Verizon is the DEVIL!

Well, I know at least one of my loyal readers is looking at that title and thinking "Scott, didn't you learn that like 5 years ago?" And the answer is, of course, yes I did. For the rest of you, some background: When I moved into my first apartment after college, my roommate and I went with Verizon DSL for our internet. And it was great for most of the first year. In the winter of the next year, my original roommate moved out, and another of my old college roommates moved in. The DSL was in my old roommate's name, so we wanted to switch it to my new roommate. It took all of about a 2 hour phone ordeal to get Verizon to say they would do that, and in the end we actually had to tell a fib regarding what was actually happening in order to avoid having to send our equipment back in and them sending us the exact same equipment back. You might think that is why I think Verizon is evil, but you would be wrong.

A few weeks later, I came home to find that our internet was down, and that the modem was unable to connect. My roommate gets on the phone, spends the better part of the evening dealing with tech support, and can't find a solution. They say they are going to do some other things and if we don't have internet again in a day or two, we should call back. 2 days pass, no internet. Roommate calls back, turns out that they had screwed up the transition of the account, and our service had actually been deactivated,, and that it would take 3-5 days to get it back on. So, due to their screw up, we were without internet for the better of a week. Shortly after that, we were going to take the promotional rate and switch to Comcast for our internet, but when we called in to talk about cancelling our DSL, the hold message informed us that the price of our package was dropping by about 10 bucks a month, so we figured we'd tough it out. Of course, Verizion didn't mention (and they would swear up and down that it didn't actually happen) that our connection speeds would crap out as well. Regardless of what they say, I know what happened to our internet performance. So the next time the promotional offer came around for Comcast, we jumped on it. And it became standard practice for me to decry Verizon at any opportunity.

How did I wind up in another run in with them, you might ask. Fast forward to Winter 2007. I'm still loving my Comcast internet at the time, but have become convinced that Comcast TV is the devil. So I switch to satelitte. When I had Comcast TV, my internet was roughly the same price as comparable Verizon service, but when I dropped TV, my internet connection speed was lowered and the price jumped up about 20 bucks. (As an aside, how brilliant is that? A customer drops one of your services, so you make the service he still has crappier and more expensive.) I'm a principled person, but on the matter of internet service, my principles can only impact my wallet to a certain degree, so I bit the bullet and went back to Verizon.

Fast forward to yesterday. My internet service has been running great for a year now, and I was almost ready to forgive Verizon. Then, shortly after I get home from work, I lose the internet and the DSL modem isn't connecting. I happen to look out and see that there's a Verizon tech working 2 doors down, and that she has the main hub for the neighborhood open, so I figure, oh,no problem, she's doing something, it'll come back on when she's done. And a few minutes later, it did come on. No harm, no foul. Well, I walked away from the computer for a while, and when I came back, the internet was down again, and now the tech was gone. Wonderful.

So, I call Verizon and explain the situation, and of course, because they'll never take the word of a customer on something like this, and it's a regional call center so they don't actually know that someone was out working at the neighbor's, I had to go through all the stupid troubleshooting tests. Annoying, but no big deal. Then they turn me over to dispatch to schedule a tech to come out, and the woman at dispatch tells me that there will be someone out tomorrow (today) between 8 am and 7 pm and so there needs to be someone available at the house. Well, that rather set me off, because this house is obviously pretty empty during the work day. "So," I said, in a less than calm tone, "You're asking me to potentially sit around all day and give up a day's pay at my job while I wait for someone to come fix something that your tech broke?" I believe at some point in our discussion I presented the possibility of giving them a bill for my time lost at work. Anyhow, I finally got her to request a window between 1 and 5 pm, but she insisted up and down that it wasn't guaranteed. To which I asked, "I live like 10 minutes from my office, can they just call me when they leave their last job before mine." "We can't guarantee that." Ugh. The whole thing was especially aggravating because I was positive they weren't even going to need into the house to fix the problem.

Anyhow, to make a long story slightly less long, the tech who was out with the neighbors yesterday apparently had something to finish up with them this morning, and when she saw my ticket, she called me and asked if I could come right then, so I did. As I anticipated, the service was already up when I got back to the house (she had realized her mistake overnight) and the tech just had to stop by to confirm that it was working again. And of course, all of this could have been solved with much less hassle if Verizon had the infrastructure in place to actually let me talk to the local people in the first place. I don't even want to think about what part of the world the people who I was talking to last night were in.

So, here I am, happily back up on the internet again, once again fully aware of the evil that is Verizon. Unfortunately, my other options are all either every bit as evil, or way more expensive, so I'll just have to suck it up and move on. Looking at the bright side, the lack of internet did allow me to get almost 1/4 of the way into Last Dance, which I'm already loving. So I have that going for me, which is nice.

Friday Night Lights

There is perhaps no better testament to the limited amount of reading that I did from about junior high until last fall then the fact that I just now got around to reading H.G. Bissinger's Friday Night Lights, a book that was published in 1990 when I was all of 10 years old. The book was a bestseller that has since been made into a highly successful movie (in 2004) and most recently spawned a TV show on NBC that has been critically acclaimed (and personally my favorite show on TV) but has not met with significant success, and was fortunate to get any kind of renewal for a 3rd season.

The book chronicles the story of the 1988 Permain Panthers, a high school football team from Odessa, Texas. At the time the book was written, Permian was one of the premier high school football programs in the state of Texas. The program fell from glory in the late 90s, and is only now starting to recover.

Much like the TV show, Friday Night Lights is not as much a football book as it is a book about the culture of high school football and it's impact on the community around it. The book looks at the impact the football culture had on racial relations, gender relations, education, and politics, among other aspects. While the author seems to view the players and the team itself with a reverence and nostalgia, he does not paint a particularly flattering portrait of the Odessa community and the Permian school system, and that has been a source of controversy since the book's release.

For my part, I've heard Bissinger on other topics before, and he's made his own politics rather evident. They would starkly in contrast with what you'd expect to final in the midst of West Texas. Given that, and the simple tendency of any writer to "juice things up", it wouldn't surprise me to find that some of the characterizations went a bit too far. And yet, much of what he gets into, particularly as it relates to the educational aspects, is consistent with what you see cropping up around major college football, so it's really not that hard to believe the same would apply at a football mad high school. If you want a really study in the tension between football in education, look into the story of Gary Edwards of Dallas Carter High School, the school that defeated that 1988 Permian team in the state semi-finals. It's pretty incredible, and a matter of public record due to the various court proceedings involved.

Overall, I really enjoyed the book and found it quite a fascinating look at impact sports (obviously football in this case) can have on society. It also joins the list of books that I've finished in just over a week, evidence that I found it a pretty compelling read. The next book on my list is Last Dance, by John Feinstein. The book promises a behind the scenes look at college basketball's Final Four, and Feinstein is one of the more prominent sportswriters/authors of the last 20 years or so, though this will be the first book of his that I have read. I'm very much looking forward to it.

On the Hack-a-Shaq

I haven't said much, if anything about the NBA on this blog thus far, and there's a reason for that. If it's not already obvious, on the spectrum of professional sports, the NBA is a distant 3rd for me, well behind baseball and football. In the previous few years, it had almost been relegated to a complete afterthought for me. I just didn't see the games as particularly compelling any more. In a way, I was spoiled in this regard, because I grew up watching what is now pretty clearly looked back upon as an extreme "up" period for the league. You had the great Lakers/Celtics rivarly of the late 80s, with the Pistons getting involved in there as well - Magic, Bird, Thomas, etc. And then there was Jordan and his virtuoso performances that led the Bulls to 6 titles in 8 years (angering me all the way as a Bulls hater). The league has just never been able to really recover from the vacuum Jordan created when he left the Bulls for the last time.

However, this year has been different for me. It started with the major offseason moves the Celtics made, adding Kevin Garnett and Ray Allen to their existing All-Star Paul Pierce to create a truly compelling team in an Eastern Conference that had, in many ways become a total afterthought. And then, the uber-competitive West was taken to a new level by a flurry of deals around the trading deadline - Pau Gasol to the Lakers, Shaquille O'Neal to the Suns, Jason Kidd to the Mavericks. The finishing stretch in the West did something I thought was impossible - attract my attention to the game prior to the postseason. And man, was it crazy, with the top 9 teams in the West ending up within 9 games of each other, the top 6 within 3 games.

And now we've come to the playoffs, where it really matters. The marquee series of the first round was supposed to be Spurs v. Suns, as two very high profile rivals clashed once again. The Suns had taken a major risk in bringing in an aging Shaq, and it was thought that this matchup was the big reason for it, so that they would have a strong inside presence to go against Tim Duncan.

Well, unfortunately the matchup to date hasn't panned out as well as observers might have hoped. After losing two winnable games in San Antonio, the Suns were destroyed on their home court last night and now face a 3-0 deficit that no NBA team has ever recovered from. In fact, only 3 of the 90+ teams to go down 0-3 have even managed to force a game 7. Whether it happens 1 game from now or 4, it seems inevitable that the Suns will be bounced from the playoffs, and the Shaq trade denounced as an unmitigated disaster.

All of that brings me to my real topic for today, the so called Hack-A-Shaq technique that the Spurs have employed at several points throughout the series thus far. As has been widely publicized throughout his 16 year career, O'Neal is an absolutely terrible free throw shooter. His career mark stands at a horrific 52.4%, and his seasonal marks include only one year where he managed to hit over 60% from the line, and a number of years where he failed to shoot even 50%. This year, he is right at 50%.

Teams throughout the years have made a point of fouling Shaq and sending him to the line rather than giving him dunks and layups, but at various times coaches have gone as far as to do what Spurs coach Gregg Popovich has done in this series. Typically near the end of a half or the game when O'Neal is on the floor, Spurs players have begun to foul O'Neal off the ball, sending him to the line rather than allowing the Suns to run their offense and get some opportunities. Shaq has been his typical erratic self, shooting just under 50% from the line for the series.

As it has when employed in years past, the tactic has resulted in a significant amount of discussion. It's worth noting that a few years ago, a rule change was made that eliminated this tactic in the last 2 minutes of the game, by punishing these kinds of intentional off the ball fouls with 2 shots and the shooting team keeping the ball.

For my part, I think the controversy surrounding the tactic is crazy, and misses the point to some degree. First of all, let's put a few things into perspective here. If you foul a 50% shooter like this every possession, over time you're effectively giving the other team a point every time down the court, which is the same result as if the team ran their offense and shot 50% from the field on those possessions. And there's always the risk that your target goes on a run (as O'Neal did with a 5-6 stretch in Game 2). So it's not as if this is even close to being a foolproof strategy. Like any tactic, there are risks and rewards. What it does do, most of the time, is prevent a high powered offensive team like the Suns from going any kind of real run to close out a half. Secondly, when you pull this kind of strategy earlier in the game, you're faced with the choice of either getting extra early fouls on key players,or having lesser players on the court just to take fouls. Additionally, it seems odd to me that this sort of tactic would be frowned upon, while intentional fouling strategies are considered to be almost textbook in certain situations. For instance, fouling when you have a foul to give near the end of a quarter to cut down the time an opponent has to run a play, or fouling intentionally at the end of a game when the opponent is down by 3, to send to the line for 2 shots rather than giving them a chance to tie with a 3. And of course, the intentional fouling that is characteristic of any game where it's the only way the trailing team can create enough possessions for themselves to come back.

Let me be honest - I can't stand to watch the Hack-a-Shaq play out, and I'm sure most fans without a rooting interest would say the same thing. It's ugly basketball. However, I think the controversy over the tactic continues to obscure the real issue here, and that being that you've got a 16 year NBA veteran who can't make enough of his free throws to prevent this tactic (which has been employed against him in various forms throughout his entire career) from being a viable option. If Shaq could even hit 60-65% of his free throws (which still isn't very good), teams wouldn't do this. There's just no excuse for this, and there never has been. I'd have to put a little more thought into it before I was sure, but I'm reasonably confident that hitting a free throw is pretty much the easiest thing you can do to score a point in professional sports. You're standing at a consistent distance from the hoop, there's no one guarding you, it's just a matter of sheer repetition. I haven't shot a basketball in months, and I'm not very good even when I have been playing, and I'm fairly certain I could go out right now and hit at least 7 of 10. I'll concede that hitting free throws in a game is different than hitting them in an empty gym, primary due to fatigue and so forth, but it's just not that hard to do.

I've heard the excuses made for Shaq throughout his career: wrist injuries when he was a kid, the size of his hands relative to the ball, etc. None of it makes any sense to me. If Shaq truly wanted to become a respectable free throw shooter, he could have done it years ago. He could find a method that gets the ball in the hoop from the line at least 6 times out of 10. It's just obviously not a priority, and never really has been. That's the choice he makes, and the choice any team that employs him makes in putting him on the floor. Here's hoping the new attention being brought to this matter doesn't result in yet another rule change to further limit the negative consequences of that choice.

An independence day, of sorts

Before I start, I'd like to acknowledge the fact that yesterday was the busiest day of traffic I've had on the blog, besting a several month old record, and we're well on our way to this month being easily the busiest month on record. I'd like to credit myself with being much more entertaining and insightful, but the reality is that I just have connected a few more friends and family with the blog :) I do value all of my loyal readers, however.

I gotta say, yesterday was my personal Independence day - independence from the presence of Sens. Obama and Clinton on my tv and radio. Pennsylvania is traditionally a battleground state in the general election, so we usually get our share of bombardment in the fall, but this run to the primary was just ridiculous, and I would guess unprecedented. I can't imagine too many scenarios in the past where candidates were able to focus all their machinery on a single, potentially pivotal state for 6 weeks. That's right, it was six weeks from the last set of significant primaries until PA's. And man, we felt it like crazy. The fact that I felt it as much as I did just demonstrates how crazy it was. I watch very little TV anymore (and when I watch the local stations, it's usually stuff that I DVR and skip commercials on), and while my radio is on all day at work, it's always on either country or sports talk, neither of which you would expect to be major outlets for a Democratic candidate. But, I heard plenty of it, and was pretty well done with it about 2 weeks in.

It's funny, I've long been a proponent of moving the Pennsylvania primary, due to the fact the late April date almost always precludes our voters from having an actual say in the nominations. And yet, I think this one rare year in which the PA primary did have some significance actually made me more resolved in that opinion. While I'm sure for certain segments it was nice to be the sole focus of the national political scene for 6 weeks, I really just don't see anything productive about what we've just been through.

And, since Clinton's victory means the battle lurches onward, I gratefully, yet knowingly, pass the burden I was just able to escape onto my dear friends from Indiana. At least you guys only get 2 weeks, rather than 6.

Plugging the alma mater again...

So, to my readers who are fellow Messiah alums and sports fans, are you intrigued by this: http://www.messiah.edu/athletics/. (Note - presumably if you click that link after noon on Thursday it won't necessarily be as intriguing, but you'll notice a significant change if you've ever been to the Messiah athletics site before).

I am very intrigued by it, and also rather excited. One of my key frustrations as a devotee of the Messiah athletics program through out the years was that I felt that, despite having one of the premier D-III athletic programs around, the athletic department did a relatively poor job of promoting itself and of getting information out to the public regarding the various teams. The biggest reason for this was poor staffing. The conference membership has shifted in the last couple years, so I'm not sure if this would still be the case or not, but as of 2 years ago, Messiah was the only school in the entire MAC (both Commonwealth and Freedom) that did not have full-time Sports Information Director. SID responsibilites fell to Scott Frey, the head coach of the women's soccer team. Now, I certainly have nothing against Coach Frey, he's a terrific coach and I'm sure he performed the SID duties to the best of his abilities, but the reality is that he was given the responsibilities of essentially 2 full-time positions. And his primary duty was as the women's soccer coach, so I'm sure that's where his time went when the choice had to be made. And therefore, Messiah athletics was left sorely lacking in the public relations/marketing/information distribution department.

Messiah finally rectified that situation at the beginning of the year, hiring an assistant athletics director to be in charge of PR/marketing/sports information, and the impact was noticed almost immediately. The frequency of updates increased across all of the various teams, the quality of information available increased, and much of the site got a new, more attractive and functional look. I can only assume that tomorrow's unveiling is the next big step in that move, and I'm pumped about it.

I've stated in previous entries that I believe that Messiah's athletes provide the school with some of the best PR it could ever ask for, so it was always perplexing to me why the college continued to fail dismally in terms of promoting the athletics program. Let's be clear, I'm not talking about chest thumping/look at us kind of promotion. I'm just simply talking about making a commitment to providing a quality, updated web presence, and in getting appropriate information out to the local media. It's really an investment in the existing fanbase as much as anything else. I'm very happy to see the move in that direction.

Random ramblings about music...

I've used this space to mention my preference for country music on a number of different occasions. I like country for a number of reasons, but, as I think I've mentioned before, the biggest draw for me comes because as a writer, I'm drawn to quality songwriting. You can say what you want about country music, but I will make and stand behind the assertion that Nashville is home to the greatest collective songwriting talent that there is in any popular genre of music. Certainly there are immensely talented songwriters at work across all genres, but I don't think any genre can compete with country music for the sheer volume of quality lyrics that are penned and make it to the radio on a consistent basis.

I think the reason for this is obvious: the song is much more of the focus in country than in many other genres. You can have all the glitz, glamour, and image in the world, but if you don't find your way to quality songs, you probably aren't even going to qualify as a flash in the pan in the country universe. So, if you're a talented songwriter who wants to recognized for your work on a consistent basis, country is going to have a pull for you.

Songs can hit on a number of different levels. They can be simply very raw and real, like the song I posted several days ago, "Picture to Burn". They can be particularly clever and make me chuckle, like Brad Paisley's current single, "I'm Still a Guy". Or a song can be very profound and inspirational, like George Strait's current hit, "I Saw God Today". It's exceedingly rare that a song is a major country hit without falling into one of those categories. That fact is, in my perspective, why you tend to find country hits to be of a more enduring quality, rather than songs that everyone loves and hears over and over for a period of weeks, and then gets sick of. That's not to say that such a thing always happens in other genres, or never happens in country.

Anyhow, there's not a major point to this particular rambling. I was just reflecting on how much I was really enjoying the current group of songs that are at the top of the country charts, and so I got to thinking about what was really behind that.

Taking its toll

As I said in a response to Amanda's comment on my post last Saturday in which I reflected on my age, I stated that there are only a few times when I actually "feel" my age. Today happened to be one of those times - the pre-season tournament for our church softball league.

Now, the term "tournament" implies more importance than this event actually has. We don't have umpires, the games don't count, and there are no prizes. Basically all it is an organized set of scrimmages which allow us all to get in some game action prior to the start of the season in 10 days. 4 teams are assigned to a field, and we play a round robin on Saturday morning/early afternoon, giving everyone an opportunity to play 3 games.

Now, there were some things working against me today. First of all, we usually have a practice or two as a team prior to the preseason tournament. This year, due to some disorganization on the part of the leadership (and yes, I'm part of the leadership), that didn't happen, so I along with everyone else, was having my first softball activity since mid-August. Secondly, as has been well documented, we haven't had a ton of warm weather around here yet, with our first 70 degree days occurring just this week. Well, today, it hit 83 at one point, so when you couple that temperature with us being not fully adjusted from the cold, it was REALLY warm. And for the early part of the day, it was clear out, and where our field is positioned the sun just beats in on you with no real shade. And finally, the field, while in decent shape, had clearly not gotten the typical care it would get throughout the season, and was pretty hard and very bumpy. Not ideal for a 2nd baseman such as myself.

Some my highlights included:
The first ground ball I'd fielded in about 8 months being a rocket off the bat of a lefty that took a wicked hop and clipped my ear pretty good as I was trying to get my face out the way.

Going all out going 1st to 3rd on a single early in the first game. Not particularly noteworthy in and of itself, except that when I finished at 3rd, I was ready to pack it in for the day, with 2 1/2 games to go. I'm actually in fairly decent aerobic shape at the moment, but those kind of sprints kill you if you're not in shape for them.

What had to be one of the most chaotic looking move I've made in while, when in the 3rd game my instincts made me start into a dive on a line drive in the hole between me and first base, right before my brain reminded me how hard the infield was, that I was just wearing shorts, and that this was just preseason after all. At this point, my reflexes once again kicked in, and threw my right hand to the ground, presumably in a misguided attempt to stop the dive. So, instead of going into the full dive and presumably scraping up both my legs, I did this half dive, half fall thing that resulted in me scraping up my left shin and my throwing hand. I think the Lithuanian judge gave me a 9.2, and I thank her for that.

Anyhow, it wasn't any of those particular highlights that made me feel my age so much, as it was the general fatigue I felt at the end of the games, and the knowledge that I am going to wake up very sore tomorrow. There are a number of muscles that I only use in certain ways when I play softball, and history tells me they are going to be screaming in the wake of this tournament once they get a chance to fully tighten up. So I have that to look forward to.

All of that being said, it was a fun day playing and hanging out with the team, and I'm very much looking forward to the upcoming season.

Blurring the lines...

ESPN has managed to hack me off once again. I know, I know, you're all shocked to hear that, but it's true.

As I often do when I start in on a rant about some aspect of media coverage, I have to open with a disclaimer. My critique of the media handling of this situation does not, in any way, constitute a defense of the actions of the athlete involved. I just happen to believe that bad behavior never justifies more bad behavior.

One of the big stories in the sports world yesterday was the revelation that Houston Astros shortstop Miguel Tejeda is actually 2 years older than he had previously claimed. It's not been a good couple months for Tejada, who is also under investigation for lying to Congress about his use of performance enhancing drugs.

Now, clearly, I don't have any problem with this fact being uncovered. While I understand why a teenage kid from the Dominican Republic would lie about his age in an effort to make himself more attractive to MLB scouts, that still doesn't make it right, and he'd been continuing to supply MLB teams with false information for the past 14 years. We can debate the significance of that particular lie, but the simple fact is that a lie is a lie, and it was the wrong thing for Tejada to do. While it didn't give him a literal performance advantage,it did give him a competitive edge against actual 19 year olds he might have been competing with for a contract back then. As I mentioned yesterday, younger is better when evaluating prospects.

However, despite that fact, I have some serious objections with how this story was brought to light. ESPN has recently launched a show called E:60, which is basically a sports news magazine show, supposedly cast in the mold of 60 Minutes. Tejada was brought in for an interview for the show with correspondent Tom Farrey. I'm not precisely sure what the premise of the interview was, but he most certainly wasn't brought in to talk about his age. Anyhow, in the midst of the interview, Farrey questioned Tejada on his age, and when Tejada, as expected, replied that he was 31, Farrey produced a copy of his birth certificate. He asked Tejada if that was his real birth certificate, to which Tejada replied "Probably", and then got up and left. He, for obvious reasons, promptly came clean with the Astros.

I'm sure ESPN is feeling all proud of themselves for this story, but in my mind, it's an absolute joke the way they handled it, especially if they have designs on presenting themselves as actual journalists in this endeavor. I mean, seriously, getting a copy of Tejada's birth certificate that proves he's 2 years older than he says is a nice grab, and a good story. What additional journalistic value is gleaned by bringing Tejada in under false pretense, getting him to repeat a lie he's been telling for 14 years, and then blindsiding him with it? The answer is none, but it does make for good TV, supposedly. It reeks of Springer/Cheaters/many other shows of that ilk much more than it resembles serious journalism. The term "Ambush journalism" is much more about the first word than the 2nd.

Seriously ESPN, run the report, bring the guy in to answer questions, whatever. Break the story in the traditional means. This kind of behavior is just gratuitous, and it's also extremely short-sighted, in my opinion. For a show like E:60 to have any real merit, they are going to constantly be needing cooperation from a number of groups, chief among them being athletes. What does this kind of tactic say to the next athlete they want to bring in for an interview? I'm not a fan of athletes who duck certain media members because they don't want to answer certain tough questions, but I'd have zero trouble backing up any athlete who told E;60 what they could do with their interview request in the future.

Unfortunately this is just another example of ESPN providing an excessive blurring to the line between sports journalism and sports-related entertainment programming. It's just not a positive development from where I sit.

The 33 Year Old Rookie

Well, I just finished off another book in about a week, this time the read was The 33 Year Old Rookie, the autobiography of Phillies' catcher Chris Coste. It's somewhat interesting that the last book I read was by Mike Schmidt, whose baseball experience would basically have to be considered the polar opposite of Coste's.

In my review of Schmidt's book, I mentioned how interesting I found it that even a Hall of Fame talent like Schmidt had to have a break here and there for his career to unfold the way it did. Coste would be an example of what happens to a guy who never really has things break the right way for him. That's not to compare Coste to Schmidt in anyway in terms of talent, Coste isn't a Hall of Famer, but there's little doubt in my mind that he could have been a productive major league catcher years ago. Instead, rather than following a path like Schmidt's, which included being a high draft pick and a major league regular at age 22, Coste took a much longer and winding road to the big leagues. To sum up: Born and raised in Fargo, ND. Undrafted and without a college scholarship offer out of college. 1 miserable year at a local junior college, 3 All-American years at D-III Concordia, again undrafted, 1 year in a Canadian independent league, 4 years staring for independent league team in Fargo, 6 years bouncing around various major league organizations at the AA and AAA level, an absolutely blistering spring training with the Phillies in 2006, during which he had won a roster spot, only to lose it the day before the season due to a trade, and then his eventual call up and successful 2006 major league season, at the age of 33. To add to the story,despite having a wildly successful rookie season, the Phillies weren't sold on him as their backup catcher and brought in a veteran to take his place, and he started the year back at AAA. Eventually though, he made his return and re-established himself, leading to the release of the veteran. Coste actually caught the final pitch from Brett Myers that clinched the 2007 NL East title for the Phillies. And, finally, he had convinced the Phillies he belonged in the major leagues for good, so they did not acquire another catcher in the offseason and was able to start the 2008 season with the team.

Now, I knew going into reading this book that I was clearly biased in favor of the story. The Phillies are my favorite team, and Coste has been among my favorite players since he finally arrived in Philly in May of '06. I root for the guy, and if you're familiar with him and his story, it's hard not to. All of that being said, I loved this book on a number of levels. First of all, you've got a guy going all out to pursue his dream, even as that dream became more and more improbable. I think the most unsung hero in all of this was Coste's wife Marcia, who clearly endured a lot in allowing him to go for it, and not only didn't complain, but also actively encouraged him to keep on going at a couple points where he was ready to hang it up. Even though I knew the "ending", when he got the call to come to the big leagues, it was still exciting and compelling for me to read. And then, you couple that with the revelation that, upon receiving the news, his 6 year old daughter informed her mommy that she had wished for Daddy to make the big leagues when she blew out her candles at her birthday the previous week, well, I'm a sucker for that sort of thing, I'll admit it. Of course, we later learn that part of her attachment to Daddy making the big leagues was that in the past, when she wanted a toy and they weren't going to get it for her, they'd often say "Maybe if Daddy makes it to the big leagues." That almost makes it better, in my mind.

And secondly, I was really fascinated by the whole process Coste went through in getting to the major leagues, and how even though we like to think that sports are the ultimate merit based event, the reality is that there are often labels and stigmas that are difficult to overcome, regardless of performance. By the time Coste even finally made a minor league roster, he was already 27, which is well above the age for a player to be considered a prospect. And, he had spent all those years in the independent league, so no matter how well he played, he always had organizations having questions and saying "There's got to be some reason no one wanted him before now." Additionally, despite deciding early in his independent league career that he wanted to focus on catching, and by all accounts becoming pretty darn good behind the plate, he was never able to find a gig as a full-time catcher, and was constantly being used at 1B and 3B, even some 2B. This created another perception problem, because when you look at a guy and he's being shuffled all over the diamond, it can present the perception that he's not great at any one spot. In this case, it seemed his versatility was often a negative. It seems though, that the bottom line was that he could just never get anyone to take an extended look at him, and he was never the kind of guy who was just going to wow you at first glance, especially given his age.

Anyhow, a very easy and enjoyable read, especially for a Phillies homer like myself. I'm actually coming to the end of my non-fiction pile, with the only thing currently remaining in my possession being Juicing the Game, by Howard Bryant, supposedly one of the better books on steroids in baseball. I'm unsure if I'm ready to get back into that issue in book form just yet, and I did just get a very nice coupon from Barnes and Noble, so I may wind up going in another direction.

A few birthday musings...

So, as I mentioned over the weekend, today is my 28th birthday, and I came to a big decision this morning. You know how people often do the thing where they jokingly don't acknowledge that they've hit 30 years old? They'll say, I'm 29 and holding, or I'm 29 with X years of experience. Well, I don't want to be a follower, so I've decided that I'm going to go into a holding pattern at 28, rather than waiting until 29. Based on past experience, it will be at least 5 years till anyone even questions that anyhow. Heck, it'll probably be that long before people stop saying "Really? You look much younger than 28."

But I digress.

Unfortunately, as of last year, my birthday will be forever linked with the tragic shooting on the Virginia Tech campus, in which 32 people were killed. Today was obviously the first anniversary of that event, and was as such marked with the appropriate ceremonies and opportunities for mourning. I honestly don't have much that can be said about that event, as it's terribly hard to get your head around sense senseless violence, and any efforts to explain that sort of thing have always rung pretty hollow to me. For me, all I can really say is that my thoughts and prayers go out to that community once again, as they continue the healing process.

I do have to move on from that to point out the delicious irony of last night's Phillies victory over the Houston Astros. As you might know, the Astros traded their much maligned closer Brad Lidge to the Phillies this offseason. Lidge has had some well documented struggles since giving up a monster home run to Albert Pujols in the 2005 postseason, but had for the most part started to round back into form last year. However, the Astros traded him, for a number of reasons. In his place, they signed Jose Valverde, who entered the game last night in the 9th with a 3-0 lead, and walked off the mound a 4-3 loser, having gotten only one out. You see, regardless of how Astros management viewed Lidge, Lidge had become a pariah among Astros fans. Well, Houston, it wasn't all his fault!

Laying in the bed you made

One of the biggest pet peeves I have regarding sports media types is when they create a situation, and then blame the self-created situation for how they are handling some related story.

A perfect example of this has been the coverage of Trevor Immelman's victory at the Masters over the weekend. Please note that I specific referred to it as Immelman's victory, rather than as Tiger Woods' defeat. If you've been paying attention to any mainstream sports media outlet in the last two days, you might have been confused on that point. And that's rather sad.

I could go into a massive diatribe about how the media has handled Woods and made it such that he is the story every time he tees up, regardless of whether he wins or loses, but I'm going to focus on a single entity in this, for simplicities sake. That entity is radio host Dan Patrick. As you may have heard if you follow golf, back earlier in the season Tiger Woods made some headlines by suggesting that winning the Grand Slam (all four majors in the same year) was realistic for him. Now, while before Woods came on the scenes, that kind of statement was an outlandish idea that would have probably merited ridicule. In Woods' case, however, it probably really shouldn't have even been headline material. Let's remember, for instance, that Woods did in fact win 4 majors in a row, it's just that only 3 of them were in the same calendar year.

Woods followed this up by continuing on a rather significant tear, prior to losing his last start before the Masters. Now, where Dan Patrick comes into this story is that, as Tiger was winning, virtually every time golf and Tiger came up on his show, he would say that he was going to be surprised if Tiger failed to win the Grand Slam this year. Now, as well as Tiger was playing, that's just an outlandish outlook (Woods didn't even go as far as to say that he thought he would win the Grand Slam), but Patrick repeated it rather frequently in the days leading up to the Masters.

So, come Monday morning, post-Masters discussion centered significantly more on Woods and his missed opportunities that it did on Immelman's wire to wire victory. As Patrick was chastised by various listeners for not giving Immelman enough due (now, to be fair, Patrick did have Immelman on his show and even waited until midway through the interview to ask him about anything Woods related), Patrick defended himself by saying "Hey, look, that's the way it's setup in golf now. Tiger's the story, whether he wins or loses." He furthermore went on to suggest that Tiger created this by throwing out the suggestion that he could win the Grand Slam.

To all of that I would say that yes, it's true, but only because you (and the larger media) chose to make it that way. If you spend weeks on your radio show saying that you'll be surprised if Tiger doesn't win the Grand Slam, then yes, Tiger losing the first major of the year is going to be the big story. You can't make Tiger the story, win or lose, prior to the event, and then use the fact that Tiger is the story, win or lose, to deflect criticism of your post-event coverage. Well, you obviously can, it just doesn't hold water. Tiger didn't say he was going to win the Grand Slam - Dan Patrick said Tiger was going to win the Grand Slam.

In this context, it consistently amazes me how many different ways the media finds to discredit a victory, whether done intentionally or not. Look at this tease for an article about the Masters that's currently on the front page of ESPN.com: "The Masters was there for Tiger Woods to take. And he couldn't, giving Trevor Immelman his green jacket." Really? Tiger gave Immelman the green jacket? I find that highly amusing, since it was Immelman's name at the top of the leaderboard throughout the tournament, and the final margin of 3 strokes was as close as Woods ever got.on the weekend. Did Tiger miss opportunities on Sunday, and throughout the tournament? Of course. Could he have won? Absolutely. Was Immelman given anything? No, and it's ridiculous to suggest so. We focus on Woods' missed opportunities, without even asking if there were opportunities that Immelman may have missed. Even the fact that Immelman shot a lackluster 75 on Sunday doesn't change that fact. Yeah, that's a lousy way to finish, but it's a 4 day tournament, and he won by a cozy 3 strokes. You don't back into a wire to wire victory at Augusta, no matter who finished behind you.

So, all that being said, for the last two days, Dan Patrick (along with most of the sports media) has been doing the equivalent of making the bed, laying in said bed, and then complaining about how the bed was made. Luckily for him, many people haven't noticed.

This is offensive. No, really, it is...

Okay, so I'm feeling very prolific today. Well, that, and I only left the house today to go to church, allowing myself time to recover from yesterday's long day. And, as I was returning from church this evening, something that had been bugging me on a recurring basis resurfaced again, so I said to myself "Why not make it a 3 post day?"

Anyhow, as you know if you've been a fan of this blog for very long, I mainly listen to sports talk radio during the day. However, I listen to country music for the first couple hours before Dan Patrick comes on, and country music is generally what I have on during the car. One of the songs that's currently hot on country playlists is "Picture to Burn", which is written/performed by Taylor Swift. Taylor, who is all of 4 1/2 months north of her 18th birthday, is one of the most popular artists out there at the moment.

You're probably aware of the fact that artists/labels very often end up releasing different versions of songs for radio play than are actually recorded for the album. Often, this is just for time considerations, but there are also times when the radio version contains alterations to content that is either not allowed by FCC rules, or might be deemed offensive. Country music is generally pretty tame in this regard. Usually if there's a modified version like that out there, it involves the word "ass", or something like "screw you", and generally you'll find that some stations will choose to play the original version anyhow.

So, anyhow, there's an alternate radio cut of "Picture to Burn" that some stations are using, and that was used for the video and any countdown shoes or other shoes that are syndicated nationally across a variety of stations. The Harrisburg station uses the actual version, and so the first time I heard the alternate cut, I was pretty well shocked at the lyrics that had been altered. Never once occured to me that there was anything offensive about the song.

So, it's pop quiz time. Here are the original lyrics to "Picture to Burn". One of the lines has been altered for a radio version of the song. Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to identify the offensive line. If you listen to country music or know the answer for some other reason, please refrain and let people guess. I shall post the answer at some point in the next 24 hours.

Traditionalism or stubborness?

Okay, I've got to admit upfront, I'm only about to rant on this topic because my team just got jammed, but I've been consistent on this position for years.

What might that position be? In this day and age, there is absolutely zero reason for baseball not to use instant replay to determine whether a ball that went out of the park just down the line was fair or foul. In some ways, I'm a traditionalist when it comes to baseball. But this is one situation where adherence to tradition just doesn't make sense anymore. (Just to clarify my opening statement, the Cubs were credited with a HR in this afternoon's game against the Phillies, when replays clearly showed the ball was foul)

I appreciate that we're probably always going to have to deal with imperfection in officiating. If humans are making the calls, humans will make mistakes from time to time. And I'm okay with that. And I'm also not in favor of any kind of widespread replay in baseball. Baseball games are slow enough as it is, I don't want to be introducing multiple stoppages for replay throughout the game. However, this one situation is where I have to make the exception, for a number of reasons.

First of all, with properly positioned cameras, you're able to a shot that will quickly and definitively tell you if the ball was fair or foul. You point the camera at the foul pole from an angle inside the foul line. If the ball disappears as it passes the foul pole, it's a foul ball, and if you can see it the whole way, it's fair. Very, very simple. One of the problems with replay in other sports is that sometimes you spend a significant amount time reviewing something, and the replay doesn't provide a definitive answer. That's not the case here. Furthermore, the reality is that on plays like this, directly down the line, which is where the 1B and 3B umpires are positioned, is one of the worst spots to try and make that call from. So, any delay resulting from this kind of review is going to be rather minimal.

Secondly, there's really not a disruption to the "flow" of the game at this point to do a review. On such a play, the batter is either going to be standing back at the plate ready for another pitch, or doing a simple home run trot. Furthermore, given the importance of the call, if it's close, there is invariably going to be an argument by one of the managers, which is going to disrupt the game anyhow. What happens when a manager questions one of those calls? The umpires conference to see if anyone else got a better look at the call. Wouldn't that time be much better spent making a quick call up to the booth to find out what the camera already knows?

Like I said (and this is true in all sports), human error is going to be a reality of officiating. I get it, I accept it. But what I don't get is why the baseball powers that be are so stubborn as to not embrace a non-invasive technological solution to what is a very, very difficult (and important) call to make.

Recaping my Saturday

Yesterday was a very long day, but a very good one. As I posted yesterday, I was running a Bible quizzing tournament, which I've done now for the last 8 years. The day involves getting up at 6, getting ready and heading over to the church by 7 to finish final setup, and then wait for teams and officials to begin arriving around 7:30. The opening meeting of the tournament is scheduled for 8 am, and probably more years than not, I'm having to start that meeting with at least a team or two and possibily an official or two having not arrived. They always show up during the meeting, except for that one fateful year when an e-mail got lost in cyberspace and I was waiting for a team that wasn't coming. This year matched the norm, and we had 2 teams and 2 officials roll in after I'd started the meeting 10 minutes late. I schedule 30 minutes for a 20 minute meeting for just this sort of occasion.

Anyhow, after that all got settled, we sent the teams off to start what was a very successful day. Some of the highlights included: The morning running so smoothly that I was able to post a blog entry, read a chapter in Chris Coste's book, read a few articles in my Sports Illustrated, and slip in to watch several quizzes; using the early portion of my lunch break to break a 5 way tie in which all 5 teams were 2-2 against each other. If you want to know how that's done, don't ask me, because I'm still not sure how it happened; Doing a number of running laps around the church trying (successfully, I might add) to get everyone organized to start up after lunch 15 minutes earlier than originally scheduled; both divisions of quizzing having the finals of the double elimination playoffs going the extra quiz (with the varsity having both quizzes go into overtime; me announcing a boy named Alex as Alexa during the award ceremony. There was an Alexa on his team who also won an award, which is what I'm blaming my typo on.

When the first quiz of the varsity finals went into overtime, it killed a dream of mine. Had the team that was undefeated going into the finals won that quiz in regulation, the varsity final would have ended before it was scheduled to start. What can I say? Tournament directors have weird dreams. We always run on-time/early at my tournament, and this would have taken that to a new level.

Anyhow, after teardown/cleanup, I headed back to spend a little more time with my folks, and then drove back to the West Shore. After spending some time with Chaser and getting my laundry done, I crashed into bed at about 9:45 pm. I was just exhausted. This always happens after the tournament no matter how well it goes. The only thing that's impacted by how well the tournament ran is whether that exhaustion is primarily physical (I have to be up/down/around all day even when things are going smoothly), or whether there's some serious mental exhaustion brought on by dealing with all the problems. This year, it was virtually all physical. And I've got to say, there are few feelings that are much better than climbing into bed at the end of the day when you're as wiped out as I was, and can couple that with a profound satisfaction and sense of accomplishment regarding the reasons for your fatigue.

Yesterday was a VERY good day.

Feeling my age...

So today I'm blogging on location from my post at the scoring table of the 2008 Allegheny Open Bible quizzing tournament, of which I am the tournament director. The church we have the tournament in put in wireless internet 3 years ago, which makes the idle time I spend waiting for people to bring me scores a bit more interesting. I also have this week's Sports Illustrated and Chris Coste's book with me for additional entertainment. If it sounds like I might be complaining about being bored, trust me, I'm not. As director of a one day tournament involving over 20 teams (okay, so it's 21, but over 20 sounds more impressive), boring is a VERY good thing. In the morning portion of the tournament, I'm either going to be bored for significant periods of time, or I'm going to be ridiculously stressed because things are going wrong. I spend a lot of time prior to today doing things to me sure I will have a lot of downtime.

Anyhow, I'm feeling kind of old today. The reason for this is rather simple - the material that the kids are quizzing on today (Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, and Philemon) is the last material I quizzed on back in my quizzing days. The material comes around on an 8 year cycle, so that means this year is my 8th year as a tournament director, and those 8 years immediately followed 8 years as a quizzer. All of that means that about 80% of the quizzers running around today were not born when I started quizzing back in 1992-93. Couple that with the fact that I went out with the family last night to celebrate my 28th birthday last night (my actual birthday isn't until Wednesday, but the folks are heading to Mexico for a few days starting tomorrow night), and I'm definitely "feeling my age".

That's not to say that I'm feeling depressed or bothered by my advancing years, even as 30 comes bearing down on me with more inevitablity than ever. It's just that there are certain things that serve as concrete markers of just how much time has past, and I hit two of them within a couple days of each other. I've never been one to subscribe to the idea that the younger years (particularly the high school and college years) are the best ones of your life. Let's really think about it, because if you take that view of life, it means I would be sitting here at almost 28 with nothing to do but look back. And that's just crazy. I don't think you have to be a crazy optimist (especially since I'm not one in general) to believe that each stage of life has it's own adventures, joys, and benefits, and that we should always have something to look ahead to. As we look back on our lives, we often tend to nostalgize the good things about the past, and forget the various pains, sorrows, and disappointments that those former stages presented. For me, the past is nothing something to look back upon and wish for a return to, but it's roadmap into my future - to learn from and use to make the years to come more special and wonderful. It's a perspective that I sometimes lose sight of, but am lately finding it easier to keep returning to.

Finally!

I am very excited right now. I mean, really excited. Perhaps obscene would even be an appropriate term for my current level of excitement.

Why am I so excited? Well, because on this day, April 10th, 2008, I sit here writing this blog, while wearing *gasp* shorts! This is the first time I've had shorts on while in Pennsylvania this year. Well, actually, that's not true. I did wear shorts on the plane back from Florida, and kept them on until I got back to my folks' house, which is in Pennsylvania. So, this is the first time I've warn shorts in Pennsylvania and would have been comfortable going outdoors in them...

It is a beautiful spring day in southcentral PA, with clear blue skies, and temperatures at/near 70. In fact, it's probably the first "true" spring day we've had. We've had beautiful sunny skies (combined with 50 degree weather and a 15 MPH breeze) and we've had a day or two of relatively warm weather (couple either with rain or lots of clouds), but today is the first day I can recall having them at the same time.

Spring is, without question, my favorite time of the year. And I know I'm not unique in that regard. So the fact that it's taken us 20 days from the "official" start of spring to get a day like this has been mildly depressing. I love being able to have the heat off and have the windows open, and let the screen doors do their magic, creating a wonderful moving air through the house. I love being able to walk my dog without a big hurry to get back into the house due to the uncomfortable temperatures. I love having the option of running out and walking 9 holes of golf, without the use of long pants and a jacket. There's just something fundamentally right about the world on a day like today!

I hope those reading this are being blessed with similar weather today, but if not, know that spring is indeed coming, for real this time!

Bringing Down the House

So, I just finished Bringing Down the House, by Ben Mezrich. I just started the book last Thursday, so it took me less than a week to read it, which I believe makes it the quickest read I've had since I got serious about reading again. And it wasn't particularly short, nor was it a simple read. The book was just compelling enough that I had to keep reading it, going beyond the normal time I set aside to read on a given day. It was just a case of an incredible story meeting up with a gifted story teller.

The book (which is now a major movie that is currently out in theaters) tells the story of a group of MIT students who were made a killing as professional blackjack players (card counters) in the late 90s. The central figure of the story is Jeffrey Ma (in the book, he is referred to as Kevin Lewis). The book tracks him through his recruitment, training and testing, his widely successful play, the double life he led and the various complications of that, and the crackdown on his team that eventually led him to give up the life.

As I said, Ben Mezrich is clearly a gifted storyteller, and he did an excellent job of really getting into Ma's head and laying out his motivations, his various internal conflicts at times, and other things like that. And the story itself is just a thriller, that happens to be true, especially as the casinos begin to track the team and try to dissuade them. Card counter isn't illegal (it's not actually cheating), but obviously casinos aren't a big fan of people who can beat their games, and man, did these guys beat them. In an interview that was added to the end of the book in the movie tie-in release, Ma states that in his roughly 5 years of counting, his team never failed to return at least a 30 percent profit to their investors. Ridiculous.

Part of my attraction to the book was that, as a recovering "math geek" myself, it made being a "math geek" come off as very, very cool. Also, probably my favorite comedy of all time is Ocean's 11, and this story had very much the same feel - the brilliant heroes versus the "evil" casinos. This story also had the added advantages of the heroes not actually being criminals, so there was no reason at all not to root for them. And it was true, on top of everything.

So yeah, this was a best-seller almost 5 years ago, so many people haven't read it, but I'd highly recommend it to any holdouts. Mezrich has written 3 other books since then (only one other about Vegas), and I'm definitely going to plan to work through those books over time. Next up on my non-fiction list is much more a niche book, The 33 Year Old Rookie, by current Phillies backup catcher, Chris Coste. Coste's story probably doesn't hold a lot of inherent interest to someone who isn't Phillies fan, but I've been fascinated with the guy since he made his Phillies (and major league) debut in the spring of '06.

On comebacks and collapses

HavI have to start by saying how grateful I am for the quality of last night's NCAA basketball title game. On the whole, this was a rather lackluster tournament. This was not a result of all the favorites advancing to the Final Four, as some would have you to believe. It was the general way in which they, and virtually every other team that won games in this tournament, did so. Relatively speaking, there just weren't a lot of really competitive games this year, a pattern which continued with the Kansas and Memphis romps in the semis. And with Memphis seemingly running away down the stretch after what had been a close game most of the way, I was settling in for more of the same.

And, then, well, if you care, you know what happened, so I won't go into a ton of detail. Trailing by 9 with 2:12 to play, Kansas rallied to send the game into overtime. Pivotal moments included a Kansas steal and immediate 3 point shot to cut the lead to 4, Memphis going 1 for 5 in their last 3 trips to the free throw line, and Kansas' Mario Chalmers burying a contested 3 pointer to tie the game with 2.1 seconds left in regulation. Memphis, clearly deflated and without big man James Dorsey, who had fouled out a few minutes earlier, was unable to mount any kind of resistance in the OT, and Kansas is your 2008 NCAA basketball champions.

The ending of the game set off an interesting discussion within the media today, with people carefully walking the line between celebrating Kansas' comeback and criticizing Memphis' collapse. Dan Patrick even went as far as to ask his listeners which it was, implying that there was some exclusivity between the two, that it needed to be one or the other. And of course, most listeners were quick to label it a Memphis collapse, which is particularly easy to do given Memphis' free throw woes.

And yet, I find the whole discussion generally foolish. There's a simple fact at play here - in order for there to be a change in two teams fortunes in the course of a game noteworthy enough to be discussed the following day, the team in the lead HAS to present the trailing team with the opportunity to do so. You could perhaps make the argument a comeback was primarily the result of the trailing team's good play, but that ignores the fact the team with the lead does have an impact on their play. So, there is always a collapse, and always a comeback in these stories.

Yes, it is true that Memphis if Memphis makes 2 of 5 free throw instead of 1 of 5, they win the game. It's also true that there are few things Memphis could have done better on Kansas' last play of regulation. For the record, I'm not totally sold on the notion that Memphis should have fouled on that possession, though it is apparently what Memphis coach John Calipari wanted to do. I generally favor that option in similar situations, however, any foul would have probably left 5 seconds or more on the clock, and with Memphis not hitting their own free throws, I don't know that you give Kansas points with the clock stopped. I do think Memphis failed to fully sell out to defend the perimeter, and that it would have been best had Memphis called a timeout to figure out exactly what they wanted to do, since it was clear that they did not.

However, it is also true that were it not for a great steal off an inbounds and subsequent 3, Kansas likely never would have gotten the game close enough for the free throw misses to have been noteworthy. And it is also true that, despite all Memphis's mistakes, Kansas still needed a relatively long, contested 3 in order to send the game into overtime. Memphis certainly opened the door, but it wasn't as wide open as some media folk would have you believe. It's not like Memphis left the court. Kansas still had to make a number of excellent plays down the stretch. To suggest that the victory was a Memphis collapse, and not a Kansas comeback, is an insult to the terrific play Kansas laid out there down the stretch. They could easily have lost their cool and given up when most of us watching the game did.

Did Memphis collapse to some degree? Absolutely. However, did Kansas do some great things in coming back? Absolutely. So, I would ask the media, in their rush to crucify Calipari, and to say I told you so with regard to Memphis' well-documented free throw shooting woes, please make the appropriate effort to give Kansas their due. Spending all your time harping on Memphis is to imply that Kansas had something handed to them on a silver platter,and that's just not true.

Looking at the Final Four

So, I've been talking about what a great Final Four we're going to have, starting tonight, as for the first time ever, we have nothing but number 1 seeds left. UNC, Kansas, UCLA, and Memphis have been the best four teams in the country all season, and they have survived to battle for the ultimate prize. As I've announced before, my original bracket predictions had UCLA defeating UNC in the championship game, so I still hope that is what happens, but I'm unsure that I think that is what will happen.

As I break things down, I'm quite comfortable with UNC as the winner of their game against Kansas. Tyler Hansbrough (this week's SI cover, for the second time in a month) is one of the best players I've seen at the collegiate level, and his will is just tremendous, as has been documented over and over again. Unfortunately, the focus on his work ethic and determination often overshadows what a talent he truly is. I don't see Kansas having a match for him one on one. UNC has been exceedingly impressive throughout their tournament run, but never more so than in dispatching Louisville, Louisville may have been playing better than any team that didn't make the Final Four. Kansas, on the other hand, looked less than impressive in dispatching Davidson. Davidson is not your average 10 seed, but still, it leaves some doubts for me. The experts have suggested that Kansas played that game tight, thinking about some of their recent failures, and that the pressure will be off them in the Final Four. That may be true, but I really question it. I think the X factor for this game will be what UNC gets out of point guard Ty Lawson, who has been somewhat hit or miss since returning from an ankle injury that cost him 7 games towards the end of the regular season. If Lawson is playing well, I don't think Kansas can stay with the Tar Heels.

UCLA and Memphis is more interesting to me. Memphis was absolutely dominant last weekend in dispatching Michigan State and Texas, and they excelled in what has been their biggest area of weakness, free throw shooting. The Tigers are well coached and ridiculously athletic, and Derrick Rose may be the best guard playing in San Antonio this weekend. UCLA finally found a dominating performance against Xavier, after a lackluster first 3 games of the tournament. UCLA, of course, has been here before, as this is their 3rd straight Final Four appearance, and you know Coach Ben Howland will have them ready to go. UCLA also has the kind of special inside presence that you don't see that much at the college level anymore, in freshman Kevin Love. The big question here will be which team's style will be able to control the game - UCLA's controlled, defensive style, or Memphis' more open game. UCLA was my title pick, but I'm finding it hard to pick against Memphis right now. I think the bottom line will be that, if they hit their free throws like they did last weekend, they will advance. If they look more like they have all season from the line, they could be in trouble. All of that being said, I think I'm gonna have to go against my bracket, and pick Memphis in this one.

I'm not going to spend a ton of space breaking down a game that may not happen, so I'll just simply say if that matchup occurs, I'll take UNC over Memphis in an epic title game.

Oh yeah...

I hadn't mentioned it before now, but I guess it should be pretty obvious that my advice regarding finishing out your NCAA bracket was exceedingly sound, it just didn't go far enough to be dreadfully useful in this crazy historic year.

To review:
Pick a Final Four that consists of 4 teams whose seeds add up to 10 or less
Well, 4 is definitely less than than 10. Within this piece of advice, I also advised picking 2 1 seeds to go to the Final Four. If you followed this advice, you got at least 2 Final Four teams right, which is a pretty solid showing. Of course, if you only picked 2 1 seeds, you ONLY got two Final Four teams correct. Chances are good there was someone in your pool who took at least 3 of the 1 seeds.

Don't pick a team seeded worse than 4th to make the Final Four
Again, words to live by, but this year, you needed to not pick anyone seeded worse than 1st

Pick a #1 seed to win the title
Clearly a 1 seed will win the title, so the only question is if you picked the right one.

So, all in all, I'm very comfortable with the framework I laid out for picking your bracket. Next year's edition will likely include a bit more emphasis on picking the favorites through the 2nd round, and will have the benefit of a more complete analysis of past results.

Clearing the Bases

For a variety of reasons, some valid, some not so valid, my reading slowed down a good bit over the last month. However, I'm back in the groove again, and I just wrapped up legendary Phillies third baseman Mike Schmidt's book, Clearing the Bases.

The book was essentially equal parts autobiography of Schmidt's life in baseball and commentary on the state of today's game. The autobiographical piece was very insightful to me. Schmidt was my favorite player growing up (and probably remains my all-time favorite, though Chase Utley stands a good chance of assuming that role if he continues his current level of play and spends most/all of his career with the Phillies), but the reality is that I really can't remember watching any baseball until around 1987, and Schmidt retired in early '89, so I really never knew a whole lot about his career. I think one of the major fascinations I had with his story was that, even for a guy with Hall of Fame talent like he had, he still needed a number of breaks to wind up where he did. Identifying baseball talent is, always has been, and probably always will be, a rather inexact science.

As for his commentary on the current game, I was rather impressed with it as well. While, like most players I would assume, he clearly shows favoritism to the era he played in (he referred to it more than once as the best era of baseball), he doesn't come at today's game with a "back in my day, we did it this way, and we liked it" mentality. While he does share a few concerns, for the most part he looks at the evolutions in the game (more fan friendly, but also hitter-friendly parks, lighter, harder bats, etc) over the last 30 years as positives that should be maintained. He even blew me out of the water by advocating expanding the DH to the NL. I guess even a Hall of Fame player can't be right about everything...

As you might expect, he did spend a significant amount of time on steroids. Interestingly enough, Schmidt came on the Dan Patrick show this morning, right after Dan had finished interviewing Jose Canseco. Schmidt basically said a significant reason for him to write his book was the kind of spotlight that Canseco's book had put on baseball and steroids when it came out in 2005. Schmidt's take on what to do about numbers from the steroid era pretty much matches mine, that you can't erase history, you just need to make sure you put it proper context. That's actually his take about baseball history across eras in general. One thing I will say is that I think Schmidt views himself as more of an authority on what actually went on in clubhouses during the steroids era than he actually is. While I'm sure as a former player, he's much more in touch with that sort of thing than say, me, the fact of the matter is that he left the clubhouse in '89, before steroids really invaded baseball. So, when he states as fact that most players in the steroid era didn't use, I have to take that with a grain of salt. I like Mike Schmidt a lot more than I like Jose Canseco, but unfortunately I think Canseco clearly has to be viewed as more credible on this issue.

Anyhow, another very good read. My next book will be Bringing Down the House: The Inside Story of 6 MIT Students Who Took Vegas For Millions, by Ben Mezrich. If that sounds familiar to you, it's the book the movie 21, which just opened last weekend, is based on. I was aware of this story, and had heard of the book via a Mezrich appearance on The Jim Rome show a few months ago, so when I heard about the movie, I decided I needed to put the book on my reading list. Hopefully I'll have it finished in time to go catch the movie while it's still in theaters.