Public transportation lands the first punch!

So, I've been doing the bus thing for work for a little over a week now. It's really been an overall pleasant experience. I like being able to just sit back, relax, and read, and get dropped off right next to my building in the morning. I don't have a particularly long commute, but driving into the Harrisburg can still be pretty annoying at times, even at 6:45 am, and I like that I no longer have to deal with that stress. I just drive into New Cumberland, park on a side street, wait a few minutes, hop on the bus, and then 15 minutes or so later, I'm at work. And then I reverse the process in the afternoon. Overall, commuting probably takes me an extra 20-25 minutes this way. However, were I not doing the bus, I'd probably be spending at least 10-15 of those minutes walking from my parking lot to my office, and besides, I don't really see that time as lost, since I'm generally doing some reading that I'd be doing in the evening at home anyhow. I would be rethinking my views on mass transit, if I had anything against mass transit, which I don't. I have something against the fact that my money currently funds mass transit in Pittsburgh (which I have never used) and in Philly (which I recall maybe using once). And it was funding mass transit in Harrisburg long before I ever actually bought a bus pass.

Today, however, I had my first negative bus experience. As you either know, or at least assume, buses run on a schedule. Or at least they are supposed to. It's how the system works. The bus from downtown Harrisburg to New Cumberland runs about 6 times in the afternoon, between 2:30 and 5:30. That means there's generally about 35-40 minutes in between buses, which makes it rather important that you don't miss your bus. Being fully aware of that fact, I made a point of being VERY early to the bus stop coming home for the first several days, and of noting when the bus actually came. The Capitol Complex, where I work, is in between the first two time checks on the route. The bus literature advises you to be at the stop 5 minutes before the bus is supposed to arrive at your stop. Now, most stops are not listed as time checks, so there isn't necessarily a published schedule of when the bus is supposed to be at your particular stop. However, the first two time checks are 10 minutes apart, and my stop is pretty much right in the middle of them, so I figured it would just make sense for me to be at my stop at the time when the bus is supposed to be leaving the beginning of the route. And that is what I did for the first week, and, at the earliest, I was picked up maybe 3 or 4 minutes after the published time for the first time check.

So this week, while I certainly still made it a point to be down at the stop at 3:25, which is the published time for the first time check on the trip I want to catch, I also made a point not to be there much before that anymore, because I was just going to increase my waiting time. With today being a cold, wet, ugly day, I especially was not in any hurry. All of that being said, my cell phone read 3:24 when I got to the stop, or in other words, still one minute before the route was supposed to start a good mile or so away, and at least 5 minutes earlier than the bus had ever been there before. So I waited. Then I saw the bus that usually comes right before my bus. And then I waited some more. And then I saw a bus I had never seen before, which got me a bit concerned, but not too much so because I had been picked up later than this before. So I waited. And then I saw a couple more buses that I'd never seen before, and I was now pretty irritated, because it was very late and either the bus was unacceptably late, or it had been very early and I had missed it. About 10 minutes later I conceded defeat, went back into my building, went to the bathroom, and then returned at about 4:00 to wait for the next bus, which is scheduled to be at the beginning of the route at 4:10. This bus was running normally, and I got picked up around 4:15, after wasting a good 40 minutes of my day.

You know, I understand that a bus schedule is never going to be perfect, traffic is just too variable an entity for that, but this sort of thing does really bother me. Most people who know me know that I'm prompt almost to a fault, if that's possible. This isn't to say that I'll never miss a bus, but I'll never do so because of pure negligence. It would be a little easier to stomach if my stop was further along the route, but it's not, and I have a hard time understanding how you're doing a pickup at a spot that's 5 minutes or more into your route before the route is even supposed to begin. Anyhow, I've learned my lesson, and I'll be there at 3:20 from now on, only to never again have the bus show up much before 3:30.

On "greatness" and expectation

Well, here we are, 1 1/2 months after the NCAA Final Four, and another basketball league is about to reduce it's championship field to 4 teams. If you'll remember, I registered my disgust with the media after the field was set for the underlying suggestion that there was something missing or lacking from the Final Four because all 4 #1 seeds made it there for the first time. Well, we're about to see a similar scenario play out here in the NBA, and I detect the same attitude from fans and some media, and it makes even less sense now than it did back in March.

Just to level set everyone, the second round of the NBA playoffs will wrap up tonight with Game 7 between San Antonio and New Orleans. As it stands right now, the Eastern Conference Finals will be between the #1 seeded Celtics and the #2 seeded Pistons. In the West, the #1 seeded Lakers await tonight's winner, either the #2 seeded Hornets, or the defending champion Spurs. So, one way or another, the "final four" of the NBA will also be an all-favorites gathering. As I said back in March, I absolutely love this sort of thing. Why in the world wouldn't a basketball fan want to see the best teams battling it out for the biggest prize? And yet, I sense an overall sense of disappointment with the playoffs and what they've brought us. I've seen the terms "underwhelming" and "lackluster" used, and I just don't totally get it. In college hoops, I can understand the "root for the little guy" mentality, even if I don't totally buy into it. But this is the NBA - there are no little guys. There's just inferior pro basketball teams.

I think in this case, we were all led to expect something different, and so when we didn't get what we expected, we were left a bit puzzled. While pretty much everyone would have seen the East holding form, the wackiness of the regular season out in the West led most to expect the same from the playoffs. The matchups seemed compelling, and I doubt too many people would have thought we could have gotten this far without a lower seed prevailing in a series. But we have, and while that's unexpected, I don't see it as inherently bad, or disappointing in anyway.

It's a classic example of a hype being created that overshadows the event itself. People were led (and I think fairly, to some degree) to expect a wild and wacky playoff season. What they got, for the most part, was a very hotly contested playoffs that have, for all of that, held form. These playoffs have been lackluster? Really? Do we forget the #8 seed Atlanta Hawks coming one game short of pulling off what would have been the greatest upset in NBA playoff history against the Celtics? Didn't the Celtics and Cavs just finish off another tough 7 gamer? Aren't the Spurs and Hornets going to settle matters in a winner take all battle tonight? And, isn't the Finals matchup that "everyone" wants, Lakers v. Celtics, still alive and well. While I'd be hard pressed to categorize the playoffs thus far as "great", I think disappointing, underwhelming, or lackluster goes to far. These haven't be bad playoffs, they've just been playoffs that have failed to match the hype and expectations put on them. And that's really the reality of the media-driven age we live in - it seems like we only recognize and appreciate greatness when it surprises us. When we see it coming, we burden it with expectations and then dismiss it when it fails to live up to those expectations. Or, we define it as one thing and then miss the point when it shows up in another form.

Can You Duet?

I'll come clean, I went through a reality TV phase a few years ago. Nothing all that serious, but when I first got my DVR, 3 of the 4 shows I had set to record every week were The Apprentice, The Amazing Race, and Survivor. That phase has pretty much gone now, with the last holdover, Survivor, not getting programmed into the DVR for Season 18, after I'd watched disinterestedly the last 2 or 3 seasons. I will say that I never got into any kind of reality shows that weren't some sort of game or competition. While the term "reality TV" is generally always a misnomer to some degree, for most of the genre, it's a total misnomer. Sticking cameras in someone's house and just letting them roll, with their full knowledge, is not conducive to recording "reality".

Anyhow, one reality show that I had interest in at the beginning but quickly cooled on was American Idol. I followed the first season pretty closely, and even a good bit of the second, but by season 3, I had totally soured on it and moved on. The fact that show introduced Carrie Underwood to the world is the only thing that has prevented me from openly mocking the show in recent years. My eternal gratitude to the show for that contribution to society aside, it's been years since I've even thought of turning on an episode. And the truth is that in a lot of ways, Underwood's country success is one of the few real claims the show has to continued relevance. The last two seasons have failed to even produce a platinum debut album for the winner, and Underwood joins first season winner Kelly Clarkson and 2nd season runner-up Clay Aiken as the only AI alums to produce more than one platinum selling album. Even Clarkson and Aiken seem to be losing some steam with their most recent releases.

So I tell you all of that to tell you this: The American Idol producers have gone country. Several weeks ago, CMT launched Can You Duet, the search for the next great country duo. As has been well documented on this blog, I am a devotee of country music, so I decided to check it out, and I have to admit, I've greatly enjoyed what I've seen so far.

Given it's shared producers, the show, of course, borrows a lot from American Idol, starting with its three judge panel: Country icon Naomi Judd, decorated country songwriter Aimee Mayo, and noted vocal coach Brett Manning. The show began with 2 audition shows, which were used to select (I think) 25 duos, both from established pairs and singles who were split up from their partners at audition time, to advance to the next round. After "workshop week", which consisted of one on one sessions with the judges and a couple performances followed by cuts, the field was narrowed down to 8 duos, who are now competing in live stage performances to win a recording contract from Sony BMG Nashville. However, unlike American Idol, where audience voting takes over once the final competition begins, the judges are still calling the shots in Can You Duet, making the calls on who goes home each week.

So, why do I like this show and despise American Idol? Well, I'm sure some of it has to do with my bias toward country music as a genre, and I do greatly enjoy watching these final contestants give some fresh takes on a lot of great songs I love. However, there are other reasons as well. First of all, less is more, in my opinion. Can You Duet runs for one hour once a week, while American Idol generally chews up 2, 3, and I think sometimes even 4 hours with it's two weekly shows. And yet Can You Duet contains roughly the same amount of actual competition content, which means there is all kinds of useless fluff in the American Idol broadcasts. One of things notably absent from the CMT show is all the crazy melodrama and the taking of 15+ minutes and multiple commercial breaks to reveal the final decision. Now, that's not to say that I wouldn't expect efforts to use more time if Can You Duet was to become a massive hit, but on it's face, it takes much more of a cut to the chase approach. There's certainly the use of artificially created drama, it's just not as much.

Secondly, I love this panel of judges, for a number of reasons. First, each one of them is highly credentialed and knows a thing or two about what they are watching. There's no Paula in this group, and no Simon, and they all are capable of offering both insightful and intelligent praise, as well as worthwhile and constructive criticism of performances - both of which were usually notably absent from the comments of the Idol judges. While it's clear at points that they are doing some show for the cameras, it's also equally clear to me that they are very invested in these performers and interested in helping them grow and improve throughout the course of the competition, and you've clearly seen that take place. I find that to be highly appealing.

Finally, I can't tell you how much I enjoy the fact that this show isn't audience participation when it comes to choosing the winner. The AI phone voting system, where you can vote over and over again if you can get through, is a total joke, and always has been. It's also highly detrimental to keeping all of the best talent around until late in the game. I don't watch anymore, but it's hard not to get wind of the various "controversial" votes that occur each season, along with the inevitable suggestions that Idol is rigged. I've never bought into that, I just think that the voting system lends itself to wacky results. As cute and as novel an idea as letting the public decide this sort of thing is, I'd just as soon let the people who really know music make those calls.

I'm also quite interested to see how this pans out for the eventual winners. I do find a couple of the duos to be exceedingly talented, and think they would be capable of sustained success. However, while they will get a recording contract, they aren't going to have the benefit of the massive built-in fan base that Idol alums have due to the much more limited audience of the show. I think they'll still have an uphill climb to meet with any kind of real success. The fact that American Idol's original country cousin, Nashville Star, which has only aired on USA going into the upcoming season which will be on NBC, has yet to produce a winner that had any consistent success, seems to back me up in that regard.

More softball perils

Okay, so we've got another softball post coming here. Trust me, I don't plan on dwelling on the details of my softball season for the rest of the summer, but the last two games have been the most interesting sports-related happenings in my life lately.

Anyhow, last night's game was kind of depressing, because we didn't hit well as a team (and I was terrible individually), and we lost both games of the doubleheader. However, I was a part of 2 of the craziest plays I've ever been involved in while I was playing in the field, and they both happened within a couple innings of each other in the 2nd game, and I was playing at two different positions in the field for each one.

The first play came while I was catching. Now, catching in slow pitch softball is, generally, a very boring ordeal. You kneel behind the plate, you catch the pitches that the batters don't swing at, and you toss them back to the pitcher. There's relatively little action at the plate in slow pitch, and when it comes, it's often not very good, like the rare foul tip that comes backwards right at your head. That being said, we have some outfielders that have very good arms by the standards of church league softball, and they don't hesitate to try and make a play at the plate, especially when I'm catching. They like it when I'm back there, because sometimes they aren't the most accurate, and I'm very good at keeping an errant throw from becoming even worse. I also have a pretty good glove, and I'm generally fearless about a runner bearing down on me (probably too fearless, really), so if they do make a good throw, they know there's a very high probability of me making the catch and the tag. Anyhow, in this particular inning, there was a ball hit through the infield to right-center. The runner on second tried to score, and our right-centerfielder made a perfect one hop throw that I fielded cleanly, well ahead of the incoming runner. As I, instinctively, went down to tag him, he jumped over the top of me. This is actually a very intelligent play, since he's going up as I'm moving down, but I think it should be illegal, because it highly dangerous to both the catcher, and the runner. Catchers have been kicked in the head before, and runners have been tripped up and done face plants. In fact, it actually might be illegal, because I think by rule you're supposed to surrender or slide in that situation, but I'm not 100% sure of the rule, and I don't know that I remember ever seeing an ump calling someone out on those grounds. Anyhow, nothing tragic happened here, he got over top of me relatively cleanly, but I did manage to get my glove up and tag him. He didn't think I got him, and it's very possible he didn't feel it, because I may have just ticked his shorts, but I definitely felt something brush my glove as he went by. And fortunately, the umpire either saw it, or just gave me the benefit of the doubt since the ball beat the runner, like some umps do, and he called him out.

A couple innings later, I was out at second base, which is where I had played the first game and where I play most of the time these days. I'm generally adept at fielding ground balls, and pretty much always have been. The weak link in my fielding prowess in the infield has always been the pop-up hit back over my head. I'm getting much better with them, but I'm still not comfortable with them. I'm most comfortable with ones that are looped off to my left and that I know immediately I have to really run for. Well, there was one of those hit, and I took off after it. I actually tracked it quickly enough that I was able to call for it because I knew I could get to it, but I was still on the run. I stretched out the glove, the ball goes in, but to my horror, it squirted back out and popped up a bit. Keeping my eye on it all the way, I took another shot with the glove, but wasn't quick enough and it hit off the heel of the glove, knocking it back towards me. At this point, I was falling forward, and I desperately grabbed for the ball with my bare hand and clutched it to my chest. I hit the ground, ball pressed firmly to my chest, and ended up rolling over, on top of the ball. As soon as I completed the roll and got to my back, I held the ball up above me, knowing that I made the catch, and praying that the umpire, who wouldn't have been able to see the ball during the roll, saw it the same way. Thankfully, he did! That, my friends, is how you take a moderately difficult play and turn it into a webgem.

I'm sure that was intensely boring to all of you, but thank you for your time anyhow.

On softball and umpiring...

Okay, so last night I was on the wrong end of what may just be the worst call in softball history. Okay, that's probably not fair, but it would rank up there with any bad call I've ever witnessed.

Now, let me lay out some background here. I play church league softball. We're in the highest division of our church league, but it's still church league, so not exactly the highest level of softball. We only have one umpire per game, and especially during the early part of the season when umpires are still needed for area high school baseball and softball, we don't always exactly get the cream of the crop in umpires. Even very good umpires miss their share of calls in a one umpire system, so missed calls are just part of the deal in church league softball. Over the course of the season, you're going to be on both ends of them on many occasions. For this reason, I'm usually very good about not getting worked up about a bad call, with the exception of perhaps an initial expression of disgust. And really, I'm over this one as well, and was before I left the field after last night's game, but it was so crazy I just had to share.

Anyhow, let me set the scene. It's the bottom of the 8th inning (we're only supposed to play 7) and we're in the field with the game still tied. I play second base. There's 1 out, runner on first base. There's a ground ball hit to my left, just between me and the base. I get to it, and don't field it quite cleanly, and I go down to pick it up. Not fielding it cleanly ruled out any shot at a double play, so with the runner bearing down on me and me still down on one knee, I decide to tag him rather than try a flip to second. I'm right in the guy's way, and he really doesn't even do much to avoid the tag, but rather just seems to be trying to run through it. He whacks into my glove, basically going over top of me, and really knocking my glove backwards. Given the force of the impact and the fact that I hadn't been able to keep my 2nd hand on the glove for stability, I'm worried that the impact might have jarred the ball loose, so I whip my head around to look towards where the glove is now. Nope, ball still securely in the glove. I'm very pleased. As I start to get up, I'm now hearing what sounds like my teammates complaining to the umpire. I get up and look at the ump, and realize he's now explaining to my complaining teammates why he called the runner SAFE! My mind is absolutely blown at this point, and the umpire explains that he didn't see the tag made. I believe he claimed to have been partially obstructed by our pitcher. Are you freaking kidding me? Noteworthy here is that the other team scored the winning run with 2 outs in that inning. Now, the winning run scored on an error, and we had numerous chances to win the game before extra innings, so I'm not one to say the ump "cost" us the game. That's not in my nature, and it's wouldn't be accurate. What would be a fair statement was that his miss of the call was a contributing factor to us losing the game at that point. The ump did make sure he was in his car by the time the post game prayer finished, though. He really didn't need to.

Anyhow, like I said, missed calls are a part of church league softball, and I've moved on. However, this particular one points out something that has been a pet peeve of mine with this umpiring association for years. First of all, if I buy that the guy didn't technically "see" the tag, given how the play went, there was still plenty of concrete evidence that the tag occurred, most predominantly the slap of leather against skin. Secondly, and my real point, I didn't really move from where the ball was hit during the whole time the play took place. Umpires start behind the plate, but once the ball is in play, it's their job to get out from behind the plate and get into position to see the play. I won't deny that this guy probably tried to do so, but the guy (like a couple other guys we see from time to time) is way too old and immobile to be umpiring in a one ump system like that. It concerns me both from a quality of umpiring standpoint, and from a safety of the umpire standpoint. We had a guy who was older and less mobile than this guy last year, and he got hit hard twice in a game by throws coming into the plate. The one throw caught him squarely in the leg, but the other took his glasses off. I was catching at the time, and these were ridiculously wild throws, but they were still throws that if you can't get out of the way of them, you shouldn't be umpiring anymore. It's that simple. I know it's hard to find umpires, but at some point the umpiring association has to step in and say "Sorry, but you're done."

When it's all said and done, I have to at least chuckle a bit at the irony of it being ruled that I missed this particular tag. I'm not sure I've made a more complete and solid tag in my entire almost 20 years playing baseball and softball.

Movie answers

Since no one else seems interested in guessing, and since I don't have any brilliant ideas for a regular entry today, here are the answers for my movie quiz. Amanda wins, almost essentially by default. "De-fault! The two greatest words in the English language!"

#1. Well, I guess if a person never quit when the going got tough, they wouldn't anything to regret for the rest of their life. Dodgeball: A True Underdog Story - This is one of Lance Armstrong's lines from what may be my all-time favorite single scene in any comedy. One of the most incredible guilt trips EVER.

#2. What we do in life... echos in eternity. Gladiator - Maximus says this to his troops as he's firing them up before the opening battle. Gladiator had about a 2 1/2 year run as my all-time favorite movie, and then I saw the Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers.

#3. I have respect for beer. I have respect for beer! A Beautiful Mind - I'm guessing no one had this line coming from a former Best Picture winner, but it comes from an exchange between John Nash and his first delusion, his "roommate", Charles, who has just acknowledged a lack of respect for cognitive reverie, but announced ernormous respect for pizza, and of course beer.

#4. I trust everyone. It's the devil inside them I don't trust. The Italian Job - This is a saying of master thief (and deceased from the early scenes of the movie) John Bridger that his daughter Stella picked up. Were it not for Ocean's 11, The Italian Job would be my favorite crime related movie ever. I left Ocean's 11 out of the contest because I assumed I'd have to go uber-obscure to have a chance of slipping a line from that one by my readship.

#5. So long, Earth. Catch you on the flip side. Apollo 13 - Jack Sweigert says this while looking out the shuttle window just before passing onto the dark side of the moon.

#6. Oh, I don't think anybody could puke more than that kid. I think I saw a boot come out of him. The Wedding Singer - Robbie Hart, in reference to a young boy who got himself some alcohol at a wedding reception and had a less than pleasant experience with it.

#7. In case I don't see you, good afternoon, good evening, and good night! TheTruman Show - Truman's standard morning greeting.

#8. "Is them 'is brains, doctor?" "No, that's just dried blood. THOSE are his brains." Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World - Yes, I was (and continue to be) to some degree, a fan of Russell Crowe's work. This, however, is not his character from that movie. The ship's doctor is performing head surgery on one of the crew, many of whom are looking on in wonder.

#9. I will bring you hope, old friend. And I ask only one thing in return: don't get in my way. X-Men - Magento's response to Xavier's statement that he's looking for hope in Magneto's thoughts.

#10. Earn this. Saving Private Ryan - Tom Hanks' character to Private Ryan as he and the rest of the platoon are dying to keep Ryan alive.

#11, Let me tell you something my friend. Hope is a dangerous thing. Hope can drive a man insane. The Shawshank Redemption - Red's cynical response to Andy's belief that you have to keep up hope, even inside the prison walls. Little did Red know...

I'm not going green either, darn it!

My good friend and fellow conservative Jeff made an impassioned post a few weeks ago explaining why his decision to begin riding his bike to work was not him "going green", such as it were. Of course, as soon as I read it and saw him online, I called him a lousy hippie. That's what friends do, after all.

Anyhow, it would seem that, even though I was joking, reality has a cold sense of irony on this one, because today, I purchased a bus pass. Now, much like Jeff, this decision was made with my best interests in mind first, and any aid to the well-being of the planet as just a bonus. As I mentioned previously, I'm now working at PENNDOT's main building in downtown Harrisburg, rather than at my normal office. One of the drawbacks of this change (aside from this building's ability to deflect AM radio waves and prevent me from getting my daily fix of sports talk radio) is that I'm leaving behind my regular office's private (and free) parking lot for the time being, and having to deal with the realities of city parking.

Personal cost is not necessarily an issue here when it comes to the parking, as my company will be reimbursing me for any parking expenses I incur. However, the garage nearest to my building is a city run lot, which are, of course, the most expensive lots available. And so my boss was, I'll say strongly encouraging me, to look into parking in a private lot, which is about 3/4 the price. I understood the concern, but I had two problems with the lot in question. First of all, it was a really crappy lot. It's just a gravel lot, and there's nothing even resembling security that I could see. Secondly, and most importantly, it's about 2 to 3 times further from my office than the city lot. I suck at estimating the actual distances, but I'm guessing it would have been at least a 15 minute walk, 2 times a day, every day. Now, I'm not opposed to walking, but if you're in PA today, you'll understand why I wasn't incredibly thrilled with the idea. (50 degrees all day, raining, etc) So, I was pretty well determined that I was going to just force my companies hand and tell them I was going to park in the city lot and if they really wanted to, they could just reimburse me for the cost of the cheaper lot. However, before I took on the risk of possibly having to eat that extra expense, I did research other options.

The best option, as you can guess, was the bus. I can drive about a mile, park for free along the road (but in a very public place), and pick up the bus, which will drop me off right by my building. The monthly bus pass is about half of what even parking in the cheaper lot would have been, so the company makes out. The move all but eliminates any serious walking for me, so that concern is addressed. And, as an added bonus, I lose about 10-12 city miles/day in my car. There was a time not too long ago when that wouldn't have been a big deal, but with a car getting about 20 city miles to the gallon and gas creeping up on 4 dollars a gallon, it should add up.

So I, like my buddy Jeff, am not going green. But you may call me a hippie if you like. And I should say, I have absolutely nothing against being environmentally responsible. In fact, I'm quite in favor of it. You give me a choice between two otherwise pretty similar options where one is more environmentally sound and I'll take the environmentally friendly option every time. I think that being good stewards of the environment goes along with the kind of stewardship that should characterize every aspect of the Christian life. I just think a lot of the modern environmental movement goes well beyond stewardship into a level of conservationism that becomes reckless. And the only thing I have against mass transit is that in Harrisburg (like many/most places that offer it) it's not viable on it's own, and so only exists on government subsidy, which in general rankles my Libertarian leaning mind.

I will say, however, that I find the fact that this all occurred after the weekend in which I officially became a Libertarian (I renewed my driver's license which finally presented me with a ready opportunity to change my affiliation with expending any actual effort) rather fascinating.

Last Dance

I just finished reading Last Dance, by John Feinstein. The book is a look behind the scenes at college basketball's Final Four. Using the events of the 2005 Final Four as his backdrop, Feinstein looked at the history and present day realities of the Final Four from just about every angle you could think of. The stories he conveyed profiled players, coaches, officials, members of the media, even the highly "mysterious" tournament committee.

It took me longer to get through this one than I had taken for any of my last several books, but that is more of a testament to a crunch on available reading time than anything else, because I really enjoyed the book. Feinstein has a reputation as one of the finest storytellers in sports, and it is clearly well earned. College hoops is probably my second favorite sport to follow, behind baseball, and so it was a great trip through the history of the event, and I found it especially enlightening to get a look at some of the faces that have defined the Final Four for years, but that don't necessarily often get any real attention. It was also great to get a look back at the days before the Final Four became the event and spectacle that it is today. It's really hard to think of the Final Four as anything other than one of the biggest events of the sporting calendar, but it didn't start that way, nor did it get there overnight.

One thing that really stuck out for me as I read through was that for someone who enjoys the college game as much as I do, I'm not really as familiar with some of the basic history as I would think I should be. I've even managed to miss a lot of things that have taken place in the 20 years since I first remember watching the Final Four. Many of the events that were conveyed in this book were such that I'd either seen or heard touched on many times, but never really looked into what they were. I'd like to rectify that situation to a degree as soon as possible.

To that end, I ran out last night and picked up Glory Road, in which legendary coach Don Haskins tells the story of his team's victory in the 1966 NCAA championship game, a game that is often credited as being the most important title game in college history. Haskins defeated an all-white Kentucky team with a team that started 5 African-Americans. I know the basics of this story, and I've seen the movie that was based off this book, but I'm really looking forward to getting a more in depth look at this team and their story.

A few notes

#1. This week, I got loaned out to do some work for another department at work, so rather than working at my normal desk in my normal building, I'm working at PENNDOT's main headquarters in downtown Harrisburg for the next several weeks. This is a nice change of pace, it's higher profile work, and it should be good resume building as well. There's only one problem: I discovered today that the building I'm working in now appears to be impervious to AM radio waves. That totally sucks, because it means that unless I can find something to rectify the problem and get reception at my desk, I'm going to be without my daily fix of Dan Patrick and Jim Rome indefinitely. So, there's a good possibility I'll be less connected than usual with the sports media for the foreseeable future.

#2. One connection to the sports media that no building can take away from me is my Sports Illustrated subscription, and I started into the current issue (it comes in the mail on Thursday) over lunch today. SI informs me that Jose Canseco is not only working on a 3rd book (this time, a novel about a baseball cloning conspiracy), but is also working on a movie about his life. The kicker with the movie is that he plans on having a reality show to choose the "lucky" individual who will get to portray him in the movie. I'm not sure what bothers me more - the idea of a show featuring a bunch of guys trying their best to act like Canseco, or the knowledge that people will likely actually watch it.

#3. This isn't particularly breaking news, but I do have to express my frustration over it. I devoted sometime to the scandal at Indiana surrounding recruiting violations by then basketball coach Kelvin Sampson. Sampson was let go from Indiana after agreeing to a 750,000 dollar buyout of his remaining contract, and until recently was doing some consulting work for the San Antonio Spurs. Sampson has been hired as an assistant coach by the Milwaukee Bucks. On the flip side, Indiana's basketball program is in shambles heading into the upcoming season. New coach Tom Crean (who was a very good hire, in my opinion) is left with only 4 players returning from last year's team, after a wave of transfers, cuts, and other things. It is going to be a VERY difficult next couple of years for Crean and IU as a result of the fallout from Sampson's scandal. There is something fundamentally offensive to me about the idea of the misbehaving coach getting a nice sum of money and a job in the NBA, while the school and many of the kids he left in his wake flounders. And yet, I really don't know what was to be done in this situation. Sampson would have zero chance of getting another college job right now, and it's not like the NCAA can extend it's punishment to prevent him from taking an NBA job. It would be nice, for once, to see a stand taken with someone in Sampson's position, and not just brush aside offenses because he's a heck of a coach. But talent always gets another chance. I don't have a ton of sympathy for IU, they knew what they were getting when they brought Sampson in, but still, sometimes there just isn't justice.

Name the movie!

I'm not above stealing a good idea when I see it, so have at it.

#1. Well, I guess if a person never quit when the going got tough, they wouldn't anything to regret for the rest of their life.
#2. What we do in life... echos in eternity.
#3. I have respect for beer. I have respect for beer!
#4. I trust everyone. It's the devil inside them I don't trust.
#5. So long, Earth. Catch you on the flip side.
#6. Oh, I don't think anybody could puke more than that kid. I think I saw a boot come out of him.
#7. In case I don't see you, good afternoon, good evening, and good night!
#8. "Is them 'is brains, doctor?" "No, that's just dried blood. THOSE are his brains."
#9. I will bring you hope, old friend. And I ask only one thing in return: don't get in my way.
#10. Earn this.
#11, Let me tell you something my friend. Hope is a dangerous thing. Hope can drive a man insane.

*UPDATE* I had to go back in and add #11, because I was totally mad at myself that I hadn't used the movie originally!

More unnecessary guessing...

Here we go again: http://scores.espn.go.com/nba/recap?gameId=280505008.

For the record, I do not care about the outcome of the NBA 2nd round playoff series between the Pistons and the Magic. Furthermore, I do not believe that, in this case, the controversial play "decided" the outcome. And to their credit, the Magic have taken the high road, by publicly stating that the play in question was not the reason they lost. And I absolutely agree, a 3 pointer that may or may not have happened at the end of the 3rd quarter is not the deciding factor in a game that was decided by 7 points.

And yet, I am continually and consistently frustrated with the way professional sports leagues almost willfully subject themselves to missing calls that they just shouldn't have to miss. For a quick recap in case you decided not to read through the whole article, on the last play of the 3rd quarter, with the Pistons in possession of the ball, the clock froze at 4.8 seconds. The play continued on, and the Pistons hit a 3 that replays indicated would have occurred after the buzzer had the clock continued to run. Unfortunately, however, NBA rules do not allow the referees to use those such replays in that situation, and so they were forced to estimate where the clock should have been, and continue on. They ruled the basket good, and in fact left half a second on the clock.

Why in the world aren't officials allowed to use replay to get the time right in a situation like that? It's just incomprehensible to me. This isn't a matter of replay disrupting the flow of the game. In this case, the game was disrupted for several minutes anyhow to come to what appears to be the wrong decision. And anytime there's a clock malfunction at any point of a game, there's going to be a stoppage to get things settled properly. Why not give officials the tools to use that stoppage to actually set things right?

The NBA dodged a bullet here, in my opinion. What happened last night could easily have happened at the end of the 4th quarter with a shot that would have been a deciding factor in the game. Here's hoping this kind of near miss spurs the league onto some action. There's just no reason with the technology currently available that we should be guessing on this sort of thing anymore.

Derby Fallout

Like most Americans these days, I'm not really a horse racing fan. Generally, I may catch one of either the Kentucky Derby and Preakness, and then if there's a possible Triple Crown at stake, I'll make a point to watch the Belmont. I used to watch all 3 races every year, and would occasionally even catch some of the prep races. Not so much anymore.

And to be honest, I didn't even watch Saturday's race live. However, like anyone who was tuned into the sports world for the rest of the week end, I'm very aware of what happened. That is to say, I'm aware of what happened after the race. I'm relatively certain you could have read a good deal about the Derby and not actually found out who won, because the bigger story was the fate of runner-up Eight Belles, a filly that collapsed shortly after the race with 2 broken ankles, and was euthanized on the track.

Before I move on, I have to make sure I acknowledge what a sad event this sort of thing is. I'm not the sort of nut you heard of that was posting get well messages to Barbaro back in 2006 after that horse came up lame in the Preakness and was eventually euthanized after a long run of surgeries and treatments. A horse is just that, a horse. But I do have an affinity for animals, and thoroughbred horses are such beautiful and majestic creatures, it's an absolute pity to see one have it's life cut short in this manner. While I would stop short of calling horse racing cruelty to animals, I do think the business needs to take a long look at itself and see if there aren't practices involved that are placing these animals at undue risk of harm.

All of that being said, some of the fallout from this sad event has me rather aggravated. First of all, there's nothing that annoys me more in the sports media than someone grandstanding about something they clearly don't have all their facts straight on. And, as much as I like Dan Patrick, he was doing that today. Patrick devoted, in my estimation, at least 1/2 of his show today to discussion of Eight Belles. Maybe Patrick does generally pay attention to horse racing, but if so, he was clearly off his game and did not do his research for the topic. He made this clear by repeatedly saying how "finally a favorite won at the Derby". While the favorite winning the Derby has been relatively uncommon over the last 30 years, this was actually the second year in a row that the favorite was triumphant. Furthermore, Patrick, when referencing the injury to Eight Belles, talked about how this had happened last year with Barbaro. Barbaro was injured in the Preakness in 2006, after winning the Derby. All of this made it more frustrating to hear Patrick assail NBC for not show more replays of the actual injury to Eight Belles. NBC showed only a more distant overhead view of the incident, and nothing close up. He accused NBC of having a responsibility to show the incident to the viewers, while not being gratuitous, so people could actually see what had happened.

I might tend to agree with Patrick to some extent, except that NBC had stated quite publicly since the race that the shot they showed was the only one they had of the actual injury, since Eight Belles was not one of the horses they targeted for individual attention, and since the collapse had occurred after the race and beyond the finish line. And I'd be willing to question that statement, had I not been watching the Preakness 2 years ago and seen the close-up replays of Barbaro coming up lame after the start over and over again. And honestly, I'd have been okay if Patrick had said that he didn't buy NBC's explanation, but he didn't do that. So, he either was woefully ignorant of the facts surrounding the story, or he ignored them for the sake of his grandstand. Either is unacceptable.

And of course, where there's an animal dying in the news, there's always going to be PETA. And you know, I could honestly abide PETA's involvement in this kind of situation, if they were going about it in a sensible manner. Like I said before, I don't doubt there are things that could be done to make horse racing safer for the horses, and such things should be looked into. And I'm sure the horse racing business will be doing so, because it's really bad for business to keep having these major injuries occur on their grandest stage. How many casual horse racing fans who only pay attention for the Derby were completely put off by what happened on Saturday? However, PETA being PETA, they aren't behaving sensibly, and instead made waves by insisting that the injury obviously occurred during the race, and that the jockey knew the horse was injured and pressed him onward anyhow trying to win the race. They are calling for his suspension while the accident is investigated.

That's just irresponsible on so many levels. First of all, as I just noted, we haven't even seen close replays of the incident. How in the heck can anyone claim with any certainty to know the details of how/when the injury occurred at this point? Secondly, while I don't watch a ton of horse racing, I've seen a number of races in which horses were injured. A common characteristic of those races was the jockey pulling the horse up as quickly as possible and trying to get them off the track. This was the case with Barbaro in 2006, and even more poignantly with Charismatic in 1999. Charismatic, who had won the first two legs of the Triple Crown, was coming down the stretch in the Belmont, when the horse slowed up, and shortly after the finish, his jockey jumped off and famously held up the horse's left front leg, allowing the horse to walk and stand without putting any pressure on the leg. These jockeys, as a rule, care about these horses and wouldn't press on knowing the horse was injured. If you wanted to make the suggestion that the lure of winning the Derby and the money that would result from it would be enough to override care for a horse, you still have to deal with the fact that a jockey who would press forward with an injured horse is risking his life along with that of the horse, and potentially the lives of other jockey and other horses. Eight Belles was running 2nd in the Derby, which means there were 18 horses behind her as she came down the stretch. If she goes down, the jockey is going down with her, and both are likely going to get trampled. So, am I here to say there is no possibility that the jockey kept pressing the horse knowing she was injured? No, I can't do that. But I can say it's totally irresponsible to suggest this to be the case without anything resembling evidence. But, then again, it's PETA.

So, that's all I have on the Derby. Chances are the Derby winner (favorite Big Brown, by the way) will go on to lose in the Preakness (which I will likely watch), and then I can go back to my normal stance of paying minimal attention to horse racing.

Airing another grievance

Okay, so this blog isn't exactly a happy, uplifting place at the moment, but I have to air another grievance.

I am a Phillies fan. I live approximately 100 miles from Philadelphia. Yet, I cannot listen to Phillies games on the radio, nor can I get more than about 20% of them on my TV. The TV thing I don't groan too much about, because at least to some degree, it's of my own choosing. If I wanted to switch back to Comcast for my TV service, I would then get Comcast Sports Net Philadelphia again, and that would allow me to see virtually every Phillies game on TV. It frustrates me a bit that Comcast won't make that channel available to satellite providers (they have several other regional sports networks which ARE available on satellite), but they are a business and so I understand their position. Besides, it's probably best for me that I don't have a Phillies game to sit down and watch 6 out of every 7 nights during the baseball season.

The radio bit is something I just don't get, however. As long as I can remember, there's been a Harrisburg station that carried the Phillies games. That changed last year, when AM 1460 stopped carrying the Phillies games and started their own broadcast of the Harrisburg Senators games. I'm sure on some level that was a sound business move for them, but I really can't understand why no other Harrisburg station has picked the games back up, especially given that for one of the few times in the long history of the Phillies, the team has actually been competative for a number of years. Anyhow, I've mainly come to terms with that particular grieveance as well. I've been able to compensate in a number of ways. I can usually pick up AM 1210 out of Philly from my car, and when I'm in the house, I can get the games streamed over the internet via a plan I pay 15 bucks a season for. A pain, yes but nothing terrible.

However, these last few days the whole offense of 1460 broadcasting the Senators rather than carrying the Phillies took a new twist. 1460 is sports talk station I listen to during the day at work. The Senators, like any team, occasionally will play a midweek afternoon game, which meant 1460 would cut away from Jim Rome for my last hour and a half at work. Not the biggest deal, but minorly annoying because I have no real desire to listen to minor league baseball. Attending a minor league game is great fun, but listening to it over the radio is not so much, especially when it comes in place of a radio show I find very entertaining. Yesterday, however, I'm in the middle of listening to Dan Patrick, and all of a sudden, at freakin' 10:30 am, they cut in with a Senators' broadcast from Altoona. Who in their right mind schedules a professional baseball game for 10:30 am in Pennsylvania in late April/early May? I'm relatively certain the temperature never cleared 60 during yesterday's game, and then to compound matters, today's game was ALSO a 10:30 game. Are you kidding me?

Okay, I've cleared the air on that one, and I feel better. Thankfully that series is over and the Senators don't play another midweek day game until next week.

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.