, there are other guys we could ask:
a. Jimmy Johnson
b. Tom Landry
c. Chuck Noll
d. Buddy Ryan
That's it: my five-step plan to make the Vikings an winner in 2007.
Friday, January 26, 2007
Peyton Manning and the Patriots: Parallels
The Colt's victory over the Patriots to advance to the Super Bowl reminds me of a few historical parallels. I'm sure I'm not the first to think and write of these, but I'd like to discuss them anyway.
Steve Young and the Cowboys, 1994
Young and the 49ers had lost to the Cowboys in the NFC Championship game for '92 and '93. They had also lost to the Cowboys in the regular season in '93. Furthermore, Young had never won a Super Bowl as the starting QB, as was living in the shadow of Joe Montana. In 1994, the 49ers passed the Cowboys and dominated the Super Bowl, as Young got the proverbial "monkey off his back."
Look at Steve Young's playoff numbers for 1994. In a 44-15 win over the Bears, Young threw just 22 passes, for 143 yards and 1 TD pass. Young could have thrown right-handed and the Niners would have beaten the Bears. In the NFC championship game, a 38-28 win over the Cowboys, Young actually coompleted less than 50% of his passes (13-29, for 155 yards and 2 TDs). The Niners were helped by a 21-3 lead that was mostly the result of Dallas turnovers. Young did, however, throw a devestating end of the half TD to Jerry Rice that seemed to bury the Cowboys' hopes. Then in the Super Bowl, Young dominated, throwing 6 TD passes. Young was good, but it was the great Niner teams that were able to help get him to the Super Bowl (it's always a great team that helps a QB get to the Super Bowl).
Peyton Manning didn't dominated the first two playoff games of '06. He was better than you think in the win over the Chiefs (despite the INTs, he was 30-38 and had something like 14 completions for first downs), but admittedly the defense came alive to win the Baltimore game (though Manning did help the team win). Manning did more to beat the Patriots in this AFC championship game than Steve Young did to beat the Cowboys in the '94 NFC Championship game.
Michael Jordan and the Pistons
Jordan and the Bulls lost to the Pistons in the playoffs in '88, '89, and '90. Like Manning, Jordan was recognized, through statistical brilliance and simple observation, to be the best in the league--with an asterisk. He hadn't brought his team to a championship. Like Manning, Jordan was a dominant offensive player who was often contained and frustrated by just one defensive-minded opponent. For Jordan it was the Pistons, for Manning the Colts. And finally, in '91, Jordan and the Bulls swept past the Pistons. There are even some similarities in how the opponent reacted--didn't Isiah Thomas and others leave the court early as the Bulls had it clinched? I didn't see it, but I've read on several blogs that Tom Brady left the field without congratulating Manning (or anybody), and Belichick sort of brushed him off.
Not only does Jordan now dominate the conversation of the greatest basketball player ever, but he is universally recognized as one of the greatest playoff performers in sports history. He's given us so many memorably clutch performances and moments, and he ended up winning 6 championships. But at the time, there was one team he supposedly couldn't handle, and it was only further playoff success that hindered the perception of his unparallelled brilliance.
The French in the Hundred Years War
The French lost virtually ever battle of the Hundred Years' War. Over and over again, they were dominated in battles by the English. Perhaps the most memorable British route was the Battle of Agincourt, dramatized by Shakespeare in Henry V. But the most famous person to emerge from the Hundred Years' War was Joan of Arc, and eventually the English failed to keep any of the holdings they had won in war.
Much like few people argue that Troy Aikman was the best QB of the '90s just because he won the most championships, it is possible that in ten or twenty years, nobody will argue that Tom Brady was the best QB of the '00s just because he won the most championships. Peyton Manning, like Joan of Arc, may end up being the most memorable player, and considered the best player, of this decade.
Steve Young and the Cowboys, 1994
Young and the 49ers had lost to the Cowboys in the NFC Championship game for '92 and '93. They had also lost to the Cowboys in the regular season in '93. Furthermore, Young had never won a Super Bowl as the starting QB, as was living in the shadow of Joe Montana. In 1994, the 49ers passed the Cowboys and dominated the Super Bowl, as Young got the proverbial "monkey off his back."
Look at Steve Young's playoff numbers for 1994. In a 44-15 win over the Bears, Young threw just 22 passes, for 143 yards and 1 TD pass. Young could have thrown right-handed and the Niners would have beaten the Bears. In the NFC championship game, a 38-28 win over the Cowboys, Young actually coompleted less than 50% of his passes (13-29, for 155 yards and 2 TDs). The Niners were helped by a 21-3 lead that was mostly the result of Dallas turnovers. Young did, however, throw a devestating end of the half TD to Jerry Rice that seemed to bury the Cowboys' hopes. Then in the Super Bowl, Young dominated, throwing 6 TD passes. Young was good, but it was the great Niner teams that were able to help get him to the Super Bowl (it's always a great team that helps a QB get to the Super Bowl).
Peyton Manning didn't dominated the first two playoff games of '06. He was better than you think in the win over the Chiefs (despite the INTs, he was 30-38 and had something like 14 completions for first downs), but admittedly the defense came alive to win the Baltimore game (though Manning did help the team win). Manning did more to beat the Patriots in this AFC championship game than Steve Young did to beat the Cowboys in the '94 NFC Championship game.
Michael Jordan and the Pistons
Jordan and the Bulls lost to the Pistons in the playoffs in '88, '89, and '90. Like Manning, Jordan was recognized, through statistical brilliance and simple observation, to be the best in the league--with an asterisk. He hadn't brought his team to a championship. Like Manning, Jordan was a dominant offensive player who was often contained and frustrated by just one defensive-minded opponent. For Jordan it was the Pistons, for Manning the Colts. And finally, in '91, Jordan and the Bulls swept past the Pistons. There are even some similarities in how the opponent reacted--didn't Isiah Thomas and others leave the court early as the Bulls had it clinched? I didn't see it, but I've read on several blogs that Tom Brady left the field without congratulating Manning (or anybody), and Belichick sort of brushed him off.
Not only does Jordan now dominate the conversation of the greatest basketball player ever, but he is universally recognized as one of the greatest playoff performers in sports history. He's given us so many memorably clutch performances and moments, and he ended up winning 6 championships. But at the time, there was one team he supposedly couldn't handle, and it was only further playoff success that hindered the perception of his unparallelled brilliance.
The French in the Hundred Years War
The French lost virtually ever battle of the Hundred Years' War. Over and over again, they were dominated in battles by the English. Perhaps the most memorable British route was the Battle of Agincourt, dramatized by Shakespeare in Henry V. But the most famous person to emerge from the Hundred Years' War was Joan of Arc, and eventually the English failed to keep any of the holdings they had won in war.
Much like few people argue that Troy Aikman was the best QB of the '90s just because he won the most championships, it is possible that in ten or twenty years, nobody will argue that Tom Brady was the best QB of the '00s just because he won the most championships. Peyton Manning, like Joan of Arc, may end up being the most memorable player, and considered the best player, of this decade.
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
Quick Nuggets
Reggie Bush taunting the Bears
Having already expressed my ideas on "class," you can guess that Reggie Bush taunting the Bears or Brian Urlacher or anyone else means next to nothing to me.
And keep this in mind--do you think the Bear defenders are all angels who just smile silently all game long? Do you think none of them said anything to Bush at any point during the game? Reggie Bush's taunt was more visible, but it also wasn't terribly egregious. These are men playing a violent game in which they try to constantly crush each other. During this violent game, they taunt and talk. And when one of these men has a very successful play, such taunting might be expected. Let it go.
I also didn't mind when Terrell Owens stood on the Dallas star. The Cowboys had dominated everybody in the 90s, and they didn't usually do it silently either (Remember Emmitt Smith waving at a defender as he scored? Remember ANYTHING about Michael Irvin, Charles Haley, or Deion Sanders?). So when things were turned around, it was fine with me for them to get taunted a bit. I also didn't mind when Randy Moss wiped his ass on the Lambeau goal post--he just went into Lambeau and beat the Packer's ass. The last time Moss was in Lambeau, he was injured on the sidelines and the band had a sign saying "Where you at Moss?"
Humility is commendable. But it's commendable because it's commendable, not because it's the norm. Players can (and often do) go overboard in taunting and showing up opponents. But it's really not that big a deal.
Mike Tomlin
Tomlin is a great coach, and as several local pundits have said, he would have been a great guy to have around after 2007 if Childress struggles again.
But I think that Viking fans are so used to having lousy defenses that we've lost perspective. He's still a defensive coordinator. The Vikings should have all of the same defensive players that they want to keep, and they can add some pass rushers. The new coordinator will probably run the same type of Cover 2 defense.
The Viking defense was a revelation in '06 after years of watching great offense and absolutely atrocious defense. That's made us think Tomlin is more important than he is. He'll probably be a great head coach just as he was a great defensive coordinator, but we should not go into '07 expecting a great decline in the defense. And if the run defense next year is not as good as '06, that is not entirely because of Mike Tomlin--the '06 Vikes were so unbelievable against the run in a way that might be hard to sustain.
Having already expressed my ideas on "class," you can guess that Reggie Bush taunting the Bears or Brian Urlacher or anyone else means next to nothing to me.
And keep this in mind--do you think the Bear defenders are all angels who just smile silently all game long? Do you think none of them said anything to Bush at any point during the game? Reggie Bush's taunt was more visible, but it also wasn't terribly egregious. These are men playing a violent game in which they try to constantly crush each other. During this violent game, they taunt and talk. And when one of these men has a very successful play, such taunting might be expected. Let it go.
I also didn't mind when Terrell Owens stood on the Dallas star. The Cowboys had dominated everybody in the 90s, and they didn't usually do it silently either (Remember Emmitt Smith waving at a defender as he scored? Remember ANYTHING about Michael Irvin, Charles Haley, or Deion Sanders?). So when things were turned around, it was fine with me for them to get taunted a bit. I also didn't mind when Randy Moss wiped his ass on the Lambeau goal post--he just went into Lambeau and beat the Packer's ass. The last time Moss was in Lambeau, he was injured on the sidelines and the band had a sign saying "Where you at Moss?"
Humility is commendable. But it's commendable because it's commendable, not because it's the norm. Players can (and often do) go overboard in taunting and showing up opponents. But it's really not that big a deal.
Mike Tomlin
Tomlin is a great coach, and as several local pundits have said, he would have been a great guy to have around after 2007 if Childress struggles again.
But I think that Viking fans are so used to having lousy defenses that we've lost perspective. He's still a defensive coordinator. The Vikings should have all of the same defensive players that they want to keep, and they can add some pass rushers. The new coordinator will probably run the same type of Cover 2 defense.
The Viking defense was a revelation in '06 after years of watching great offense and absolutely atrocious defense. That's made us think Tomlin is more important than he is. He'll probably be a great head coach just as he was a great defensive coordinator, but we should not go into '07 expecting a great decline in the defense. And if the run defense next year is not as good as '06, that is not entirely because of Mike Tomlin--the '06 Vikes were so unbelievable against the run in a way that might be hard to sustain.
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
Pearls of Wisdom
So I was watching "Cold Pizza" on ESPN in the afternoon and they talked about Bruce Pearl and his crazy decision to paint his body orange and put a silver letter on his chest with some of his basketball players in support of the Lady Vols who were going up against the #1 Duke Blue Devils. Skip Bayless ripped into Pearl basically saying it was not something a person in his role should do and then went on to proclaim that Pearl was only doing it to draw attention to himself. He topped it off by saying that Pearl's basketball players would lose respect for his authority because of this move. This was all said even with the knowledge that the people he was doing this with WERE his players.
Now I personally do not see anything wrong with what Pearl did and in fact I think it was a bold move to show support for the womens basketball team and an attempt to create a hectic environment for the Blue Devils to play in. Problem is I was suprised that Pearl left after five minutes because he didn't want to be a distraction. I think his leading of cheers and enthusiasm actually might have helped keep the crowd super engaged and loud and in the end could have helped the Lady Vols come out strong rather than start out the game falling down 19-0 to the Devils.
All this is to say that I think Skip Bayless is wrong in his opinion. First, who says what is in lines for a coach in terms of supporting other sporting teams at his school? Are there some kind of written rules about this? Second, while Pearl may have been drawing attention to himself his purpose for being there was to support the Lady Vols and Skip is just hypothesizing that Pearl is an egomaniac that really only cared about himself not supporting the women's team. Finally, does Skip have some inside track into the minds of the Tennessee mens players? To me it looked like they were proud to be out there with there coach and I don't know where Skip can come to the conclusion that his players will lose respect for his authority. I personally thnk Skip is just projecting his own feelings onto a group of players and in doing that really showing that he cannot understand these players because of the age gap between himself and them.
Oh and if you want to see a picture of Pearl donned in all the orange go over to www.deadspin.com and scroll on down it is there somewhere.
Now I personally do not see anything wrong with what Pearl did and in fact I think it was a bold move to show support for the womens basketball team and an attempt to create a hectic environment for the Blue Devils to play in. Problem is I was suprised that Pearl left after five minutes because he didn't want to be a distraction. I think his leading of cheers and enthusiasm actually might have helped keep the crowd super engaged and loud and in the end could have helped the Lady Vols come out strong rather than start out the game falling down 19-0 to the Devils.
All this is to say that I think Skip Bayless is wrong in his opinion. First, who says what is in lines for a coach in terms of supporting other sporting teams at his school? Are there some kind of written rules about this? Second, while Pearl may have been drawing attention to himself his purpose for being there was to support the Lady Vols and Skip is just hypothesizing that Pearl is an egomaniac that really only cared about himself not supporting the women's team. Finally, does Skip have some inside track into the minds of the Tennessee mens players? To me it looked like they were proud to be out there with there coach and I don't know where Skip can come to the conclusion that his players will lose respect for his authority. I personally thnk Skip is just projecting his own feelings onto a group of players and in doing that really showing that he cannot understand these players because of the age gap between himself and them.
Oh and if you want to see a picture of Pearl donned in all the orange go over to www.deadspin.com and scroll on down it is there somewhere.
PV's approved links
In part because I have no mental inclination to write anything creative today, I'm instead providing links to articles I think you'll find interesting. However, don't take this as laziness. It seems to take me longer to find and link stories around the web than to write my own ideas. Furthermore, I am devoted to finding good writing and interesting takes. So if I'm linking to something, it's because I think it really is worth reading (with the exception of the Tom Powers link--that's there for you to lambast if you so choose). I think a lot of bloggers are really high-quality writers with unique takes, so I want to send you off in some of their directions. But there are some good mainstream writers linked here, too.
"Quick Reads: Peyton a winner all along" by Aaron Schatz
I've stressed my skepticism of relying too much on statistical systems in the past, but I absolutely love the Football Outsiders for the way they debunk conventional wisdom (though I think they've developed their own version of conventional wisdom which occasionally needs debunking, too--but at least their version of conventional wisdom is based on numbers).
"A career-making moment" Jonathan Comey
A "Cold, Hard Football Facts" article that gives some historical perspective on Rex Grossman and Super Bowl quarterbacks.
"Feeling defenseless Vikings lost best coach in Tomlin" Tom Powers
(I found this article via Kansas Viking).
If we get bored of critiquing Patrick Reusse, we'll go after Tom Powers next. As you can see in this column, he loves criticizing the Vikes and seems as intent as Reusse on annoying and antagonizing fans into reaction. That makes for a "good" columnist, I guess, but it doesn't make for real analysis.
There's one thing I would like the local media types to realize: It's not Brad Childress's job to keep you all appeased with quotes and access; it's his job to win football games (which he hasn't done well at yet, admittedly). He's not trying to entertain you. He's not a bad coach just because he doesn't give you the appeasement that Mike Tice does. He is as worthy of criticism as any 6-10 NFL coach, but some local hacks really seem to despise the man (too early, in my opinion).
By the way, I think the Viking defense will be fine without Tomlin. Though Tomlin is a special coach and I wish him the best, he installed a system and that system should remain in place. It's the talent on the field that wins games. If the Vikings can add a pass-rusher or three, they could even improve in '07.
"They're trying to whitewash those days" Bethlehem Shoals
This is an older post, but one I've found relevant in the last few weeks. With New Orleans not making the Super Bowl, we'll be saved a great deal of hyperbole and illusion.
"This Just in: Most Overrated Coach's 'Retirement' Being Covered in Overrated Fashion" Boiled Sports
(I found this article via The Big Lead).
I was in a hospital with ESPN, and I have two comments.
1. ESPN can still be great: after missing key parts of the games, it was delightful to hear Chris Berman and Tom Jackson recap what happened.
2. Does ESPN love former employee Parcells like FOX protects former employee Matt Millen? The "Bottom Line," supposed to be reserved for scores, news, and mild promotions, featured Parcells' record with each team he coached, followed by that team's coach and record the following year. What? Did they need to do this? Is this news? Do they have to remind everybody why this matters? Parcells isn't exactly Michael Jordan here: is this hype really necessary?
"Super Bowl Shuffled" Insomniac's Lounge
This post has so many good and amusing takes it will be well worth your time.
"This playoff win was Rod-diculous" Yelling Louder
This satire gives us some real insight into how game stories really can't be objective, and that everything that happens in a game is filtered and viewed from a slanted perspective (hello, Mr. Kant).
"Based on Sunday, Super Bowl looks easy to pick" Dr. Z
Looking back to Sunday and forward to the Super Bowl.
"My most confident contrarian opinion: the Bears will suck" Pacifist Viking
I'm not going to make crazy confident predictions, then go away and pretend it never happened when I'm wrong. So, here's a post I wrote in September. Ah, such a sweet kid.
"Quick Reads: Peyton a winner all along" by Aaron Schatz
I've stressed my skepticism of relying too much on statistical systems in the past, but I absolutely love the Football Outsiders for the way they debunk conventional wisdom (though I think they've developed their own version of conventional wisdom which occasionally needs debunking, too--but at least their version of conventional wisdom is based on numbers).
"A career-making moment" Jonathan Comey
A "Cold, Hard Football Facts" article that gives some historical perspective on Rex Grossman and Super Bowl quarterbacks.
"Feeling defenseless Vikings lost best coach in Tomlin" Tom Powers
(I found this article via Kansas Viking).
If we get bored of critiquing Patrick Reusse, we'll go after Tom Powers next. As you can see in this column, he loves criticizing the Vikes and seems as intent as Reusse on annoying and antagonizing fans into reaction. That makes for a "good" columnist, I guess, but it doesn't make for real analysis.
There's one thing I would like the local media types to realize: It's not Brad Childress's job to keep you all appeased with quotes and access; it's his job to win football games (which he hasn't done well at yet, admittedly). He's not trying to entertain you. He's not a bad coach just because he doesn't give you the appeasement that Mike Tice does. He is as worthy of criticism as any 6-10 NFL coach, but some local hacks really seem to despise the man (too early, in my opinion).
By the way, I think the Viking defense will be fine without Tomlin. Though Tomlin is a special coach and I wish him the best, he installed a system and that system should remain in place. It's the talent on the field that wins games. If the Vikings can add a pass-rusher or three, they could even improve in '07.
"They're trying to whitewash those days" Bethlehem Shoals
This is an older post, but one I've found relevant in the last few weeks. With New Orleans not making the Super Bowl, we'll be saved a great deal of hyperbole and illusion.
"This Just in: Most Overrated Coach's 'Retirement' Being Covered in Overrated Fashion" Boiled Sports
(I found this article via The Big Lead).
I was in a hospital with ESPN, and I have two comments.
1. ESPN can still be great: after missing key parts of the games, it was delightful to hear Chris Berman and Tom Jackson recap what happened.
2. Does ESPN love former employee Parcells like FOX protects former employee Matt Millen? The "Bottom Line," supposed to be reserved for scores, news, and mild promotions, featured Parcells' record with each team he coached, followed by that team's coach and record the following year. What? Did they need to do this? Is this news? Do they have to remind everybody why this matters? Parcells isn't exactly Michael Jordan here: is this hype really necessary?
"Super Bowl Shuffled" Insomniac's Lounge
This post has so many good and amusing takes it will be well worth your time.
"This playoff win was Rod-diculous" Yelling Louder
This satire gives us some real insight into how game stories really can't be objective, and that everything that happens in a game is filtered and viewed from a slanted perspective (hello, Mr. Kant).
"Based on Sunday, Super Bowl looks easy to pick" Dr. Z
Looking back to Sunday and forward to the Super Bowl.
"My most confident contrarian opinion: the Bears will suck" Pacifist Viking
I'm not going to make crazy confident predictions, then go away and pretend it never happened when I'm wrong. So, here's a post I wrote in September. Ah, such a sweet kid.
Sunday, January 21, 2007
Congrats Coach Dungy and Coach Smith
Exciting times. For the first time in history an African-American Head Coach has made it to the Super Bowl. In fact not only one has made it but two have made it. So in reality in two weeks we will see the first ever African-American Head Coach win the Super Bowl. Nothing against Lovie Smith (who is a great coach, what he has done with the Bears is amazing), but I really hope Dungy wins it. Dungy is my favorite coach in the NFL and finally he has reached the Super Bowl after constructing Tampa's Super Bowl winner only to be canned the before the season they won it in.
Now I must say that the Colts-Patriots games was one of the best I have seen this year. I didn't get to watch the first half, but the second half was amazing. I must give credit to Peyton Manning for keeping his cool and leading his team to victory. Congratulations Peyton, now I beg you please do not choke against Chicago.
Now everyone knows from my earlier post that I was cheering for the Patriots and Tom Brady. Deep down I wanted them to win, but I really wasn't emotionally tied to them winning the game like I would be to a Vikings game. There were some questions I had about the officiating in this game. Three plays come to mind (Now I am not saying that NE should have won this game because in every game there are questionable calls, but some of these baffled me to no end).
1. The Saturday fumble recovery for a touchdown. It was a correct call, don't get me wrong on that. What I found amusing was the line judge who came in. If you were watching the game closely he came running down the line as players were scuffling to recover the fumble. What went largely unnoticed was his initial actions as he was running down the line. The Line Judge was pointing to the ground with emphatic up and down motions which signifies the player was down, but once he got up to the pile around the recovery he looked down and then emphatically signaled Touchdown. Now he got the call right as the CBS review showed, but I really have to wonder if a NE guy would have recovered it if he would have called touchback?
2. How in the world was Hobbs flagged for pass interference on that Manning to Wayne in the end zone pass. Yes, he never looked back, but he also never touched Reggie Wayne. Now, I guess I can understand the officials call because that was a quick play (although I was sure without the slow motion instant replay that Hobbs never touched Wayne), but the emphatic approval of the call by Simms and Nantz drove me crazy. How can they say that is obvious pass interference, they had the benefit of seeing that Hobbs never touched Wayne. By Phil Simms account any defender should be called for pass interference if they have their back to the QB are close to a WR and the ball hits them. Seriously that was a crappy call, but an even crappier analysis of the call by the announcers.
3. Now the phantom interference call wouldn't have been that bad if Reche Caldwell hadn't of been mugged by the defender on the Patriots drive later in the end zone. It was obvious in real time that the defender got to Caldwell before the ball did and that the ball was catchable since Caldwell got a hand on it. What was Simms analysis on that one. The officials determined that the contact did not have an effect on the reception of the ball. What Phil? How in the world would the contact not have had an effect on the ability of Caldwell to catch the ball especially since he got a hand on it, and correct me if I am wrong, but isnt the new rule that hey aren't supposed to contact the WR and the only excusable contact would be incidental contact or contact where the defender was making a play to intercept the ball and had a play on the ball. The Indy defender had his back to the QB and clearly got to Caldwell before the ball did. Bad call.
Either way, I dont blame the officiating for the outcome of this game. The Colts just played better and deserved to win. However, as ProFootballTalk mentioned in their live blog, could Jim Nantz suck up to the Colts any more than he was that game. It was obvious through all of the second half that he was pulling for Manning and the Colts. Tom Brady has been demystified. Had he lead NE to victory with 54 seconds left I would have wrote this whole blog about reasons why the HOF should start to make his bust right now. I already think he is a HOF but that would have solidified it for sure.
2 Weeks until the Super Bowl. Go Colts and Tony Dungy!
Now I must say that the Colts-Patriots games was one of the best I have seen this year. I didn't get to watch the first half, but the second half was amazing. I must give credit to Peyton Manning for keeping his cool and leading his team to victory. Congratulations Peyton, now I beg you please do not choke against Chicago.
Now everyone knows from my earlier post that I was cheering for the Patriots and Tom Brady. Deep down I wanted them to win, but I really wasn't emotionally tied to them winning the game like I would be to a Vikings game. There were some questions I had about the officiating in this game. Three plays come to mind (Now I am not saying that NE should have won this game because in every game there are questionable calls, but some of these baffled me to no end).
1. The Saturday fumble recovery for a touchdown. It was a correct call, don't get me wrong on that. What I found amusing was the line judge who came in. If you were watching the game closely he came running down the line as players were scuffling to recover the fumble. What went largely unnoticed was his initial actions as he was running down the line. The Line Judge was pointing to the ground with emphatic up and down motions which signifies the player was down, but once he got up to the pile around the recovery he looked down and then emphatically signaled Touchdown. Now he got the call right as the CBS review showed, but I really have to wonder if a NE guy would have recovered it if he would have called touchback?
2. How in the world was Hobbs flagged for pass interference on that Manning to Wayne in the end zone pass. Yes, he never looked back, but he also never touched Reggie Wayne. Now, I guess I can understand the officials call because that was a quick play (although I was sure without the slow motion instant replay that Hobbs never touched Wayne), but the emphatic approval of the call by Simms and Nantz drove me crazy. How can they say that is obvious pass interference, they had the benefit of seeing that Hobbs never touched Wayne. By Phil Simms account any defender should be called for pass interference if they have their back to the QB are close to a WR and the ball hits them. Seriously that was a crappy call, but an even crappier analysis of the call by the announcers.
3. Now the phantom interference call wouldn't have been that bad if Reche Caldwell hadn't of been mugged by the defender on the Patriots drive later in the end zone. It was obvious in real time that the defender got to Caldwell before the ball did and that the ball was catchable since Caldwell got a hand on it. What was Simms analysis on that one. The officials determined that the contact did not have an effect on the reception of the ball. What Phil? How in the world would the contact not have had an effect on the ability of Caldwell to catch the ball especially since he got a hand on it, and correct me if I am wrong, but isnt the new rule that hey aren't supposed to contact the WR and the only excusable contact would be incidental contact or contact where the defender was making a play to intercept the ball and had a play on the ball. The Indy defender had his back to the QB and clearly got to Caldwell before the ball did. Bad call.
Either way, I dont blame the officiating for the outcome of this game. The Colts just played better and deserved to win. However, as ProFootballTalk mentioned in their live blog, could Jim Nantz suck up to the Colts any more than he was that game. It was obvious through all of the second half that he was pulling for Manning and the Colts. Tom Brady has been demystified. Had he lead NE to victory with 54 seconds left I would have wrote this whole blog about reasons why the HOF should start to make his bust right now. I already think he is a HOF but that would have solidified it for sure.
2 Weeks until the Super Bowl. Go Colts and Tony Dungy!
Sunday Morning Excitement
It's always a long, long wait on conference championship Sunday for that 2:00 start time. Either sleep in or keep yourself busy. I'm here to help you get through this wait period.
Speaking of waiting, it is an underrated concept in life. Think about how much of your life is spent waiting? Standing in line, waiting for a show to start, for a meal to come, for a day to come, for a commute to end. A definition of humanity could be "the animal that waits." We spend a large portion of our lives waiting for a different portion of our lives. Twentieth-century writers like Samuel Beckett, Harold Pinter, and John Fowles, among others, have picked up on this. So, learn to enjoy or at least tolerate waiting.
Circumstantial evidence against "Parity"
A lot of people talk about NFL "parity" without thought or analysis; they've heard about it so much they just assume it exists.
I'm not going to do a systematic statistical study to debunk parity here, but I would like to provide some circumstantial evidence against parity.
First, here are the top three regular season records of the last six years.
2001: 14-2, 13-3, 13-3
2002: 12-4, 12-4, 12-4
2003: 14-2, 13-3, 12-4
2004: 15-1, 14-2, 13-3
2005: 14-2, 13-3, 12-4
2006: 14-2, 13-3, 13-3
Do you see parity? I see dominant teams each year.
Second, here are the 2006 playoff teams, and the number of playoff appearances each has made since 1999 (I feel the Bronco titles were a transition from the dominant mode of the 90s into a new "era," so I like to start there). In those eight seasons, the 2006 playoff teams have made several playoff appearances.
Baltimore: 4
Chicago: 3
Dallas: 3
Indianapolis: 7
Kansas City: 2
New Orleans: 2
Giants: 4
New England: 5
Philadelphia: 6
Jets: 4
Seattle: 5
Like I said, this isn't irrefutable, but merely circumstantial evidence. Certainly the "any given Sunday" mentality is real.
A few other observations here: Philadelphia has made the playoffs 6 of 7 years, New England 5 of 6 (4 straight), and Indianapolis 7 of 8 (5 straight), and Seattle 4 straight times. Despite free agency and the salary cap, in today's NFL a team can still maintain success. And further, one reason that people have Peyton Manning's playoff failures to talk about is that he keeps getting his teams to the playoffs.
As always, pro-football-reference.com is the best source to go to for historical data to give us perspective. I use the site all the time, including for gathering parts of this data.
Rooting in the playoffs
Bill Simmons thinks something is wrong with society because people don't like the Patriots. I can see why he would be vexed that the rest of the world isn't in love with his favorite teams, but I think the answer is much simpler. First of all, going into the season approximately 31 out of 32 fans wanted to see a different team come out champion. At this point, 28 out of 32 fans have already been disappointed. Of the teams left, approximately 3 fans for every 1 Patriot fan want a different team to win. Does this make sense?
And for those of us not rooting for our favorite team today, we at least want to see a good story, and a good story isn't the same champion winning again.
If other long-suffering fans are like me, we also want to see Fortune spread her fickle love around a bit more. If I can't ever see a Viking team win a championship, that doesn't mean I want to see another fanbase get to witness FOUR championships; it means I root for other long-suffering fans to finally see their teams winning a title.
The Colts have never won in Indy. The Saints have never won at all. The Bears haven't won in 21 years. And the Patriots won...two years ago. Frankly, the only non-Patriot fans who want the Patriots to win must either be bullies or front-runners, the kind of people who sympathize with the British royal family or enjoy watching the rich get richer. OF COURSE we want to see somebody else win. We know what it is to suffer as a sports fan. Why would we ROOT to see another fanbase monopolize the joy? I'd like to see you, long-time Saint, Bear, or Colt fan get to have some happiness that you've either never had or not had in a long time. I don't want to see you, Patriot fan, get the same joy you got two, three, and five years ago.
So I'm rooting for 1. Indianapolis 2. Chicago 3. New Orleans 4. New England. I suppose strict adherence to my sympathy for long-suffering fans should make me root for the Saints over the Bears, but for some reasons, it doesn't.
Enjoy the games today, people. You might not have this kind of fun again for months.
Speaking of waiting, it is an underrated concept in life. Think about how much of your life is spent waiting? Standing in line, waiting for a show to start, for a meal to come, for a day to come, for a commute to end. A definition of humanity could be "the animal that waits." We spend a large portion of our lives waiting for a different portion of our lives. Twentieth-century writers like Samuel Beckett, Harold Pinter, and John Fowles, among others, have picked up on this. So, learn to enjoy or at least tolerate waiting.
Circumstantial evidence against "Parity"
A lot of people talk about NFL "parity" without thought or analysis; they've heard about it so much they just assume it exists.
I'm not going to do a systematic statistical study to debunk parity here, but I would like to provide some circumstantial evidence against parity.
First, here are the top three regular season records of the last six years.
2001: 14-2, 13-3, 13-3
2002: 12-4, 12-4, 12-4
2003: 14-2, 13-3, 12-4
2004: 15-1, 14-2, 13-3
2005: 14-2, 13-3, 12-4
2006: 14-2, 13-3, 13-3
Do you see parity? I see dominant teams each year.
Second, here are the 2006 playoff teams, and the number of playoff appearances each has made since 1999 (I feel the Bronco titles were a transition from the dominant mode of the 90s into a new "era," so I like to start there). In those eight seasons, the 2006 playoff teams have made several playoff appearances.
Baltimore: 4
Chicago: 3
Dallas: 3
Indianapolis: 7
Kansas City: 2
New Orleans: 2
Giants: 4
New England: 5
Philadelphia: 6
Jets: 4
Seattle: 5
Like I said, this isn't irrefutable, but merely circumstantial evidence. Certainly the "any given Sunday" mentality is real.
A few other observations here: Philadelphia has made the playoffs 6 of 7 years, New England 5 of 6 (4 straight), and Indianapolis 7 of 8 (5 straight), and Seattle 4 straight times. Despite free agency and the salary cap, in today's NFL a team can still maintain success. And further, one reason that people have Peyton Manning's playoff failures to talk about is that he keeps getting his teams to the playoffs.
As always, pro-football-reference.com is the best source to go to for historical data to give us perspective. I use the site all the time, including for gathering parts of this data.
Rooting in the playoffs
Bill Simmons thinks something is wrong with society because people don't like the Patriots. I can see why he would be vexed that the rest of the world isn't in love with his favorite teams, but I think the answer is much simpler. First of all, going into the season approximately 31 out of 32 fans wanted to see a different team come out champion. At this point, 28 out of 32 fans have already been disappointed. Of the teams left, approximately 3 fans for every 1 Patriot fan want a different team to win. Does this make sense?
And for those of us not rooting for our favorite team today, we at least want to see a good story, and a good story isn't the same champion winning again.
If other long-suffering fans are like me, we also want to see Fortune spread her fickle love around a bit more. If I can't ever see a Viking team win a championship, that doesn't mean I want to see another fanbase get to witness FOUR championships; it means I root for other long-suffering fans to finally see their teams winning a title.
The Colts have never won in Indy. The Saints have never won at all. The Bears haven't won in 21 years. And the Patriots won...two years ago. Frankly, the only non-Patriot fans who want the Patriots to win must either be bullies or front-runners, the kind of people who sympathize with the British royal family or enjoy watching the rich get richer. OF COURSE we want to see somebody else win. We know what it is to suffer as a sports fan. Why would we ROOT to see another fanbase monopolize the joy? I'd like to see you, long-time Saint, Bear, or Colt fan get to have some happiness that you've either never had or not had in a long time. I don't want to see you, Patriot fan, get the same joy you got two, three, and five years ago.
So I'm rooting for 1. Indianapolis 2. Chicago 3. New Orleans 4. New England. I suppose strict adherence to my sympathy for long-suffering fans should make me root for the Saints over the Bears, but for some reasons, it doesn't.
Enjoy the games today, people. You might not have this kind of fun again for months.
Saturday, January 20, 2007
BlueVikingDevil's Championship Wishes
That is right I am only going to write about what I wish to happen in Sunday's games not what I think will happen. The reason for this is simple. I give up on predicting games and I specifically blame Steve McNair and the Raven's offense for my despair in predicting games. Anyway back to the topic at hand.
Saints at Bears
Personally I don't care one bit who wins this game although for some reason I will be rooting for the Saints. There are a few reasons why I will be rooting for the Saints. First, Drew Brees. I like him as a quarterback and he is the only quarterback in the NFL that I have seen play live (that is right I have never been to an NFL game and I have only been to one college game Penn St. vs. Purdue during LaVar Arrington's last year at Penn State, it was a great game that ended with Purdue unable to capitalize on a 1st and Goal in the last seconds to win the game). Second, Reggie Bush. I like Reggie Bush. He is over-hyped but I think he is exciting and able at any moment to "wow" you with his athleticism. Third, I like Duece McAllister. Four years ago he was integral to my fantasy football championship, so I will always cheer for his success. Fourth, I cannot stand Rex Grossman. If Rex Grossman were to play in and possibly win a Super Bowl I will be distraught until at least the NFL Draft. I never understood Chicago taking Grossman. Grossman is a silver spoon in his mouth guy who just doesn't fit the whole Chicago gritty tough Bears sports scene and because of that silver spoon I might never like him.
However, the only reason I have reservations about the Saints winning is because I do not want 2 weeks of non-stop Saints love and how they epitomize the American spirit of "pulling up the boot straps" despite adversity to find success. Whoever wins this game I will not be cheering for in the Super Bowl.
Patriots at Colts
I am 100% rooting for the Patriots in this one. Here are my reasons. First, I like Tom Brady. He is a great playoff QB who could win his 4th Super Bowl joining the elite ranks of Bradshaw and Montana as 4 time winners of the big game. I want this for Tom Brady. Second, I dislike Peyton Manning. Nothing against Manning he is a great quarterback and he does do some funny commercials, but the fact is I don't want to see him to win the big game. Why? Because I dont want to spend the next 5-10 years of my life having to watch Colts games and hear the announcers talking about how he is the greatest QB ever and kissing his butt like they have Brett Favre. Fact is the only thing that keeps announcers from doing this currently is his inability to get to the big game and win it. Third, if I am going to listen to a story line for the next two weeks I want it to be a debate about whether the Patriots franchise is one of the best dynasty's ever and inevitably the discussion of Tom Brady as one of the greatest QB's of all time.
While I will be rooting for the Patriots if the Colts happen to win I will be rooting for them in the Super Bowl. There are two reasons for this. First, I like Tony Dungy. I don't think he gets enough credit for being the great coach that he is. If he wins the Super Bowl his job should be secure for life in Indy and I think he deserves that. Second, the order of teams I will cheer for who remain goes in this order: 1. Patriots 2. Colts 3. Saints 4. Bears. Basically I want the AFC to win another championship and continue their recent Super Bowl dominance.
Saints at Bears
Personally I don't care one bit who wins this game although for some reason I will be rooting for the Saints. There are a few reasons why I will be rooting for the Saints. First, Drew Brees. I like him as a quarterback and he is the only quarterback in the NFL that I have seen play live (that is right I have never been to an NFL game and I have only been to one college game Penn St. vs. Purdue during LaVar Arrington's last year at Penn State, it was a great game that ended with Purdue unable to capitalize on a 1st and Goal in the last seconds to win the game). Second, Reggie Bush. I like Reggie Bush. He is over-hyped but I think he is exciting and able at any moment to "wow" you with his athleticism. Third, I like Duece McAllister. Four years ago he was integral to my fantasy football championship, so I will always cheer for his success. Fourth, I cannot stand Rex Grossman. If Rex Grossman were to play in and possibly win a Super Bowl I will be distraught until at least the NFL Draft. I never understood Chicago taking Grossman. Grossman is a silver spoon in his mouth guy who just doesn't fit the whole Chicago gritty tough Bears sports scene and because of that silver spoon I might never like him.
However, the only reason I have reservations about the Saints winning is because I do not want 2 weeks of non-stop Saints love and how they epitomize the American spirit of "pulling up the boot straps" despite adversity to find success. Whoever wins this game I will not be cheering for in the Super Bowl.
Patriots at Colts
I am 100% rooting for the Patriots in this one. Here are my reasons. First, I like Tom Brady. He is a great playoff QB who could win his 4th Super Bowl joining the elite ranks of Bradshaw and Montana as 4 time winners of the big game. I want this for Tom Brady. Second, I dislike Peyton Manning. Nothing against Manning he is a great quarterback and he does do some funny commercials, but the fact is I don't want to see him to win the big game. Why? Because I dont want to spend the next 5-10 years of my life having to watch Colts games and hear the announcers talking about how he is the greatest QB ever and kissing his butt like they have Brett Favre. Fact is the only thing that keeps announcers from doing this currently is his inability to get to the big game and win it. Third, if I am going to listen to a story line for the next two weeks I want it to be a debate about whether the Patriots franchise is one of the best dynasty's ever and inevitably the discussion of Tom Brady as one of the greatest QB's of all time.
While I will be rooting for the Patriots if the Colts happen to win I will be rooting for them in the Super Bowl. There are two reasons for this. First, I like Tony Dungy. I don't think he gets enough credit for being the great coach that he is. If he wins the Super Bowl his job should be secure for life in Indy and I think he deserves that. Second, the order of teams I will cheer for who remain goes in this order: 1. Patriots 2. Colts 3. Saints 4. Bears. Basically I want the AFC to win another championship and continue their recent Super Bowl dominance.
Friday, January 19, 2007
Conference Championship Game Weekend
In the early 90s, the Cowboys and the 49ers were the two top teams in the league, and they played each other in three consecutive NFC Championship Games ('92, '93, '94). This was during a run in which the Cowboys played in four consecutive Conference Championship games and the Niners played in a whopping 10 Conference Championship games in 18 years. The NFL championship was basically determined when these teams played; all season long, nobody seemed to believe anybody could beat the Niners or Cowboys in the playoffs and it was assumed they woulc play each other to win the championship.
These teams were absolutely LOADED with talent. The peak year was in 1994, when the 49ers had ten Pro Bowlers (including HOF quality players like Steve Young, Jerry Rice, Deion Sanders, and Ricky Watters). The Cowboys had eleven Pro Bowlers (including HOF quality players like Troy Aikman, Emmitt Smith, and Michael Irvin). Both teams also had a lot of non-Pro Bowlers (that year) that are very good (and made Pro Bowls in other years); the 49ers stacked up on aging veterans looking for a title that year. I actually consider that 1994 49er team to be the best I've ever seen.
I don't know that any of the four teams remaining have that much talent (there were 28 teams at the time, and this was early in the free agency era). But it still feels like Indianapolis-New England is a huge game with great players and big names.
It's one of the best football weekends of the year. Only the great teams are left, the games have a lot at stake, but they're played in a home stadium and they don't have the crushing finality of the Super Bowl. It's going to be lots of fun.
If I must pick, I'll take the Colts 41-20 over the Patriots, and the Bears (somehow) 30-27 over the Saints.
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
Rambling (and I'm afraid inarticulate) musings on the concept of "class" in sports
There's been a lot of talk in these NFL playoffs about "class." Well, what the hell is "class," and how does one handle oneself with "class," and what makes one "classless"?
Let's start by turning to the Oxford English Dictionary for answers, pretty much the greatest thing ever invented because it focuses on etymology. The OED has to tell us about the word "class" (this link may or may not be useful, as the OED is available by subscription; if you're on a campus reading this, it should work because your college probably has the subscription).
I suspect the concept of "class" as a form of ethical/respectable behavior seems to derive from the concept of class as social distinction. Class is generally associated with distinctions between and among like things ("classification"), as seen in definitions 1., 2., 3., 4., 5a., 6., and 7.
The second definition of "class" has to do with distinctions in terms of socio-economic groups:
2. a. A division or order of society according to status; a rank or grade of society.
Now common in the phrases higher (upper), middle, lower classes, working classes; which appear to be of modern introduction. Higher and lower orders were formerly used. This appears to be only partly derived from sense 1, and largely from the general sense 6.
b. The system of such divisions of society; rank (esp. high rank), caste. c. the classes: the classes of the community raised above or separated from ‘the masses’ or great body of the people.
Class is in this common sense a matter of economic distinctions and social group definitions.
I have no doubt that definition 5a. comes from the same concept of distinctions:
5. a. A division of things according to grade or quality, as high or low, first, second, etc.
Esp. used for the different grades of accommodation in travelling by railway or steamboat. The phrases high-class, low-class, first-class, second-class, and the like, are common in attrib. use, e.g. ‘high-class goods’,‘second-class passenger’. See HIGH, etc.
And finally definition 5b. gives us a notion of how "class" is used, I think, when Ladanian Tomlinson talks of the Patriots, when commentators talk about a t-shirt reading "Fuck the Eagles," etc.:
b. slang or colloq. Distinction, high quality; no class: of no worth; of low quality, inferior. Also attrib. or quasi-adj.
We can get further help by looking at the definition of "classy":
Of high or superior class, stylish, smart.
Dictionary.com can give us further help on the usage of of "class":
12. excellence; exceptional merit: She's a good performer, but she lacks class.
14. Informal. elegance, grace, or dignity, as in dress and behavior: He may be a slob, but his brother has real class.
Dictionary.com also gives us The American Heritage Dictionary definition. Interesting, the definition we're interested in comes up twice:
2. A division based on quality, rank, or grade, as:
e. Informal Elegance of style, taste, and manner: an actor with class.
3.c. Informal Elegance of style, taste, and manner: an actor with class.
So where are we at? "Class" generally refers to classification, particularly among socio-economic groups. The sense of "class" as ethical/respectable behavior (i.e., winning with class, behaving with class) is a sub-definition that I think is closely related to the socio-economic status. A person of "higher" class would never taunt an opponent after victory--indeed, if you read books like The Three Musketeers or other like books you'll see that those of higher class act according to the rules of chivalry. When an upper-class or aristocratic man is about to fight, he will treat his opponent respectfully, will only engage in a fair fight (a duel), and will likely act with dignity and respect after the duel. A lower-class person might not care about fairness (he might "fight dirty"), and he might be profane or coarse in his language before, during, and after the fight. Look at movies: lower-class characters are often literally dirty, they don't use proper grammar, and when they fight they get particularly emotional and crued (they swear and insult people), while upper-class characters are clean, use proper grammar, and usually fight calmly, coolly, with little coarse language. Michael Parenti explores these these class portrayals in film in his excellent essay "Class and Virtue":
"The squire and his associates dress in fine clothes, speak an educated diction, and drink brandy. Long John and his men dress slovenly, speak in guttural accents, and drink rum. From these indications alone, the viewer knows who are the good guys and who are the bad. Virtue is visually measured by one's approximation to proper class appearances."
Obviously upper-class behavior is perceived and presented as superior to lower-class behavior. Members of lower-classes are often obscene, dirty, and bawdy. An aristocrat will be humble in victory; a peasant will brag and boast.
Nobody believes America is a classless society, but we have at least done away with aristocratic titles and explicit distinctions of merit based on birth (don't even get me started on how much I hate the Queen of England and just about every other European aristocrat). But we are still obsessed with the idea of aristocracy (hence referring to the Kennedys as "Camelot" and arranging activities like a wedding or prom as a "court"). And we still hold many of the old associations about class and behavior: upper-class behavior equals good behavior, lower-class behavior equals bad (or even scary) behavior.
Now, on to sports.
This comes up in a lot of American sportswriting and fandom. Writers and fans like players and teams that win with "class" (i.e., act with the humility and dignity of the upper-class) and frown upon players who are too boastful, who celebrate too loudly or eccentricly, who "show up" opponents, who taunt opponents, or who ham it up over players they've just defeated. Race, of course, is an issue associated with class in this case--some writers and fans seem particularly disturbed by black athletes who boast and celebrate and lack humility in victory (subconsciously, a black athlete behaving this way may stick out to them more than a white athlete behaving this way--I thought it was "classless" for Mike Vrabel to flap his wings like T.O. in the Super Bowl, but I don't know that a lot of people cared). But I'm focusing on the concept of "class" in "class."
When players do celebrate and show up defeated opponents, they are said to be "classless" because they are acting like a lower-class commoner. If the victorious athlete or team were to win with "class," he/they would talk about what a great fight the opponent put up, would calmly and politely shake the opponent's hand, would refrain from excessive celebration, etc. They act like an aristocrat who just won a duel, in other words.
Does Ladanian Tomlinson think all these things when he calls the Patriots classless? Of course not. But Marx teaches us that a distinguishing feature of ideology is that it doesn't appear to be ideology--it becomes so infused and metastasized in a culture that people just accept it as a given (ideology is particularly pernicious in that it is not just the ruling class that accepts the features of the ideology as a given, but members of the oppressed classes accept it as a given as well). The class associations with the concept of class are dug in all over our society, and they are heavily present in sports as well.
A person is "classy" when he/she behaves as an aristocrat would; a person is "classless" when he/she behaves without the dignity of the upper class, and instead acts with the boastfulness of a member of the lower class.
Let's start by turning to the Oxford English Dictionary for answers, pretty much the greatest thing ever invented because it focuses on etymology. The OED has to tell us about the word "class" (this link may or may not be useful, as the OED is available by subscription; if you're on a campus reading this, it should work because your college probably has the subscription).
I suspect the concept of "class" as a form of ethical/respectable behavior seems to derive from the concept of class as social distinction. Class is generally associated with distinctions between and among like things ("classification"), as seen in definitions 1., 2., 3., 4., 5a., 6., and 7.
The second definition of "class" has to do with distinctions in terms of socio-economic groups:
2. a. A division or order of society according to status; a rank or grade of society.
Now common in the phrases higher (upper), middle, lower classes, working classes; which appear to be of modern introduction. Higher and lower orders were formerly used. This appears to be only partly derived from sense 1, and largely from the general sense 6.
b. The system of such divisions of society; rank (esp. high rank), caste. c. the classes: the classes of the community raised above or separated from ‘the masses’ or great body of the people.
Class is in this common sense a matter of economic distinctions and social group definitions.
I have no doubt that definition 5a. comes from the same concept of distinctions:
5. a. A division of things according to grade or quality, as high or low, first, second, etc.
Esp. used for the different grades of accommodation in travelling by railway or steamboat. The phrases high-class, low-class, first-class, second-class, and the like, are common in attrib. use, e.g. ‘high-class goods’,‘second-class passenger’. See HIGH, etc.
And finally definition 5b. gives us a notion of how "class" is used, I think, when Ladanian Tomlinson talks of the Patriots, when commentators talk about a t-shirt reading "Fuck the Eagles," etc.:
b. slang or colloq. Distinction, high quality; no class: of no worth; of low quality, inferior. Also attrib. or quasi-adj.
We can get further help by looking at the definition of "classy":
Of high or superior class, stylish, smart.
Dictionary.com can give us further help on the usage of of "class":
12. excellence; exceptional merit: She's a good performer, but she lacks class.
14. Informal. elegance, grace, or dignity, as in dress and behavior: He may be a slob, but his brother has real class.
Dictionary.com also gives us The American Heritage Dictionary definition. Interesting, the definition we're interested in comes up twice:
2. A division based on quality, rank, or grade, as:
e. Informal Elegance of style, taste, and manner: an actor with class.
3.c. Informal Elegance of style, taste, and manner: an actor with class.
So where are we at? "Class" generally refers to classification, particularly among socio-economic groups. The sense of "class" as ethical/respectable behavior (i.e., winning with class, behaving with class) is a sub-definition that I think is closely related to the socio-economic status. A person of "higher" class would never taunt an opponent after victory--indeed, if you read books like The Three Musketeers or other like books you'll see that those of higher class act according to the rules of chivalry. When an upper-class or aristocratic man is about to fight, he will treat his opponent respectfully, will only engage in a fair fight (a duel), and will likely act with dignity and respect after the duel. A lower-class person might not care about fairness (he might "fight dirty"), and he might be profane or coarse in his language before, during, and after the fight. Look at movies: lower-class characters are often literally dirty, they don't use proper grammar, and when they fight they get particularly emotional and crued (they swear and insult people), while upper-class characters are clean, use proper grammar, and usually fight calmly, coolly, with little coarse language. Michael Parenti explores these these class portrayals in film in his excellent essay "Class and Virtue":
"The squire and his associates dress in fine clothes, speak an educated diction, and drink brandy. Long John and his men dress slovenly, speak in guttural accents, and drink rum. From these indications alone, the viewer knows who are the good guys and who are the bad. Virtue is visually measured by one's approximation to proper class appearances."
Obviously upper-class behavior is perceived and presented as superior to lower-class behavior. Members of lower-classes are often obscene, dirty, and bawdy. An aristocrat will be humble in victory; a peasant will brag and boast.
Nobody believes America is a classless society, but we have at least done away with aristocratic titles and explicit distinctions of merit based on birth (don't even get me started on how much I hate the Queen of England and just about every other European aristocrat). But we are still obsessed with the idea of aristocracy (hence referring to the Kennedys as "Camelot" and arranging activities like a wedding or prom as a "court"). And we still hold many of the old associations about class and behavior: upper-class behavior equals good behavior, lower-class behavior equals bad (or even scary) behavior.
Now, on to sports.
This comes up in a lot of American sportswriting and fandom. Writers and fans like players and teams that win with "class" (i.e., act with the humility and dignity of the upper-class) and frown upon players who are too boastful, who celebrate too loudly or eccentricly, who "show up" opponents, who taunt opponents, or who ham it up over players they've just defeated. Race, of course, is an issue associated with class in this case--some writers and fans seem particularly disturbed by black athletes who boast and celebrate and lack humility in victory (subconsciously, a black athlete behaving this way may stick out to them more than a white athlete behaving this way--I thought it was "classless" for Mike Vrabel to flap his wings like T.O. in the Super Bowl, but I don't know that a lot of people cared). But I'm focusing on the concept of "class" in "class."
When players do celebrate and show up defeated opponents, they are said to be "classless" because they are acting like a lower-class commoner. If the victorious athlete or team were to win with "class," he/they would talk about what a great fight the opponent put up, would calmly and politely shake the opponent's hand, would refrain from excessive celebration, etc. They act like an aristocrat who just won a duel, in other words.
Does Ladanian Tomlinson think all these things when he calls the Patriots classless? Of course not. But Marx teaches us that a distinguishing feature of ideology is that it doesn't appear to be ideology--it becomes so infused and metastasized in a culture that people just accept it as a given (ideology is particularly pernicious in that it is not just the ruling class that accepts the features of the ideology as a given, but members of the oppressed classes accept it as a given as well). The class associations with the concept of class are dug in all over our society, and they are heavily present in sports as well.
A person is "classy" when he/she behaves as an aristocrat would; a person is "classless" when he/she behaves without the dignity of the upper class, and instead acts with the boastfulness of a member of the lower class.
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
Winter Break Nuggets of Wonderment
The Minnesota Timberwolves are 4 games over .500. If this keeps up, they'll be right back where they belong: losing in the first round of the playoffs.
If the Colts win the Super Bowl, Peyton Manning instantly goes into all discussion of the top 5 QBs of all-time, and by the end of his career he'll be widely discussed as the greatest of all-time.
For some complex and some simple reasons, I identify with Manning and the Colts (as I've expressed previously). Though a fair question remains, if the Colts do win a championship this year, do I have any reason whatsoever to identify with Manning? Once he wins that championship, he is then simply a great quarterback, and the aura of drama, tragedy, and epic failure recedes.
While I've openly rooted against the Bears all season long, and I still despise Brian Urlacher with growing intensity, and I rooted for the Seahawks on Sunday, and I enjoy watching Drew Brees, Deuce McAllister, and Reggie Bush play football, and Chicago has already had the Jordan-Pippen dynasty and a White Sox championship since the Twin Cities had a pro champion, I'm inexplicably rooting for the Bears to go to the Super Bowl (where I would hope they lose to the Colts or beat the Patriots). But isn't that part of the fun of the playoffs? Of course you'd rather have your favorite team in the playoffs competing for a championship, but if it's not, then you sometimes get surprised watching a game to find out who you are rooting for. Of course, that happens in the regular season too--before the season, I did not know whether or not I would end up rooting for Daunte Culpepper on the Dolphins, and then, watching the first game, I found myself yelling and cheering when he got sacked or threw an interception. Again, I find this aspect of sports a microcosm of life: we are not always aware of what our subconscious desires might be, but in a moment of truth they may suddenly be revealed to us, and we may just be surprised at what those inner desires are.
I suppose you could give Tom Brady credit for another "clutch" performance against the Chargers. He did, after all, make plays in the fourth quarter to lead his team to victory. However, he and the rest of his team made mistake after mistake--and got bailed out by the Chargers' bigger mistakes. The Chargers could have won that game by 20, and the reason they didn't had less to do with the Patriots and their clutch play and more to do with their own foolish, foolish mistakes. Take away Parker's muffed punt (and decision to try pick it up), Florence's headbutt (I actually think he was just taunting and got pushed and it only looked like a headbutt), or McCree's fumble on Brady's THIRD interception and we probably have a different AFC Championship game. On McCree's play, you can give credit to a Patriot's good play (Troy Brown stripped the ball); on the other two mistakes, it was totally on the Chargers with little credit given to the Patriots for forcing the mistake. That's part of sports, too, of course (in tennis they're explicitly called "unforced errors") and if you're playing a team making such mistakes, you have to take advantage of those mistakes, which the Patriots did. But the Chargers just pissed that game away.
The Saints are tremendously fun to watch. Deuce McAllister has always been an amazing RB he's big and strong enough to maul defenders and drag them for extra yards, and he's got the speed and moves to break long runs), Reggie Bush is capable of several "wow" plays a game, and Drew Brees is a good quarterback. The Bear defense struggled against the Seahawk offense, and I think on offense the Saints are superior at every position to the Seahawks. They can easily go into Soldier Field and lay 30 on the Bears.
Three games left, and then comes February. I love football, but at the end of the season I feel like I've spent 5 months in Plato's cave, and somebody has set me free, and I'm crawling out of the cave squinting as I look out at the desert of the real.
If the Colts win the Super Bowl, Peyton Manning instantly goes into all discussion of the top 5 QBs of all-time, and by the end of his career he'll be widely discussed as the greatest of all-time.
For some complex and some simple reasons, I identify with Manning and the Colts (as I've expressed previously). Though a fair question remains, if the Colts do win a championship this year, do I have any reason whatsoever to identify with Manning? Once he wins that championship, he is then simply a great quarterback, and the aura of drama, tragedy, and epic failure recedes.
While I've openly rooted against the Bears all season long, and I still despise Brian Urlacher with growing intensity, and I rooted for the Seahawks on Sunday, and I enjoy watching Drew Brees, Deuce McAllister, and Reggie Bush play football, and Chicago has already had the Jordan-Pippen dynasty and a White Sox championship since the Twin Cities had a pro champion, I'm inexplicably rooting for the Bears to go to the Super Bowl (where I would hope they lose to the Colts or beat the Patriots). But isn't that part of the fun of the playoffs? Of course you'd rather have your favorite team in the playoffs competing for a championship, but if it's not, then you sometimes get surprised watching a game to find out who you are rooting for. Of course, that happens in the regular season too--before the season, I did not know whether or not I would end up rooting for Daunte Culpepper on the Dolphins, and then, watching the first game, I found myself yelling and cheering when he got sacked or threw an interception. Again, I find this aspect of sports a microcosm of life: we are not always aware of what our subconscious desires might be, but in a moment of truth they may suddenly be revealed to us, and we may just be surprised at what those inner desires are.
I suppose you could give Tom Brady credit for another "clutch" performance against the Chargers. He did, after all, make plays in the fourth quarter to lead his team to victory. However, he and the rest of his team made mistake after mistake--and got bailed out by the Chargers' bigger mistakes. The Chargers could have won that game by 20, and the reason they didn't had less to do with the Patriots and their clutch play and more to do with their own foolish, foolish mistakes. Take away Parker's muffed punt (and decision to try pick it up), Florence's headbutt (I actually think he was just taunting and got pushed and it only looked like a headbutt), or McCree's fumble on Brady's THIRD interception and we probably have a different AFC Championship game. On McCree's play, you can give credit to a Patriot's good play (Troy Brown stripped the ball); on the other two mistakes, it was totally on the Chargers with little credit given to the Patriots for forcing the mistake. That's part of sports, too, of course (in tennis they're explicitly called "unforced errors") and if you're playing a team making such mistakes, you have to take advantage of those mistakes, which the Patriots did. But the Chargers just pissed that game away.
The Saints are tremendously fun to watch. Deuce McAllister has always been an amazing RB he's big and strong enough to maul defenders and drag them for extra yards, and he's got the speed and moves to break long runs), Reggie Bush is capable of several "wow" plays a game, and Drew Brees is a good quarterback. The Bear defense struggled against the Seahawk offense, and I think on offense the Saints are superior at every position to the Seahawks. They can easily go into Soldier Field and lay 30 on the Bears.
Three games left, and then comes February. I love football, but at the end of the season I feel like I've spent 5 months in Plato's cave, and somebody has set me free, and I'm crawling out of the cave squinting as I look out at the desert of the real.
Sunday, January 14, 2007
Dear Seattle Seahawks:
I know many of you are regular readers of this blog, and this open letter is not merely a trite convention of the blogosphere.
I also know you enjoy whining. You bitched that the referees cost you the Super Bowl (which they did), and you bitched that Viking linebacker E.J. Henderson semi-purposely injured Matt Hasselbeck (which he didn't).
But if you're going to come out with the disrespect card (talking about how nobody thinks you should even bother showing up, talking about how nobody is giving you a chance, nobody respects you, nobody is picking you to win the game) BEFORE the game, you just might want to go out and win the fucking game. Otherwise, all you've done is validate us.
Thanks, and we hope next year that once again you lose a playoff game you could easily have won with a few less dropped passes, a few more accurate throws, and a little better play-calling and clock management.
Have a nice day!
I also know you enjoy whining. You bitched that the referees cost you the Super Bowl (which they did), and you bitched that Viking linebacker E.J. Henderson semi-purposely injured Matt Hasselbeck (which he didn't).
But if you're going to come out with the disrespect card (talking about how nobody thinks you should even bother showing up, talking about how nobody is giving you a chance, nobody respects you, nobody is picking you to win the game) BEFORE the game, you just might want to go out and win the fucking game. Otherwise, all you've done is validate us.
Thanks, and we hope next year that once again you lose a playoff game you could easily have won with a few less dropped passes, a few more accurate throws, and a little better play-calling and clock management.
Have a nice day!
Four Games of Fun
Indy over Baltimore
If the Colts lost a playoff game 49-48, Manning would get blamed for it, so who cares if the Colts won with great defense?
Patriots over Chargers
In all games, sometimes the loser's mistakes are more important than the winner's successes. Here was a game the Chargers lost more than the Patriots won.
Saints over Eagles
A lot of good running back performances this weekend, but wasn't Deuce McAllister particularly fun to watch?
Bears over Seahawks
Who else was ready for a 13-7 game with 19 turnovers? That was fairly well-played and fun to watch. Hasselbeck was just a little off on too many passes.
All four games this weekend were fun to watch. Next week's should be the same. But I'll just be rooting for the defenses.
If the Colts lost a playoff game 49-48, Manning would get blamed for it, so who cares if the Colts won with great defense?
Patriots over Chargers
In all games, sometimes the loser's mistakes are more important than the winner's successes. Here was a game the Chargers lost more than the Patriots won.
Saints over Eagles
A lot of good running back performances this weekend, but wasn't Deuce McAllister particularly fun to watch?
Bears over Seahawks
Who else was ready for a 13-7 game with 19 turnovers? That was fairly well-played and fun to watch. Hasselbeck was just a little off on too many passes.
All four games this weekend were fun to watch. Next week's should be the same. But I'll just be rooting for the defenses.
Saturday, January 13, 2007
Is this the best football weekend all year?
I love the opening Sunday, and I love next week's conference championships. But the Divisional Round might be the most fun we have all year.
There are four games, all of them televised, all of them on their own.
They feature the eight best teams in the league, and that means seeing most of the league's best players in big meaningful games.
And this is the round that often gives us the supremely memorable games with fantastic, unique, memorable (or tragic) endings, at least in recent years (Patriots-Raiders and the tuck rule, Colts-Steelers and all the craziness at the end, Packers-Eagles and the 4th and 26). The drama is constant and the quality of football is spectacular (I seem to recall Sports Illustrated doing a feature on how and why the Divisional Round is the best weekend of football two or three years ago).
We're down to 6 real NFL games left until September, and 4 of them will be happening in the next two days. Enjoy the hell out of yourselves, people. You might be talking about what you see today for years to come.
There are four games, all of them televised, all of them on their own.
They feature the eight best teams in the league, and that means seeing most of the league's best players in big meaningful games.
And this is the round that often gives us the supremely memorable games with fantastic, unique, memorable (or tragic) endings, at least in recent years (Patriots-Raiders and the tuck rule, Colts-Steelers and all the craziness at the end, Packers-Eagles and the 4th and 26). The drama is constant and the quality of football is spectacular (I seem to recall Sports Illustrated doing a feature on how and why the Divisional Round is the best weekend of football two or three years ago).
We're down to 6 real NFL games left until September, and 4 of them will be happening in the next two days. Enjoy the hell out of yourselves, people. You might be talking about what you see today for years to come.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)