It's Tebow Time...

Issue: You come up with that title yourself?

Short Answer: It's actually meant to be sung, to the tune of the Flight of the Concords "It's Business Time".

Reasoning: If you don't know who Tim Tebow is, then what are you doing reading a sports blog?  Go do something else, now.  It's funny, because when I watch ESPN (begrudgingly) they ramble on about how Tim Tebow is the talk of the country.  Everyone is talking about him, they say.  Well, this is true, but it doesn't help that you guys (ESPN) dedicate at least half of every SportsCenter to Tim Tebow.  But, since ESPN has forced Tim Tebow down our throats, I guess it is time for me to chime in.  So, against my better judgment, here goes.

Tim Tebow is one of the most polarizing athletes of our time, or any time.  Chuck Klosterman wrote this fantastic article on grantland.com, about that exact point.  Instead of reiterating his points, I am going to give you my own.  First, I don't like Tim Tebow.  It all started in 2008, when he was in college and the Florida Gators lost a home game.  He stepped up to the podium in the press conference afterwards and gave what some people consider a great speech:

"To the fans and everybody in Gator Nation, I'm sorry.  I'm extremely sorry.  We were hoping for an undefeated season.  That was my goal, something that Florida has never done here.  I promise you one thing, a lot of good will come out of this.  You will never see any player in the entire country play as hard as I will play the rest of the season.  You will never see someone push the rest of the team as hard as I will push everybody the rest of the season.  You will never see a team play harder than we will the rest of the season.  God Bless."

Where to start?  1) This speech should have been given in the locker room, not in a press conference; 2) The speech sucks, it is not motivational - only ESPN said it was great; 3) Players should play hard and push each other in EVERY game, not just after an upset loss at home; 4) Florida immortalized this speech in a plaque outside their athletic association, which I think is beyond ridiculous; 5) If one of my teammates ever gave this speech, I would probably kick his ass - it's cheesy.  One of the other main reasons I don't like Tim Tebow is because he played for the Florida Gators, and, I hate the Florida Gators.  I also don't like his outward displays of faith.  NO, I DON'T THINK IT'S WRONG.  I just think, like people don't go to church to hear about blitzes and Cover 2 defenses, people don't go to football games to hear about God.  Plus, let's say for a quick second that you were God, and could do anything you wanted, would you really watch the Broncos game?  As faithful as Tim Tebow has been, I guess it's not out of the question (this was all meant to be very facetious, just so you know).

Second, I don't dislike Tim Tebow.  What's to dislike?  He is an obviously phenomenal person.  You can hear it in the way he talks.  He is genuine and engaging.  He is always smiling.  Plus, he is a winner.  He won at Florida and now he is winning in Denver.  Sure, it may not always look pretty, but isn't the game about having more wins than losses?  As they say in baseball "there are no pictures in the score book" or in golf "there are no pictures on the scorecard".  Well, at the end of a game, only the talking heads at ESPN are going to tell us what the game looked like, but, last time I checked, it didn't matter.  If Tim Tebow was 7-1 as a starter while wearing a Cincinnati Bengals uniform, I know I would love it, no matter how it looked.  A great human being who also wins football games...what's not to like?

Here is the way I really feel about Tim Tebow - I am completely indifferent.  I'm a football guy, period.  I love to watch the NFL because they are the best football players on the planet.  Think Aaron Rogers, Drew Brees, Tom Brady.  Somehow, I can't fit Tim Tebow in there, no matter what his record is.  Watching him play quarterback is like watching someone puke all over themselves.  It's gross.  Before you start saying "but he wins football games!" just see above.  I already said that.  That doesn't make it any easier to watch.  If the Broncos are playing on TV, I'm hoping there is another game on I can watch, that has a quarterback, not a fullback playing quarterback.  But, in full disclosure, I will turn the Broncos game back on with 5 minutes left, because that is when the will of Tebow starts to take over.  It doesn't make sense, I don't think it will last forever, but it has been fun to see so far.  I don't go around reading about Tim Tebow, watching Tim Tebow highlights (I use that word very cautiously when associating it with Tebow), or seeking out all things Tebow.  I honestly don't care.  And, judging by how much press he is getting, I may be the only one.

Unsportsmanlike Conduct?

Issue: Are you talking about the influx of penalties in the NFL?

Short Answer: I wish.

Reasoning: There is nothing more I hate than unsportsmanlike conduct penalties in the NFL, especially when it deals with celebrating.  The penalty can cost teams field position, points, and sometimes, games.  All this, because players want to make sure everyone out there knows it was ME, ME, ME that made that play.  I hate celebrations so much that I wish referees would flag players when they jump up and give the "first down" sign.  Hey, buddy, I watch football all the time, if you cross that imaginary line, I know it's a first down, I don't you need to tell me so.  Flag.  15 yards for being stupid.  Thanks.

Just two weeks ago in the Buffalo Bills Stevie Johnson caught a go-ahead touchdown against the New York Jets.  But, instead of being genuinely excited, he wanted to make sure everyone knew it was he who caught that touchdown.  So, he feigned shooting himself in the leg, a rather distasteful dig at Plaxico Burress.  Distasteful, but still, kind of funny.  But, Stevie wasn't done.  He then turned himself into an airplane, which flew a bit, and then crashed into the ground.  Maybe Stevie Johnson was absent the day they taught the rules at Buffalo Bills camp, but going to the ground in celebration is an automatic 15-yard penalty.  That meant the Bills had to kick off from the 20-yard line, which gave the Jets a short field.  Guess what?  The Jets drove, scored, and won.  Afterward, Johnson told reporters that he cost his team a chance to win.  Duh.  And it had nothing to do with a fumble or a dropped pass (although he did drop a potential game winner in the waning seconds of the game), it had to do with a selfish act that was blatantly against the rules.  Idiot.

I bring this up because, unless a player goes to the ground, there is some discretion involved in calling unsportsmanlike penalties.  There is a difference between "unsportsmanlike" and "raw human emotion".  Scoring a touchdown is an exciting moment, and when a player genuinely celebrates scoring, I have no problem with it at all.  When the Packers score and the players do the "Lambeau Leap", I love it.  That is true excitement for all, and it doesn't show-up the other team.  Occasionally the NFL gets the calls wrong, but they generally do a fantastic job at policing celebrations.  I can't say the same for Massachusetts high school football referees.  Wait.  What?  Massachusetts high school football has been more diligent in removing celebrations from their game.  They have a sportsmanship rule "that prohibits players from celebratory or taunting behavior while scoring a touchdown."  Fair enough.  I love it, in fact.  However, there has to be a line drawn somewhere.  You cannot expect a high school kid, who is breaking free to the end zone, in a state championship game, to not be excited about it.

Here is the scenario: Cathedral High School was trailing Blue Hills Regional Technical School 16-14 late in the fourth quarter of the Massachusetts 4A High School state championship game.  Cathedral quarterback Matthew Owens ran an option-keeper, which he broke for 56 yards and a touchdown.  He knew he was about to win a state championship, as he knew no one could catch him.  He raised his arm in celebration on the way into the end zone.  True, human emotion.  A ref threw a flag.  He invoked the "no celebration" rule, negated the touchdown, and, Cathedral ended up losing the game.  Cathedral's athletic director James Lynch summed it up perfectly: "I just give people the analogy: imagine a basketball player making a clutch three-pointer right at the end of the game, and he turns around and he just kind of shakes his fist in the air kind of thing...[a]nd it was simply just that and it was nothing else … I don’t think it was anything further than just excitement on the player’s behalf."  But, is there anyway we can make a decision about the egregiousness of the call without actually seeing it?  I'm glad you asked.  Cue the video!

One of the worst calls I have ever seen in my life, on one of the biggest stages.  This cost the team a state championship.  It will be almost impossible to overturn.  You can't now take away the championship from Blue Hills.  But, I would love to hear, from someone in a position of power in Massachusetts high school sports, that this was the wrong call, or at least a misinterpretation of the rule.  To top it all off, it seems as if the athletic director from Blue Hills, Ed Catabia, is a complete d-bag. When asked about the flag being thrown, Catabia responded that it was "a great call, the right call."  No.  It wasn't.  The fact that the call benefited your school with a cheap, tarnished state championship, doesn't make it the right call.  Dick.

Isle of Man

Issue: Where the heck is that?

Short Answer: Wikipedia tells me it "is a self-governing British Crown Dependency, located in the Irish Sea between the islands of Great Britain and Ireland, within the British Isles."

Reasoning: Before I get to the Isle of Man, and its purpose in a sports blog, let me apologize, to the three of you who read this, for being a deadbeat blogger.  I have been busy lately, and when that happens, the sports blog suffers first.  How bad have I been?  Check out the total number of posts in 2011:

• January - 18
• February - 14
• March - 10
• April - 9
• May - 9
• June - 5 (I'm sensing a trend here...)
• July - 4
• August - 4
• September - 3
• October - 5 (This is what statisticians call an "outlier")
• November - 3

So, I am here on December 1st, not with a great sports story, or my take on a controversy, but a post to attempt to up my numbers (and readers, but let's be honest...).  So, without further ado, I give you the Isle of Man Motorcycle race.  Huh?  I go back to Wikipedia, which tells us "[t]he International Isle of Man TT (Tourist Trophy) Race is a motorcycle racing event held on the Isle of Man and was for many years the most prestigious motorcycle race in the world...[t]he race is run in a time-trial format on public roads closed for racing by the provisions of an Act of Tynwald (the parliament of the Isle of Man)."  Sounds fairly benign, right?  Let us continue.  The course which this race is run on is called the Snaefell Mountain Course.  This course starts "at the town of Douglas on the south-east coast, [then] takes a wide sweep to the west and north to enter the town of Ramsey on the north-east coast and thence return to the starting point, each lap measuring 37 3/4 miles and taking in over 200 bends while climbing from sea level to an altitude of over 1,300 ft. This circuit is the epitome of the natural road course, all the roads used being ordinary public highways closed for the racing and practice sessions."  Alright, this is starting to sound a little crazy.  One may ask, since this is a time trial race, what is the record for fastest lap (remember, the course is over 37 miles)?  In 2009, a man named John McGuinness finished a lap in 17 minutes and 12 seconds, which means his average speed was 131.578 miles per hour.  On a motorcycle.  On regular city streets.  Holy.  Crap.

My words don't do this race justice.  A video would.  Just remember as you watch this, that since this race began in 1907, 237 people have died in either practices or races.  These riders have stones the size of Jupiter, but, as for their brains....

Here is the unbelievable video (They show a few crashes, and I am assuming everyone lives or they wouldn't show it in the video.  At least that's what I'm telling myself.  Enjoy.):

The Oddest Stat, Ever?

Issue: Judging by the title, this better be good.

Short Answer: It is unreal...

Reasoning: Sports are polarizing.  There are teams we all love (Buckeyes, Bengals, Reds, Yellow Jackets, etc.), and teams we all hate (Wolverines, Bulldogs (Georgia, just in case you may have forgotten), Bearcats, Fighting Irish, Hurricanes, Seminoles, Ravens, Steelers, Browns, Yankees, Red Sox, all of the NBA, etc.).  If you don't love or hate the teams I just listed, then, well, you're crazy.  Deal with it.  People usually hate teams because they're good.  Seriously, no one hates the Pittsburgh Pirates because why would you waste your time and effort hating a team that is basically irrelevant?  Alright, I do hate the Browns, who are obviously irrelevant, but they reside in the same state as my Bengals, so it's not a waste of time to hate them.  So, geography can play a part in the hating of teams.  It's the same reason I hate the irrelevant Indians too.

Some of the teams listed above are what I would consider "polarizing" teams.  Let's take the New York Yankees, for example.  You either love them or hate them.  There is no in-between.  If you love them, I don't like you.  If you hate them, you are an intelligent, rational person, who obviously has a vast knowledge of sports.  The Pittsburgh Steelers are the same way.  If you like them, you were probably born short a few (or millions) of brain cells, and the one's you were born with have been killed off by malted hops and bong resin.  If you hate them, you are a productive member of society and you should be rewarded for your level-headedness.  Perhaps one of the most polarizing teams in the history of college football is the Miami Hurricanes.  If you haven't seen the ESPN 30 for 30 entitled "The U" do yourself a favor and watch it.  It will either reaffirm your love for that crooked University or reaffirm your hate for it.  For me, it reaffirmed my hate.  Actually, it probably made me hate them more.  But, if there is one thing you have to admit, love or hate Miami, is they have produced more great football players than any University, anywhere.

Now comes the paragraph (probably the last of this post) where I tell you how good the University of Miami has been at putting players in the NFL:

• They hold the record for
• Most players drafted in the 1st round of a single NFL draft - 6 in 2004;
• Most players drafted in the 1st round of consecutive NFL drafts - 11 in 2003, 2004;
• Most players drafted in the 1st round of three consecutive drafts - 15 from 2002-2004;
• Most players drafted in the 1st round of four consecutive drafts - 19 from 2001-2004
• In a 14-year period (1994-2008), they had at least one player drafted in the 1st round;
• Since 1999, they have had 67 players drafted into the NFL, 2nd in the nation behind THE Ohio State University (What?  You know I wasn't going to leave that out.);
• Of those 67 players, 33 were drafted in the 1st round - the most of any school (yes, even more than the Buckeyes);
• The 2001 Hurricanes team had 17 players go on to play in the NFL.

So, basically, The U is a factory which produces NFL players.  Ex-Hurricanes are everywhere on NFL teams.  I say this only because the stat I am about to give you is RIDICULOUS and UNBELIEVABLE.  Here it is: Week 11 of the NFL (this past week) saw a streak end, that will never be matched again - a player from the University of Miami had scored a touchdown, in the NFL, every single week, since Week 15 of the 2002 season.  Seriously.  I'm not joking.  That is 149 consecutive weeks.  Almost 10 years.  You know what the longest current streak now is?  The University of Pittsburgh, at 13 (thanks LeSean McCoy!).  They only need 136 more weeks, and they will equal Miami.  I have no words for how impressive this streak is.  It truly is unbelievable.  Too bad I hate them so much, or I might actually care.

College Football Hodgepodge

Issue: You've missed a lot of big stories in College Football over the last couple of days, what gives?

Short Answer: I've been busy, sheesh...

Reasoning: I have actually had two requests for posts over the last couple of days.  One was a serious request (thanks Kristin!), the other was my buddy Dickie asking me to write a post that didn't mention Cincinnati.  There will be nothing about the Queen City in this post (because it's about College Football, and you can see how I feel about Cincinnati's College Football team here), but, I may slip Ohio in here somehow.  I have three different stories I'd like to address, so, forgive me if this becomes the longest post ever.  Without further ado:

ROLL TIDE/WAR EAGLE.  For those of you who think I have pulled a Benedict Arnold and am now rooting for the SEC, well, you're wrong.  "Roll Tide/War Eagle" was the title of the 30 for 30 documentary on ESPN last night.  Every 30 for 30 I have seen has been great, and this one was no different.  The documentary was compelling, interesting, tear-jerking at times, funny, and made extremely well.  The problem I have with the whole thing is the documentary claims Alabama vs. Auburn is the greatest rivalry in College Football.  I scoff.  Hang on, I am still scoffing.  Alabama/Auburn has been the greatest rivalry in College Football for exactly 3 FREAKING YEARS!  See, in order to have a "rivalry" you must have good teams.  Auburn had some good teams when Bo Jackson was there in the early '80's, and they had a good team when Cam Newton was there.  That's it.  In order to have a "rivalry" you must have coaches that add character to the rivalry.  Alabama had Bear Bryant and Gene Stallings.  Auburn had, uh, well, no one.  Tommy Tuberville?  Gene Chizik?  Pat Dye?  Yeah right.  Those of us from the Midwest know that Ohio State vs. Michigan is the greatest rivalry in College Football.  It goes back well over 100 years.  It has been a relevant game to the National Championship picture more times than not.  It had coaches like Woody Hayes, Fielding Yost, Bo Schembechler, and Jim Tressel.  But, not even I would claim that the rivalry is relevant this year.  Ohio State is not good.  Michigan is good, but not great.  The game will be compelling to fans in the Midwest, but not so much to fans outside the heartland.  Alabama vs. Auburn, other than from 2008-2010, hasn't mattered to anyone outside of the state of Alabama since, well, never.  But, in Alabamans defense, not much matters in Alabama anyway.

Number 1 vs. Number 2.  I hate that after I just wrote what I wrote, that I am going to write about Alabama again.  Last Saturday, November 5, the top two teams in the nation took the field to play the biggest game of the year (except to Alabamans, who can't wait for Alabama/Auburn).  Here's what I remember from the game: nothing.  See, my buddy Tore got married on Saturday (this is what we get for letting women pick the date of the wedding...just saying), and I was busy drinking, socializing, and dancing (and by dancing, I mean moving my feet around and trying to not look like an idiot - alcohol helps).  I did sneak off to the hotel bar to watch a bit of the game, but I always felt guilty, and would catch only a few plays.  I heard Alabama missed 14 field goals and ended up losing by 3 (sounds like if 'Bama had a kicker, they would have covered the 5 point spread...that would have been nice).  I only wish both Alabama and LSU could have lost the game.  Watching this game (or the few plays I did watch) was like watching the Ravens and Steelers on Sunday night.  Can we invent a new rule where both teams get a loss?  I don't wish injury on anyone, but could Ben Rapistberger suffer a high ankle sprain?  Or Ray Lewis break a hand?  Or Nick Saban get rolled up on like Sean Payton did a few weeks ago?  I blame my hatred of the SEC on my southern friends who only pretend they like the SEC because it's better than the Big 10 (it is, I can admit that) and can tell me about it all the time.  Unless you actually went to one of the crummy SEC schools, you cannot like them.  It's physically impossible.  What is going to tick me off the most, is when Oklahoma State drops a game and LSU and Alabama end up meeting for the National Championship.  That will be sweet.  A 3-0 final in the National Championship.  Can't wait.  Unless, of course, Nick Saban gets rolled up by a linebacker tackling a tight end.

Penn State/Joe Paterno.  This is a difficult one.  So, I am going to attack it like the lawyer I once wanted to be (what was I thinking?).  Here are the facts:

1. Jerry Sandusky is a sick f&#k.  Period.  End of story.
2. An assistant coach, Mike McQuery, once witnessed Sandusky in the shower with a child in the Penn State locker room.  He did report the incident to his superior, one, Joe Paterno.
3. We don't know what McQuery told Paterno.  Therefore, we have no idea what Paterno knew.  Here are Paterno's own words: "As my grand jury testimony stated [emphasis added], I was informed in 2002 by an assistant coach that he had witnessed an incident in the shower of our locker room facility. It was obvious that the witness was distraught over what he saw, but he at no time related to me the very specific actions contained in the Grand Jury report. Regardless, it was clear that the witness saw something inappropriate involving Mr. Sandusky. As Coach Sandusky was retired from our coaching staff at that time, I referred the matter to university administrators. [emphasis added]"
4. Paterno, reported the incident to his superior, the Athletic Director of Penn State, Tim Curley.
5. Jerry Sandusky is a sick f&#k.

Now, everyone who is anyone, i.e., ESPN, is calling for the head of Joe Paterno.  I can't figure this out.  Yet.  LET ME MAKE THIS CLEAR: if it comes to light that Joe Paterno had anything to do with any part of a cover-up, he should be thrown in jail with Jerry Sandusky.  But, to me at least, it looks like Joe Paterno did something about what he knew (which, we still don't know what he knew).  He reported it up the chain.  Now, the talking heads on ESPN have made it sound like Paterno should have gone immediately to the authorities to report Sandusky.  I'm not saying he shouldn't have, I'm only saying - how do we know?  Paterno was told that a guy, who didn't even work for Penn State football at the time, was acting inappropriately.  Paterno took it upon himself to report it up the chain, and now we are going to call for his head because he didn't go to the authorities?  I'm not sure I can make the connection.

I watch ESPN every day as I work at home.  I have had to listen to ESPN talk about Joe Paterno for the last two days.  Here is my question: why is this story about Joe Paterno and not Jerry Sandusky?  Joe Paterno testified in front of a grand jury that the specifics of that incident in the shower were NOT relayed to him.  He didn't know exactly what happened, and still may not.  So why are we attacking the morals of a man who, in this day in age of cheating in the NCAA, has a squeaky clean image, a squeaky clean record, and a legacy unmatched by any other coach in the history of the NCAA.  Jerry Sandusky is on trial here, because he is a sick f&#k.  Joe Paterno should be on trial if we find out he knew exactly what happened and did nothing about it.  My guess is that he didn't, and that's why he didn't go to authorities.  However, ESPN, with their calls for Joe Paterno's head, has given Penn State a reason to do what they have wanted to do for a long time - get rid of Joe Paterno.  It's sad actually.  Like Penn State or not, Joe Paterno has always been what's right, with a game that is increasingly going bad.

This is a bad situation for all, especially for the victims of these heinous crimes.  Penn State will forever have a black eye because of the actions of one sick f&#k, and Joe Paterno's legacy will be tarnished, no matter what, because of this sick f&#k.  It's a damn shame for everyone involved.

Is It November Already?

Issue: Time flies, huh?

Short Answer: Especially during the summer...

Reasoning: I looked around yesterday, and realized it was November.  With November comes a few things: Thanksgiving, cold weather, and the NBA.  Thanksgiving, I care about.  The other two things on that list, I could go without.  Sometimes I wonder why I live in Cincinnati, mostly when November rolls around.  Someone was telling me the other day, too, that they had read the Farmer's Almanac, and we are due for a horribly cold winter.  Didn't we just have one of those last year?  Can it happen two years in a row?  I thought that guy that invented the internet (Al Gore, for those of you who live under rocks) told us our planet was going to spontaneously combust because of all the warming.  Apparently, "global warming" means "warming everywhere EXCEPT Cincinnati, Ohio."  Great.  And now, I don't get my NBA either?  Good.

Here's the thing the NBA doesn't get, sort of like what the NHL didn't get a few years ago when it went on strike (I know you are shocked, but, yes, the NHL is still in existence, and some people, even outside of Canada, actually still care about it) - NO ONE CARES.  Sure, I know there are people out there who like to watch people like Lebron James, Dwayne Wade, Chris Paul, Kobe Bryant, and Carmelo Anthony play basketball.  I would ask those people: Really??  I would rather watch college basketball, where the kids actually, you know, hustle and give a crap, than watch the NBA "superstars".  The NBA is boring.

I won't even get into the details of the lockout, because I don't care about the lockout.  I don't care why the players are being stupid and greedy.  And, I don't care why the owners are being stupid and greedy.  I don't care that games aren't on, and I don't care that highlights aren't on SportsCenter (sidenote: I actually do sort of care about this, because instead of showing NBA highlights (meaning the couple of sweet dunks in each game) ESPN is filling the SportsCenter time with more "analysis" of whatever.  Did you know LSU and Alabama were playing this week?  Really?  Turn to ESPN really quickly.  They are filling 99% of their air time telling me who is going to win and why, breaking down Nick Saban's office vs. Les Miles' office, and awkwardly interviewing players and coaches alike, none of whom really want to be there.  It's embarrassing.).  The NBA is shooting itself in the foot, and I don't care.  The longer it stays away, the longer they can keep Steven A. Smith off of my television screen, the better.

Bow Tie Cause

Issue: I thought this was a sports blog - are you giving fashion advice now?

Short Answer: If you've ever seen my wardrobe, you'd know that's not the case.

Reasoning: I've never worn a bow tie (other than clip-ons for tuxes I've worn in weddings), and I've certainly never owned a bow tie.  I think they can look fashionable, but I usually think the people wearing them are just trying hard to be different (i.e., they are nerds).  Ken Rosenthal may fit the definition of a nerd, but I'm not sure Dhani Jones does.  But, the two of them have teamed together for what is called "Bow Tie Cause".  Starting at the beginning of this year's MLB season, Rosenthal donned a different bow tie for each of Fox's Saturday Game of the Week.  Each of the bow ties raised awareness for various charities.  The website bowtiecause.org explains each bow tie and the charity which Rosenthal and Jones are helping to raise awareness for.  The 9/11 Memorial Fund, ALS, Cystic Fibrosis, and Ovarian Cancer are just a few of the causes that Rosenthal and Jones have represented.  You may be asking yourself, "what the heck does this have to do with this blog, other than the fact that Rosenthal wore these during baseball games and Jones was a former NFL player (he was a former Bengal - and an average one at that)?"

Well, ladies and gentlemen, one of the ties Ken Rosenthal wore, in Game 5 of the World Series no less, holds a place near and dear to my heart.  Let me show you the tie first:

Pretty sharp looking tie, no?  Well, this tie benefits the St. Xavier High School retention fund.  Yes, St. Xavier High School is my alma mater, I coach varsity baseball there, and, it is the best high school around.  Deal with it.  Allow me to let Fox Sports explain the significance of the charity:

St. Xavier High School assists young men to become leaders through rigorous college preparation in the Jesuit tradition. The school, whose motto is "Men for Others," created its retention program to assist non-traditional students to reach their full potential — academically, socially, spiritually and personally. The subtle X in the pattern of the bow tie reflects the school’s Long Blue Line tradition, while the geometric design represents the Jesuit approach to leading within complex, changing environments. Designed for the school's annual gala (Xtravaganza), the signature St. X BowTie helped raise over $30,000 to support the program. Dhani visited the school and taught students how to tie a bow tie.

Awesome.  St. Xavier High School made an appearance in the 2011 World Series.  I'm not sure many (if any) other high schools out there can make the same claim.  Makes me proud to be a Bomber.  Oh, who are we kidding?  Bombers are always proud to be Bombers, that's why people don't like us so much.  There is also some video of Rosenthal wearing the St. X bow tie, as he interviewed the Mets' Scott Hairston after a July 16 game in Shea Stadium.  The bow tie only makes a quick appearance at the beginning of the video, so, instead of posting a video with an interview of a player most people have never heard of, after winning a meaningless game in July, for a team that absolutely stunk (unless they were playing the Reds), I will just post a picture:

Again, awesome.  Here's to Ken Rosenthal and Dhani Jones raising money for numerous good causes, including a few that are near and dear to my heart, especially giving non-traditional students the chance to experience St. Xavier High School.  Go Bombers!

MLB Hodgepodge

Issue: The season is almost over, anything interesting left on your plate?

Short Answer: A handful of things...

Reasoning: I'm thinking this will be my last baseball post of 2011.  See, the St. Louis Cardinals are now officially playing in the World Series, which, quite literally, makes me nauseous. [Sidenote: has anyone else noticed the epidemic going on in our world today with the severe overuse of the word "literally"?  It has become the most superfluous word in our language.  Like this: "I am literally writing a blog post right now."  Is there any reason for "literally" to be in that sentence?  No.  I think people believe it literally adds emphasis to what they are saying.  It literally just makes them sound like an idiot.  I hope you now notice it as much as I do, and it bothers you as much as it does me.  Literally.]  Anyway, if the Cardinals win I will not write a post about their improbable run into, and then through the playoffs.  They have already made history, and I couldn't care less.  My two favorite teams in baseball are the Cincinnati Reds and whoever is playing the St. Louis Cardinals.  So, a Rangers fan I shall become.  Becoming a Rangers fan is not hard for me, as I played an entire summer with Nelson Cruz when we were both members of the Kane County Cougars of the Midwest League.  He was a phenomenal player then, but I remember him as a better person.  See, there is always a bit of a rift in locker rooms between American born players and Latin born players.  Latin players speak a language American players can't understand, and it can cause some friction.  I always remember Nelson as one of the Latin players who could relate to everyone in the locker room.  He obviously had a lot in common with the Latin players, but he made it a point to relate to the American players as well.  Something tells me his fantastic attitude and love for the game led him to where he is today, i.e., ALCS MVP.

I digress.  The point to this post was to give you a few interesting tidbits, mostly about the Reds, that might make you think a bit.  Without further ado:

1. The Reds finished in 3rd place (shockingly enough, this was a disappointment in the Queen City) in 2011.  Did you realize it has now been 28 years since the Reds have finished in last place?  Yes, that says 28 years.  Doesn't seem right does it?  Where the Reds have finished in the last 28 years: 6th (zero - duh); 5th (9 - more than 25% of the time - no surprise); 4th (3); 3rd (5); 2nd (7 - probably the most shocking); 1st (4).  Yes, 1983 was the last year the Reds finished last in their division.  They were 74-88 that year, which doesn't seem like the record of a last place team.  Who has finished last in the Reds' division the last 28 years?  Pittsburgh Pirates (9 - it's nice to always have a team to make fun of); Chicago Cubs (5 - hopefully more to come); Atlanta Braves (4); Milwaukee Brewers (3); San Francisco Giants (3); San Diego Padres (2); Houston Astros (2); Los Angeles Dodgers (1 - who remembers the Braves, Giants, Padres, or Dodgers being in the Reds division??  I'm getting old.).  Here's to the Reds running this streak to 29 next year with a 2012 Central Division Championship.  With or without Votto.
2. Let's play the name association game.  What do all these names have in common: Carl Crawford, Carlos Pena, Matt Garza, Jason Bartlett, Lance Cormier, Grant Balfour, and Rafeal Soriano?  They were all members of the 2010 Tampa Bay Rays.  And, not one of them was a member of the 2011 Tampa Bay Rays who made an improbable run to the playoffs (a la, the Cardinals).  The payroll of the 2010 Rays - $72.8 million.  The payroll of the 2011 Rays - $42.1 million.  This is why baseball rules.  In a division with the Yankees and Red Sox, the Rays, paying their entire team less than the Yankees paid Derek Jeter and Alex Rodriguez combined, won the AL Wild Card in the most dramatic way possible.  People will be talking about the 2011 Rays for centuries to come, and it is well deserved.  It would be nice if people in Tampa Bay would realize this, however.
3. It's very rare that a player is traded from the Reds and, in turn, lays an egg.  Usually, a player is traded from the Reds and, in turn, becomes an All-Star.  It just the way our luck goes.  It was nice to see a player get traded and lay the egg of all eggs this year.  Adam Dunn stinks.  That's all there is to it.  How badly?  He hit .159 this year for the Chicago White Sox.  No, he wasn't hurt.  Well, his ego may be hurting right about now.  If he had gotten 6 more at-bats, he would have qualified for the lowest batting average ever...by 20 points (Rob Deer hit .179 in 1991).  How about this gem - Adam Dunn vs. left-handed pitching this year: 6 for 94 (.064), 0 HR, 3 RBI.  I swear I'm not making this up.  One more: Adam Dunn hit below .200 every single month this year, save one - he hit a whopping .204 in May.  The only bright spot has to be the fact that he can't do any worse next year.  I think.

That's it and that's all.  Another baseball season has come and gone (sort of).  I can't wait until pitchers and catchers report to Spring Training in about four months.  Go Rangers.

Alone on the Wall

Issue: Have you seen any compelling videos lately?

Short Answer: I'm glad you asked...

Reasoning: Let me say this: I know virtually nothing about rock climbing.  I have never done it, and I pretty much guarantee that I never will.  It seems like an unnecessary risk, and I am not very good at taking those.  I will never skydive, I will never bungee jump, I will never base jump...you get the idea.  If I have a fairly good chance to die while doing it, chances are, I won't do it.  There are too many other easy ways to die.

Here is what I do know about rock climbing: someone that weighs over 200 pounds (i.e., me) cannot be good at it; it requires patience, strength, endurance, and balls of steel; it is a rather safe adrenaline rush, as there are always ropes and other safety measures in place if a climber should fall.  Well, that last part may not be all the way true.  "Free soloing" is a term used when rock climbers climb walls with no safety harnesses at all.  Just a man (or a woman) and a rock.  Now, some of you may be thinking, no big deal, it's only a rock.  Well, it's strange that people inside the sport use the term "rock" even when the rock they are talking about, happens to be a mountain.  So, there are people who climb mountains with no safety harness?  I wouldn't say "people" per se, but perhaps, "person".

Alex Hannold is the craziest person I have ever heard of.  What shocks me the most about him is how intelligent he seems to be.  When I heard the term "free soloing" I expected a guy with an unshaven face and tattoos, who had energy drinks for breakfast and beer (or whiskey) for dinner.  I expected a guy with a death wish; a guy who would say he would rather die doing what he loved, than live without it at all.  Alex Hannold has none of these qualities.  He looks like a kid.  He dropped out of college to follow his love, but my guess is that he is smarter than most people.  He doesn't have a death wish, but he also doesn't think he will ever die doing what he does, because he is so good at it.  He comes across as a guy who has it all figured out.  But, what he actually does, is miles beyond amazing.  I have no problem posting a 13 minute video (taken from "60 Minutes"), because I know once you press play, you won't be able to turn it off.  To watch Alex in action, is to watch someone walk a death defying tightrope, with no safety net below.  Times a million.  One false move, and that's it.  No second chances when you are free soloing.  I'm telling you, just watching the video made me nervous, but Alex Hannold never seems nervous.  Click on the video only when you have 13 minutes to spare.  And some dramamine handy.  This is by far some of the most compelling video I have EVER seen.  Cick with caution, if you are scared of heights...

A Baseball Lesson

Issue: You actually going to teach us something about baseball?

Short Answer: Maybe.  Pay attention.

Reasoning: For the record, I thought about entitling this post "Joe Maddon is a P#@$y," but I like Joe Maddon and I like the Rays, so I went with what I went with.  The MLB playoffs is one of my favorite sporting events.  The drama is more than compelling, the talent is simply the best, and the emotion is off the charts.  To have the first 162 games you played come down to a five-game series, makes the urgency palpable.  But, the game remains the same.  Players must play the same way and managers must manage the same way.  Joe Maddon not managing his team the same way may have cost his team a chance at surviving Game 4 against the Rangers (it also may have had absolutely nothing to do with it).  Let me set the scenario for you:

• It was Monday, October 3, and the Ray's and the Ranger's series was tied at one game a piece.  It was the bottom of the 9th and the Rays were trailing 4-3.  With one out, Sean Rodriguez (Tampa's shortstop, i.e., he has good speed) singled to center.  Up next for the Rays was Kelly Shoppach (Tampa's catcher, i.e., he has terrible speed, if any at all).  Shoppach battled the count back from 1-2, to 3-2.  On the very next pitch, I realized the Rays were in real danger of ending the game without sending another hitter to the plate.

And here begins the lesson.  In professional baseball, all the players are really, really, really good.  Yes, even on the Pirates.  Games are often decided on who plays the game the right way, the most often.  And, when teams do things wrong, it often bites them in the ass.  Enter: Joe Maddon.  In professional baseball (and on any team I coach), if there is a runner on first, or runners on first and second, and the count goes 3-1 or 3-2, the runner, or runners, are told to steal on the pitch.  There is no sign for this.  It is taught and understood (there is a sign to alert the runner NOT to steal, e.g., when a runner like myself (SLOW) is on first base).  On 3-1 or 3-2, you go.  Basically, the runners aren't even attempting to steal, they are merely getting a head start.  The coaching staff is banking on the hitter making contact with the pitch, or taking the pitch for ball four.  This is how 99.9% of "strike'em out, throw'em outs" happen.  In fact, in the same day, I saw Tony LaRussa send Albert Pujols, quite possibly the slowest human being on the planet (he is 65 years old, give him a break) on a 3-2 count.  The batter struck out and Pujols actually attempted to turn around and go back to first base.  He didn't make it.  The point is, Tony LaRussa stuck to his guns, he managed in the playoffs just like he would manage in the regular season.  Joe Maddon did not.

• The first 3-2 pitch was fouled off, and the runner was not going.  The second 3-2 pitch was fouled off, and the runner was not going.  Guess what happened on the third 3-2 pitch?  A ground ball to Adrian Beltre, who was playing extremely deep at third base (he was actually in a defense called "no doubles" but we will save this lesson for another blog post - just take it from me, he was nearly in the outfield).  Beltre threw to second base, barely, and I mean barely, beating Sean Rodriguez to second.  Then, Ian Kinsler flipped to first, beating Kelly Shoppach quite easily at first.  Game over.

The point of the lesson is this: if Joe Maddon sends Rodriguez on the 3-2 pitch, Beltre has only one play - first base.  Then, the Rays would have had Rodriguez on second base with two outs.  Does that mean they tie the game?  Hell no.  Does that mean they have a chance to tie the game?  Hell yes.  But, in my opinion, all Maddon could think about is not ending the game on a "strike'em out, throw'em out" for reasons unbeknownst to me.  Instead, he ended the game on a 5-4-3 double play.  I would rather end the game managing the way it should be done, not managing scared.  And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why the Rays are now playing golf, watching the rest of the playoffs on TV.  Alright, that's not the only reason, but it's a reason all the same.

On a side note, I hope the Brewers beat the Cardinals.  I couldn't stand it if I had to watch the Redbirds in the World Series.  It would physically make me ill.

Do the Bartman

Issue: Are we talking The Simpsons here?

Short Answer: Unfortunately for Steve Bartman, no.

Reasoning: For those of you who didn't catch last week's 30 for 30 episode on ESPN, do yourself a favor, and watch it.  The documentary was compelling, revealing, and more than riveting.  It dealt with the foul ball, hit in game 6 of the 2003 NLCS, that Steve Bartman, innocent fan, interfered with, causing Moises Alou, Chicago Cubs left fielder, to be unable to make the catch.  That, in itself, was not a big deal, as it happens all the time at Major League Baseball games.  The Cubs collapse later that inning (they were leading 3-0 at the time) became the big deal.  That collapse began to be blamed on Steve Bartman right then and there.  The Cubs fans started chanting "asshole, asshole" all while pointing at Bartman.  Never mind that Mark Prior started throwing batting practice, or that Alex Gonzalez booted a sure double play ball.  It was Bartman's fault, plain and simple.  They Cubs lost game 7 the following day, keeping in tact their World Series draught (the longest in history), and, who better to blame for losing that game too, than Steve Bartman.  Here are a few things I took away from the documentary:

• Chicago Cubs fans are the worst people on the planet.  For those of you who root for a team in the NL Central (i.e., the Reds) you already know this.  For those of you who don't, take it from me...and Steve Bartman.  When fans discovered Bartman was the one who interfered with the ball, they showered him with pizza, hot dogs, and beer.  One guy actually was interviewed for the documentary and admitted to screaming profanities at him and dousing him with beer.  He was thrown out of the stadium for "maybe the second or third time in my life."  You're a winner dude.  Way to make yourself look like a complete ass on TV, when you probably thought you looked cool.  Typical Cubs fan.
• Fox Sports should be ashamed.  There was always a question in my mind: how did people in Wrigley Field find out Bartman was the interfering party?  Wrigley Field has no jumbo tron replay board, so people inside NEVER saw a replay of the foul ball.  However, Cubs fans outside the stadium (on Waveland Avenue) had televisions with them so they could actually see what was going on inside the stadium.  Fox, who televised the game, showed the replay exactly 12,378,904 times (ok, maybe not that many, but it was close).  People outside started calling their friends inside telling them it was the guy in the green turtle neck (this is the reason I think Bartman took so much crap - I mean, even in 2003, what are you doing wearing a green turtle neck?).  And that is how and when Steve Bartman's life changed forever.  Remember, the Cubs are still winning 3-0 at this point!  But, Cubs fans, like Red Sox fans of the past, looked for omens, and, this, in their (stupid) opinions, was an omen, i.e., "now there is no way we are going to win!  Thanks asshole."  All because the producers at Fox wanted to show the fan interference so many times.  It wasn't a big play at the time, and it should have been treated as such.  But, it wasn't.
• Moises Alou carries the most blame.  This is true because of how he reacted.  He threw a temper tantrum.  And guess what that did to the fans inside Wrigley Field?  They started throwing temper tantrums too.  Even though they were up 3-0.  If Moises Alou reacts like any other fielder would have - by turning to the umpire in an attempt to have "fan interference" called (by the way, it should have been), the fans could have then taken their contempt out on the umpire (who should have been used to it by then), rather than Steve Bartman.  Instead, Alou threw a tantrum, spitting and cursing in Steve Bartman's direction.  In the documentary, Alou complains that the play is the only thing people ask him about to this day.  Well, Moises, that is mostly your own fault, and I don't feel sorry for you.
• The documentary was great, but the premise for it was not.  The documentary started with, and dealt with Bill Buckner, throughout.  And I'm still trying to figure out why.  The premise was basically this: people are remembered throughout history for one thing and one thing only, whether that is fair or foul.  Buckner was a fantastic player in his career, yet people only remember him (justifiably) for one thing.  Kind of like Bartman.  Oh, other than the fact that Bartman was not a professional baseball player.  The similarities between Buckner and Bartman end with the similarities of the teams (Cubs and Red Sox) and their plight through decades without a World Series title, the curses (of the Bambino and of the Billy Goat), and all the near misses that made fans sick.  The similarities are actually quite eerie.  The curses and the near misses explain, possibly, why Cubs fans reacted the way they did, but the director missed the biggest difference between Buckner and Bartman.  Buckner chose to live his life in the limelight by being a professional baseball player.  He knew very well that a ball going through his legs could be a very real possibility (he even gave an interview to that effect just before the World Series started), and that he might have to deal with the rest of his life.  It's called an occupational hazard.  Steve Bartman never chose to live his life in the limelight, he simply was in the wrong place at the wrong time.  There is a huge difference.  I think Bill Buckner got one of the rawest deals in history.  The ground ball through his legs was the ending to an entire team crapping down their legs.  He didn't lose them that game, nor was he the reason they lost game 7, but he was an easy scapegoat.  Steve Bartman wasn't even close to a reason why the Cubs lost, not even close.  And he wasn't even present at game 7, yet he was blamed for it all.  An innocent fan had his life ruined because of Fox Sports, Cubs fans, and Moises Alou.  I don't see how that relates to Bill Buckner AT ALL.

And that's it.  Steve Bartman got screwed worse than any person in the history of the world.  I'm not even sure there is a close second.

The Odd Stat(s) of the Week, Redlegs Edition

Issue: Does anyone really care about the Reds anymore?

Short Answer: Well, no.  But I live in Cincinnati and so do most of my readers...

Reasoning: The city of Cincinnati was a fun place to be last September.  Jay Bruce's walk-off homer to clinch the NL Central was an excitement the people of the Queen City hadn't experienced in years.  Alright, decades.  Even though the Redlegs laid an egg in the NLDS (remember the Halladay no-hitter?), it was fun to see the Reds back in the playoffs after a long lay-off.  Last season also laid the ground work for another run at the playoffs in 2011.  Or, so we thought.  The Reds had a walk-off win on Opening Day, and we fans thought that was a sign the cardiac Reds would once again find a way to win the NL Central and get swept by the Phillies.  Again.  As it turns out, 2011 was a different year.  I have collected a few stats (mostly emails from my brother, with stats taken from Lance McAlister's blog) that show what a crazy year it has been in Cincinnati.

1. People (especially in Cincinnati) expect too much from closers.  In Cincinnati, not many Reds catch as much grief as Francisco Cordero, our drastically overpaid closer (see?).  Many people want him traded, cut, or tarred and feathered.  Every time he blows a save, someone in Cincinnati inevitably puts together a "how about Drew Stubbs [player we would love to get rid of] for Mariano Rivera [player anyone would love to have]" type trade.  Yeah, keep dreaming.  I have always stood up for Cordero, strictly as a closer.  He is overpaid (as are most closers), but he isn't bad at his job.  As of September 6 (I told you I have been collecting these for awhile), Cordero had 30 saves.  Of those 30, 17 of them came in a perfect inning (i.e., 3 up, 3 down).  Where did that rank him in Major League Baseball (not just the NL)?  3rd.  Behind only the best closer of all time, Mariano Rivera (22) and obvious NL Rookie of the Year, the Braves Craig Kimbrell (18).  Lesson learned?  Cordero will blow saves, as all closers do.  But, when he doesn't blow a save, he is very efficient at his job.
2. Open your eyes Drew!  Drew Stubbs is a phenomenal athlete.  He plays a wonderful center field.  He steals bases.  And, boy, does he know how to strikeout.  Stubbs is a prototypical lead-off hitter, other than the fact that he has struck out more than Adam Dunn this year.  Unfortunately, that is not a joke.  Drew Stubbs has made himself a new friend this year though - Mark Reynolds.  For those that are confused, Mark Reynolds is the third baseman for the Baltimore Orioles.  Why is he Stubbs' new best friend?  Because Reynolds led Major League Baseball in strikeouts in 2008, 2009, and 2010.  Thanks to Stubbs, he won't lead in 2011.  Stubbs has struck out 200 times in in 586 at-bats this year.  For you non-math-majors out there, that is more than once every three times up (1 every 2.93 at-bats).  More than once a game (1.32/game).  More strikeouts than hits (by 57).  How about some comparison - it took Joe Dimaggio (I realize I'm comparing apples and green beans here (because Stubbs isn't even an orange to Dimaggio's apple) 7 years to strikeout 196 times (976 games; 4.417 plate appearances); and it took Tony Gwynn 11 years to strikeout 201 times (1,380 games; 5,705 plate appearances); in 1976 Pete Rose, Joe Morgan, and Dave Concepcion struck out 163 times COMBINED (1,934 plate appearances).  I love Drew Stubbs as a player, but with the number of strikeouts he has this year, he can't be in the future plans for the Reds.  Unless they fire Brook Jacoby (Reds' hitting coach), since he hasn't been able to help much either.
3. Gotta beat the teams you're supposed to.  The Reds basically have the same team they did last year, when the won the NL Central.  So, what changed?  Obviously, the Reds did not have nearly as many come-from-behind wins as they did a year ago.  It just can't happen all the time.  Maybe, if the Reds had beat the teams they were supposed to, the 2011 edition would have been one of "Repeat Champions."  The Reds' record right now is 76-80.  Not good.  However, upon closer examination, the Reds record is so unsexy (if it isn't a word, it should be - think...chicks picking their noses) because of what they did against teams under .500.  The Reds are 36-37 against teams at or above .500, which, in my opinion, is pretty darn good.  Against teams under .500...40-43, which, is nothing short of awful.  This record includes 11-7 against the hapless Cubs, 1-5 against their in-state rival Indians, 0-4 against the Mets, 4-8 against the Pirates (yeah, they were going to hang onto that first-half lead), and 1-2 versus both the Blue Jays and Orioles.  The Cardinals against teams .500 or worse?  59-46.  The Brewers?  68-33.  What a difference a year makes.
4. And then there's Joey Votto.  Votto has 118 career home runs.  I have often said that when it is all said and done, Joey Votto will be considered one of the greatest hitters ever (although, I have heard he won't be considered one of the greatest people ever, but that is neither here, nor there).  He knows how to hit, period.  I watch him hit home runs to left-center field that announcers marvel at ("Look at that opposite field power!!"), but, that is what Votto is trying to do.  He is trying to hit every ball into the opposite gap (just trust me on this one, alright?).  How good of a hitter is Joey Votto?  This good - of his 118 home runs, 29 have gone to right field (24.9%), 16 to right-center field (13.6%), 23 to center field (19.5%), 24 to left-center field (20.3%), and 26 to left field (22%).  One word: ridiculous.  No one hits to all fields like Joey Votto.  No one.  And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why he will be one of the best, when it's all said and done (too bad most of it won't be done in a Reds uniform - we just can't afford him).

Here is to 2012 being more like 2010 than 2011.  It may be Votto's last year in a Reds uniform (even though I think he may be playing his last now - we ought to trade him while his value is high, and he isn't owed $17 million the next year (he is only (ONLY) owed $9 million in 2012), so we better do it fast.  I still love ye Redlegs, for better or for worse.  Mostly worse.

Girls vs. Jesus

Issue: Do girls or Jesus cause more controversy?

Short Answer: Apparently Jesus does...

Reasoning: For those of you who did not, or do not, attend St. Xavier High School in Cincinnati, well, you are heathens.  I kid (sort of).  Seriously though, St. Xavier is a Jesuit, all-boys high school in the Queen City, which I attended many (many) years ago.  When I was in high school there, we sucked at football.  Now, St. X is a legitimate national power.  They have won two state championships since 2005, and sit at 3-0 this year.  St. X often finds themselves ranked nationally, right now sitting in the #16 slot (side note: Moeller High School is ranked #26, meaning the Greater Catholic League, a league with only 4 teams (Elder and LaSalle are the other two) has two of them ranked in the top 26 in the country, and all four schools are ranked in the top 9 in the state.  Not bad.).  So, Cincinnati was abuzz last Friday when the then #25 St. X Bombers (a private school) travelled to play the nationally ranked #22 Colerain Cardinals (a public school) in what turned out to be a phenomenal game.  What happened after the game, unfortunately, is what has been reported on more than the game itself.

Here is how the game ended: With St. X up 17-14, Colerain drove down to the St. X 28-yard line.  Colerain then set up to attempt a 45-yard field goal, which, for a high school kicker is not an easy kick.  But Colerain's kicker is one of the best in the city, so him making it was not even close to out of the realm of possibility.  Steve Specht, St. X's head coach, had a few tricks up his sleeve, however.  Right before Colerain snapped the ball for the field goal attempt, Specht called timeout.  When Colerain lined up again for the attempt, Specht called another timeout.  Colerain lined up, again, to attempt the field goal, and Specht called St. X's final timeout.  No use taking timeouts to the locker room, right?  Finally, after three straight timeouts, Colerain lined up for the kick, and missed.  St. X wins.  You can imagine how upset the Colerain players, coaches, and fans probably felt at that very moment.  The Colerain student section then decided they didn't like to lose, and let the St. X students know that "WE'VE GOT GIRLS!!!"  In retaliation to that, the St. X student section let loose with "WE'VE GOT JESUS!!!"  Colerain head coach Tom Bolden didn't like that too much, broke out of the team huddle, and proceeded to chastise the St. X student section.  My question is: Why?

Let's take a look at both chants.  "WE'VE GOT GIRLS," is unoriginal at best.  Chants like this were going on when I was in high school and probably decades before that.  Opposing schools lock on to the one thing that is clearly different about St. X, and go with it.  The implication here is that if you go to school with all boys, then you are clearly a homosexual.  Which, when we are talking about high-schoolers, seems like an awful thing to be chanting about at a football game.  There are all-girls schools in Cincinnati too; do you think they hear chants like "WE'VE GOT BOYS!!!" at their sporting events?  I should think not.  However, as a St. X student, you understand why opposing schools chant what they chant, and you deal with it.  The problem is, St. X students are not allowed to chant things that make fun of other schools (e.g., "THAT'S ALRIGHT, THAT'S OK, YOU'RE GONNA WORK FOR US SOMEDAY!!!"), as the administration will not allow it.  So, the St. X students chanted "WE'VE GOT JESUS!!!"  This chant is clearly original, and, well, clearly funny.  I'm assuming the implication here is, since "we have Jesus," that you, i.e., Colerain, does not have Jesus.  Or, at least that would explain Tom Bolden's reaction.  But, I believe there is more too it than that.  St. X kids are too smart for that (at least I think - St. X kids are sometimes the dumbest smart kids I know).  The St. X student body doesn't defend going to school with all boys.  We understand how that looks to a bunch of teenagers who go to co-ed schools.  If they allowed girls at St. X, not one kid there would complain.  So, we roll with it.  Colerain chants "WE'VE GOT GIRLS!!!" so the St. X body says "well, you've got us there," but, at least "WE'VE GOT JESUS!!!"  See what I mean?

This is basically a non-issue.  I've in fact been informed that the two coaches have talked, and both realize this has been sensationalized by the media.  And, the fact that the game involved two teams ranked in the top 25 in the country, means it has reached the national media.  Don't believe me?  Check this out.  It's a shame such a good game has turned into talks about teenagers chanting after the game.  Although, to be fair, St. X snapped Colerain's 61-game home winning streak, so perhaps they forgot how to be gracious losers.

#16 St. X takes on #3 Louisville Trinity at St. X High School this Friday.  Let's hope the two teams leave girls and Jesus out of it, and just play some football.  Go Bombers!!

The Big XII Dilemma

Issue: What is going on in the heartland?

Short Answer: The Big XII is falling apart, thanks to ESPN.

Reasoning: The first weekend of college football is in the books, and, although there were some great games (and some blowouts), what I will remember most about the weekend is the national coverage Texas A&M received for wanting to leave the Big XII.  The SEC was their destination, but the SEC decided they do not want to expand.  Yet.  For those of you who watch (or read) ESPN for your sports news, I expect that you have no idea why Texas A&M was attempting to bolt the Big XII, mere hours before the college football season started.  That is because when you have a monopoly on sports news and reporting, like ESPN does, you need not report negative stories about yourself.  Must be nice.

Let's play make-believe.  You are the Athletic Director at Texas A&M, a middle-of-the-road Big XII school.  Sure, you have a good athletic program, but competing with Texas, Oklahoma, and Missouri is quite difficult.  Then ESPN comes along and makes it nearly impossible to compete.  How is ESPN responsible for the (soon-to-be) ultimate collapse of the Big XII?  Well, "[s]ince the joint partnership between ESPN and the University of Texas was announced, many have cried foul. Texas' bitter rival, Texas A&M, has even made plans to leave the conference, a decision that was propelled by the announcement of the Longhorn Network."  In my opinion, a great move by Texas A&M.  So, shouldn't schools like Baylor, Texas Tech, Kansas, and Kansas State be right on the Aggies heals, attempting to find a newer, fairer conference than the Big XII?  I sure as heck would be.

Some of you out there may be wondering why a network televising all things UT all the time, is a problem for other schools in the Big XII.  Let's play make-believe again.  You are an 18-year old, stud football player from the state of Texas (this is truly make-believe!).  You are being recruited by Texas, Texas Tech, Texas A&M, and Oklahoma State.  If you go to any school, besides Texas, you may play a few games on TV every year.  If you go to Texas, every single play you ever play on a football field, will be on television.  Think of a baseball player, or tennis player, being recruited by Texas, being told all of their games will be on TV too!  Isn't that an easy decision for a kid to make?  Why wouldn't you go to Texas?  Exactly.

The ultimate question is this: Is there any University out there that needs its own network?  The answer is simple: Hell no.  The University of Texas is good in almost every sport, from women's volleyball to men's football, they compete in the upper echelon of every single one.  But still, is there enough drama and excitement, 24/7/365, to fill a network with compelling television?  Those of us who have the Big 10 (or is it the Big 100?  Beats me.) Network know there isn't.  And that is a network dedicated to an entire conference, not just one school.  Ever watched Minnesota vs. Northwestern in women's volleyball?  Yeah, me either.  I'd rather watch re-runs of Pawn Stars that I have already seen three times.  I am rooting for the Longhorn Network to fail miserably, partly because I don't think one University supplies enough substance to fill up and entire network, and partly because I hate ESPN.  See, "[w]ith [ESPN] investing such a large sum of money into a single university, there is a chance, for good reason, that ESPN will lose a great deal of its credibility when reporting Texas-related stories. And credibility is not something that can be bought back."  Funny, I didn't know ESPN still had any credibility left.

The Little Summer Classic

Issue: How much do you love the Little League World Series (hereinafter LLWS)?

Short Answer: You might be surprised.

Reasoning: I think the LLWS stinks.  Now, before you start calling me a cynic, please, let me explain.  In fact, allow me to parse it out, so everyone can understand why I think it stinks (notice I said "I"...I am not trying to convince anyone that it stinks, because I realize a lot of people enjoy watching the LLWS, for some odd reason).  How about a "pro" and "con" list:

PROS:

1. What an experience for a bunch of 12-year old kids.  There is a team in the LLWS this year that is from Pennsylvania, in fact, they are only about 40 miles from Williamsport (where the LLWS is held), and, you know how many people were in attendance for their first game?  Over 41,000.  No joke.  Could you imagine being 12 and playing in front of that many people?  A few times in my career I was lucky enough to play in front of 10,000+ people.  It was an experience I wish I could put into words, but I can't.  Let's just say, in a sports context, it was the coolest thing that I have ever done.  To put it simply, those kids will never forget that game.  Ever.  My point to this post is not that the LLWS should cease to exist, just that it should cease to be on my TV.  Forever.
2. At least these kids are playing some sort of baseball and aren't sitting in front of the computer or TV.  I give them credit for that.  That is the last entry on the list of "pros."

CONS:

1. Let's just say, hypothetically, you could find the abosolute, very best 12-year old baseball players in the entire world.  About 30 of them.  Then, you split them into 2 teams and played them against each other.  There is still no freakin' way that I would want to watch it.  Why?  Because they are freakin' 12-years old.  Hell, if I ever have kids, it is going to be painful having to watch them play baseball when they are 12.  Really?  Watching 12-year olds play baseball is fun?  No, not a bit.
2. Little League baseball is a joke.  Do you realize why a team with a dominant pitcher always wins?  It's because the pitcher's mound is about 6 feet away from home plate.  A dominant Little League pitcher throws the equivalent of a 6,257 mile per hour fastball.  Not only can you not hit that, you can't even see it.  It's like fast-pitch softball without chicks in shorts, instead you have 12-year old boys.  Only Herbert from "Family Guy" likes that trade-off.
3. Little League baseball is a joke, part II.  Is there a reason the players can't lead off?  Is this a safety issue?  Or is it the fact that if leadoffs were allowed, even the fat kids could steal bases, because the bases are only 60 feet apart?  Again, what we have here is fast-pitch softball played by 12-year old kids, on a mini-baseball diamond.  Fact is, leadoffs and baserunning in general are often undercoached and misunderstood (ever watch the Cincinnati Reds run the bases?).  If kids aren't leading off at age 12, learning it later is going to be difficult, because other kids not playing Little League have been doing it their whole lives.  It makes no sense.
4. Little League baseball is a joke, part III.  Have you ever wondered why there are so many home runs hit in Little League baseball (unless, of course, there is a pitcher throwing 6,000+ mph)?  It's because the fences are 200 feet.  I could find 8-year olds that can hit a baseball that far.  The home runs these kids hit are outs in real baseball (meaning not Little League baseball).  Lazy fly balls.  Yet, I see these kids hit a 215-foot fly-ball, and pimp it.  It's a can-of-corn, deal with it.
5. Little League baseball is antiquated.  The Little League game is not played by the best amateur players anymore.  The total number of Major League players that played Little League baseball?  31.  The total number of those 31 Major League players to play in the LLWS?  23.  The LLWS was founded in 1947.  That means, people who tune into the LLWS see, on average, 1/3 (yes, that says "one-third") of a future Major League player, every single year.  Sweet.  The most recent Major League player to have played in the LLWS?  Lastings Milledge, who appeared in the LLWS in 1997.  At 12-years old, these kids should be playing baseball on bigger fields, a regulation pitching mound, while leading off and running the bases the proper way.  Playing Little League baseball only serves to stunt the development of players.  And in a game like baseball, it's hard to catch up.

Now, I know some of you out there might think I am being a little harsh, you know, bagging on a bunch of 12-year olds, but, I want you to know, I'm not bagging on 12-year olds kids, I'm bagging on 12-year old kid's parents, for being dumb enough to sign-up their 12-year old kid for Little League.  Idiots!

A Win For The Ages

Issue: Dude, where have you been?

Short Answer: August is a slow time for sports.  Bear with me...

Reasoning: This has been an especially slow month for sports, given the NFL lockout, the Reds stinking it up, and golf without one Tiger Woods.  And, well, it has shown in my blog.  Working full-time doesn't help either, but, I have to be honest, I just haven't seen much interesting to write about lately.  There hasn't been much going down in the world of sports.  However, this weekend was the 93rd PGA Championship held in my second hometown, Atlanta, at the fabled Atlanta Athletic Club (which, in case you were wondering, isn't in Atlanta, nor is it really even near Atlanta).  My guess is that most of you didn't watch, as the biggest names on the leaderboard were David Toms (boring), Lee Westwood (seems like a jerk), and Scott Verplank (old).  While I enjoy watching those three guys play, they don't exactly draw in the casual golf fan.  And, if you are one of those casual golf fans, you missed one of the best tournaments in recent memory.  I am not going to recap the tournament (only because I am long-winded and I have limited space), but I will pass along two tidbits that made the PGA Championship special.  Or odd.  Or just plain strange.

First, let me quickly discuss Keegan Bradley's (that is the young man who actually won the tournament, for those of you who had more important things to do on Sunday - or for those that just don't like golf) place in golf history.  See, this was Keegan Bradley's first ever appearance in a major championship.  Never had he played in the Masters, the U.S. Open, or the British Open.  Commentators always talk about the "experience" a golfer needs to win a major championship because the pressure becomes too much for those who have never experienced it.  That is why you don't often see a "no-name" win a major.  Sure, it happens, because luck is part of the game, but you see Tiger, and Jack, and Phil, and Arnie, and Ben, and Sam win majors; you don't often see a Keegan.  Yet, Keegan Bradley stared down the competition in his first ever major, and came out on top in the end.  I am here to let you know how uncanny Bradley's victory was.  Here is the ENTIRE list of golfers who have won a major in their first ever major appearance:

1. Keegan Bradley - 2011 PGA Championship
2. Ben Curtis - 2003 British Open Championship
3. Francis Ouimet - 1913 U.S. Open

Not very long, is it?  Many of you have probably heard the story of Ouimet, who was a caddy at The Country Club in Brookline, Massachusetts, when he was allowed to enter the U.S. Open being held there in 1913.  He beat two of the top players in the world in a playoff, and his victory is widely regarded as one of the biggest upsets in the history of sport, not just golf.  Keegan Bradley just did something that absolutely never happens.  He won a major in his first ever try.  He faced the pressure and came through when it mattered.  I'm just glad I was around to watch it (even if you weren't).

Secondly (and lastly, for that matter), Keegan Bradley became the first ever winner of a major while using a long putter.  For those that aren't familiar (what do you do?), a long putter is a putter, that is long.  Adam Scott uses a long putter that comes right underneath his chin.  Keegan Bradley uses a long putter termed "belly putter" as the butt end of the putter basically lodges in, or near, one's belly button.  Supposedly long putters allow for more stability, and, therefore, more consistency in putting.  I would question how consistent they are, when a person using one has never won a major, prior to yesterday.  Most players who go to the long putter do so when they encounter "the yips."  The yips are basically a mental block over short putts.  Players who experience the yips have a hard time making a smooth, consistent stroke, which often ends with missing 2 and 3 foot putts, something you cannot do and expect to succeed at the highest levels of golf.  Players using long putters today, however, aren't necessarily suffering from the yips.  Some, like Keegan Bradley, have chosen long putters because they believe it makes their game better, not because they are attempting to cure some sort of mental block.  In fact, many commentators are suggesting Lee Westwood (who has 6 top-10's in his last 9 majors) go to the long putter, not because he misses short putts, but because he doesn't hole a lot of putts from 8-20 feet.  Here is what I do know:

1. Keegan Bradley will be responsible for a huge boom in amateurs using long putters, whether those amateurs really need them or not;
2. You may even see a few PGA Tour members go to a long putter;
3. Players should examine their brains before they examine their putters;
4. I will NEVER use a long putter.

See, putting, like most anything in golf, is mental.  Those that have the confidence on the greens are going to be the better putters (i.e., Tiger Woods, Phil Mickelson).  The long putter creates artificial confidence for a golfer, for at least a while.  That's not to say the long putter can't boost that confidence enough to where a golfer truly believes he is a better putter because of it, which, in turn, gives golfers exactly what they need - the confidence to believe they WILL make the putt, not HOPE they will make the putt.  Long putters are for some, but not for all.  See, confidence has never been my problem (even though I stink), so I will never need a long putter (even though I stink).  If I had to stand over a 4-foot putt, in front of millions of people, for millions of dollars, and a championship trophy, maybe a long putter would help.  Until then, I will stick with a regulation putter, and continue to stink.

The Odd Stat of the Week

Issue: You realize you don't do this column on a "weekly" basis, right?

Short Answer: Sue me.

Reasoning: I have been busy, damn!  Seriously though, "The Odd Stat of the Week" sounds better than "The Odd Stat of the Time Between Now and the Last Time I Did an Odd Stat Column," doesn't it?  Plus, in the days when I was writing more, I did write the column once a week.  Almost.  Now that we have that taken care of, let's move on to some crazy stats.  It is now the beginning of August, meaning there are only two sports going on that I care about (baseball and golf, for those of you that pay zero attention), and golf doesn't usually lend itself to "odd" stats, per se, so that leaves me with the greatest game of all, and one in which stats may very well have been invented for (man, that was a long sentence).  To prove how odd baseball is sometimes, I have two crazy stats for you, both of which happened in the last two days.

The first stat deals with the team that I (and almost everyone else) hates with a passion: the New York Yankees.  The Yankees, just yesterday, finished up a four-game sweep of the Chicago White Sox.  No, that is not the odd stat.  In fact, that is not odd at all, as the White Sox stink.  What is odd is the fact that the Yankees, in a four-game sweep, walked exactly ZERO hitters.  Sounds odd.  Sounds crazy.  I wish the Reds could win one game without walking a hitter, but I digress.  One may not understand how odd and crazy this stat actually is.  The feat the Yankees just accomplished had happened only twice in modern (since 1900) Major League history.  What makes this stat even more odd is that the Yankees are only the second team to accomplish the feat, as the Boston Red Sox are responsible for the only two prior occurrences.  The last time a four-game sweep occurred with zero walks by the winning team, was in 1968, when the Red Sox swept the Chicago White Sox (weird in and of itself).  Prior to that, the Red Sox swept the Washington Senators in a four-game set in June/July of 1905.  Wow.

Part II of the Odd Stat of the Week involves a player to whom I have a connection.  Dan Uggla was drafted in 2001 by the Arizona Diamondbacks, exactly four rounds before I was drafted by the Oakland A's.  In 2001 he played in the Northwest League with the Yakima Bears at the same time I was playing for the Vancouver Canadians of the Northwest League.  Uggla began the his 2002 season with South Bend of the Midwest League, but was eventually moved to Lancaster of the California League, at the same time I was playing for Visalia of, you guessed it, the California League.  My connection with Uggla doesn't end there, as after my playing career ended, I dated his ex-girlfriend for a couple of months.  And that is all I have to say about that.  Uggla has been a good, not great, Major Leaguer.  He has a career .257 average, so what, you may ask, does he do that earned him a 5-year, $62 million contract from the Atlanta Braves?  Well, he hits more home runs than any other second baseman in the league, hands down.  He has hit 177 home runs in almost 6 seasons, which means he AVERAGES 30 home runs a year, at a position where home runs are usually the exception, not the norm.  This year has been a struggle (other than the home run category - he has 23) for Uggla.  Through 86 games this year, he was hitting a paltry .173.  Not what you're looking for out of your $62 million man.  However, since that 86th game, Uggla really started to make history - he has gotten at least one hit in his last 25 games.  Now, a 25-game hit streak is not all that odd (30+ seems to be the benchmark).  But, a player having a 25-game hit streak in a season as bad as Uggla is having now, is as historical as it gets.  When Uggla went 2-for-4 on Wednesday (8/3), he raised his season average to .215 (that is not a typo).  That batting average is 50 POINTS LOWER than any other average, after the players 25th game of a hitting streak, in the history of baseball.  Let's let that one soak in for a second...or two...the previous low*?  Hobe Ferris of the St. Louis Browns was hitting .265 after his 25th game of his hitting streak...in 1908.  That's right, Uggla just broke a record that stood for 103 years, was set in the dead-ball era (before 1920), and he broke it by a landslide.  The moral to the story?  Bad hitters don't usually put together long hitting streaks.  However, I'm sure the $62 million Uggla will make over the next 5 years will take away some of the sting.  Call me crazy.

*The previous low in the live-ball era (beginning in 1920) was Willy Taveras in 2006.  He was hitting .278 after his 25th game of a hitting streak.

Heeeeeee's Baaaaaack

Issue: Who?

Short Answer: Tiger.

Reasoning: I know I write about golf a lot.  That's because golf is awesome.  Pick up some clubs and find out.  I dare ya.  And, well, most of those posts are about the one and only, Tiger Woods.  Would you rather me write about Briny Baird?  Most of you probably think I just made that name up.  I didn't.  That is the biggest problem with golf right now - there aren't many recognizable faces or names.  The players are possibly better now than they have ever been, but, it is really hard to root for anyone not named Phil Mickelson, Dustin Johnson, Rory McIlroy, Steve Stricker, Bubba Watson, or, well, that's about it (seriously, I can't stand Nick Watney, Ricky Barnes, and some of the other toolbags out there).  So what happens when there is a tournament when none of those fellas are in contention?  Let me welcome you to last weekends Greenbriar, Classic.  First, the tournament took place in West Virginia which makes it automatically no fun.  However, the Greenbriar resort and golf course are absolutely gorgeous (p.s. the absolute only thing in the entire state of West Virginia that can be classified as "gorgeous") which is enough to draw avid golf fans, e.g., me, but it is not enough to get the casual fan to watch.  Tiger does.

As I sat and watched the entire round on Sunday (one too many on Saturday night for me), I often wondered why, or possibly who, the heck I was watching.  Funny thing is, the tournament was unbelievably compelling.  (Keep in mind, you may not recognize any of these names) Bob Estes, a 45-year old former winner on the PGA Tour, fired a 64 on Sunday to take the lead (-10) in the clubhouse.  Bill Haas birdied the 17th hole to move to -10 and tie for the lead.  Scott Stallings was tied for the lead going into Sunday, but he shot 4-over on the front 9 to end his chances, or so I thought.  Stallings birdied 5 of the first 7 holes on the back nine to move to -10, and he still had the reachable par-5 17th ahead.  It was his tournament to win or lose.  When he drove his ball into the hazard on the 17th, it looked like he would choke.  He saved bogey, then birdied 18 to join Haas and Estes in a playoff.  The 18th at the Greenbriar is a par-3, which makes for an exciting, if not quick, playoff.  Haas hit it to 20 feet and missed the putt.  Estes hit his to 12 feet and missed the putt.  Stallings hit it to 6 feet and made the putt for his first (for some reason I am thinking his last - seriously, the most impressive thing about him were his man boobs) PGA Tour victory.  It was fantastic to watch.  Unless you aren't as serious about golf as I am.  There was nothing to draw the casual fan, especially after Phil missed the cut.  So, what does golf need?  You guessed it.

When Tiger is in the field, everyone watches.  No matter what he does from now until the end of his career, he is one of the best golfers of all time, and even casual fans enjoy watching the best, no matter what the sport.  Even when Tiger is 8 shots back going into Sunday, don't you (and by "you" I mean those that do the things I am about to write...) watch just for the chance that he makes a patented Tiger comeback?  Don't you watch when Tiger is blowing away the field by 9 shots, just to watch the amazing things he can do with a golf ball?  I know I do.  This is how good Tiger Woods is at golf: He has played in only 7 (he withdrew from The Players after one round, so, 6 1/4) full events this year (out of 34) and he is still 135th on the FedEx Cup points list (the top 125 head to the playoffs) and ranked 28th in the world rankings (his lowest ranking since his first full year on tour).  I mean, seriously, all he has to do is play decent golf over the next few weeks and he will make the playoffs easy, which means he could still win the FedEx Cup, and he hasn't played competitive golf since May 12th.  Even crazier is the fact that he is still ranked in the top-30 in the world.  That is how much ahead of the competition he was when his career crashed like his Mercedes that fateful night over a year-and-a-half ago.

By the way, I love the fact that he got rid of Steve Williams (his caddy), because it shows he is trying to clean the slate and start anew.  That's what he needs to do.  I don't think it was anything personal, he just needed to move in a new direction.  And I, for one (just in case you haven't figured it out yet), cannot wait until he gets there.