March Madness Lessons, Part II

Issue: How are your brackets looking?

Short Answer: Ha.  Ha.  Ha.

Reasoning: This could be the craziest NCAA tournament, ever.  And the following lessons have been learned:

This is the most improbable Final Four ever - My buddy Doug sent me an email yesterday that said a person at "Predict Machine" (neither of us know what this is) said that the odds of picking this Final Four, when putting all 68 teams into a computer generating program, were 1 in 93,297,507.  Now, I can't substantiate these odds (and I don't think Doug or "Predict Machine" really can either), but, to me, it seems a bit low.  I would think it's more like 1 in a googleplex.  Or worse.  However, I would be wrong (again).  On espn.com there were around 5.9 million brackets filled out (6 of those were by me).  And you know what?  Two people actually picked this Final Four.  No joke.  I'm sure one is a Butler alum and the other is a VCU alum, but hey, whatever.  Here is one (this guy is in first place), and here is the other (this guy (or girl) is in 6,343 place!).  CRAZY.  Here are some more crazy bracket stats* (remember, this is out of 5.9 million brackets):

• Only .00017% (1,023) had three Final Four teams correct (I'm betting most missed VCU);
• Only 2.1% had two Final Four teams correct;
• Only 27.6% had one Final Four team correct (I have one of these!  Picked UConn in my all Big East Final Four bracket (West Virginia, Louisville, and Pittsburgh were my other three teams - wonder what place that bracket is in?));
• All of this means that 70.3% of brackets filled out on espn.com now have exactly zero teams left;
• 0.6% (36,732) of brackets correctly picked Butler in the Final Four;
• 0.1% (5,791) of brackets correctly picked VCU in the Final Four;
• .0000325% (192) brackets correctly picked the VCU v. Butler national semifinal;
• 1.9% (112,489) of brackets correctly picked Kentucky v. UConn in the national semifinal;

You can't make this stuff up folks.  The madness this March is unmatched by any madness in any March ever.  And it's not even over yet.

Experience pays off in March - With the exception of VCU, every team left has serious experience.  Butler was in the final game last year, and came a half-court shot away from winning the national title.  They lost their best player (Gordon Hayward), but returned a senior leader in Matt Howard and a future NBAer in Shelvin Mack.  Plus, their #1 seed was Pittsburgh, and we all know how weak the Big East really was.  However, UConn did make it to the Final Four, thanks to their coach (who has made Final Fours (1999, 2004, 2009, and 2011) and won two national championships (1999 and 2004 (over my beloved Yellow Jackets)), their Big East tournament title (which gave them the momentum to run through the NCAA tournament), and the best player in the country (Kemba Walker - sorry Jimmer).  The Big East may be weak, but the hottest team from the Big East is still a national contender.  Then there is Kentucky who is led by John Calipari who has been here and done this before, with numerous teams (UMass Final Four, 1996; Memphis Final Four, 2008; Kentucky Final Four, 2011 - keep in mind though, both the UMass and Memphis Final Four appearances were vacated by the NCAA, so, Calipari has a lot of experience cheating as well).  He knows what it takes to get where they are now, and, he has some pretty talented players as well.

Brad Stevens is a stud - Look, I am one who has always believed coaching doesn't necessarily win you games, but it can certainly lose you games.  Brad Stevens has proved me wrong.  Two years in a row, he has taken what most would consider sub-par teams, to the national championship game.  In the last two NCAA tournaments Brad Stevens has more coaching wins than Mike Krzyzewski, Roy Williams, Bill Self, Jamie Dixon, Jim Calhoun, Thad Matta, etc.  After this year, no matter how Butler comes out of this tournament, Brad Stevens will have more leverage than any coach in history, to write his own ticket.  I think most division I schools would gladly fire their coach on the spot to have Brad Stevens.  The question then becomes, can Butler afford to keep him?  For their sake, I hope they can.  I would like to see Brad Stevens stay at Butler for his entire career and continue leading them back to the Final Four when no one believes they can do it.  Only time will tell though.

I was right!!! - Sort of.  In my first "March Madness Lessons" (posted here), I wrote the following: "Every team left is great.  Any one of them can beat Ohio State on any given day.  No question.  But, I believe it is their tournament to lose.  Although, the way I pick brackets and handicap games, they will probably lose to Kentucky.  But I doubt it." (emphasis added).  Now, if only I could truly start believing, that I truly suck at picking brackets and handicapping games, I could probably make myself some serious money.  But, as much basketball as I watch, I still believe I know what I am talking about.  Sad, really.

I believe UConn will play Butler for the national championship - Which means, undoubtedly, that Kentucky and VCU will square off for the national title.  Now, I need to go hop on a plane to Vegas.

 

*Stats taken from here.

Why Censorship Ruins American Televison

Issue: What does that have to do with sports?

Short Answer: Honestly, not much.

Reasoning: But, when I see funny stuff, I am always trying to figure out a way to post it here.  And, I promise this post is about sports.  Sort of.  You see, The Daily Sport is a tabloid "newspaper" published in the dentally unhygienic United Kingdom.  They talk funny too.  I have never seen or heard of The Daily Sport, so, allow me to let Wikipedia (I realize it is not a trusted source, but sometimes they have exactly what I need, and I can't imagine someone would purposely publish false information about The Daily Sport - but it's possible) to do it for me:

"The Sport does not focus on political news or world events...[i]nstead, its news coverage indulges more in yellow journalism, with an emphasis on celebrities, bad behaviour and toilet humour [HA - they spell funny too!]...Recent editorial policy has meant an end to [ridiculous] stories and an increased focus on celebrity news and sexual revelations...The Sport often publishes fake nude pictures of celebrities and also paparazzi "upskirt" and "downblouse" or nipple slip pictures. The fake nude pictures are published with the appropriate disclaimers and captions, although the front cover image is often accompanied by a titillating caption."

Ok.  Maybe that just confused you more.  From doing more research, I have found that The Sport specializes in three things: women's breasts, sports (see, told you it was appropriate for this blog), and funny stuff.  It sounds like whomever came up with this idea had a pretty good idea of what they were doing.  Call me crazy.  So, what does this have to do with censorship and American television?  The following commercial would never, ever, be aired in America (duh).  It is a commercial for The Daily Sport newspaper, and it made me laugh out loud.  All five times I watched it.  I must warn you though, there are half-naked breasts and abrasive words contained in this video.  I know that won't stop my male readers from viewing, but I wanted to warn my female readers (all 3 of them) about the content.  This video is not, however, so over-the-top that it will offend anyone (unfortunately).  Oh, and don't watch it at work with the volume turned up.  Enjoy!

The Odd Stat of (Last) Week

Issue: Baseball yet?

Short Answer: Not quite.  But, it will be coming soon.  For now, let's stick to basketball.

Reasoning: So far, the NCAA tournament has been played through the first two rounds.  I don't care that the NCAA, and ESPN, continue to claim there have been three rounds played so far.  Adding three teams (remember, the field has been 65 for a few years now) to the tournament does not change a thing, except how much money the NCAA is making.  It will be the same reasoning they use when they expand the tournament to 96 teams and perhaps allow the UConn, Tennessee, Stanford, and Baylor women's teams in.

All that aside, with 68 teams in the tournament, there were quite a few games that, on paper, looked like blowouts - all of the #1 seeds over the #16 seeds included.  No one, and I mean no one, saw any of the #8 vs. #9 matchups as being possible blowout games.  Yet, two of them (Illinois v. UNLV and Michigan v. Tennessee) turned into laughers.  In fact, Michigan's 75-45 victory was the second biggest blowout of the entire first round (yeah, I said it, FIRST round - Oh, and the biggest blowout was Duke beating Hampton by 42).  So, is Michigan's 30 point victory the biggest ever by a #8 seed?  I bet it is, but, I really have no idea.  If you want to look it up and let me know, that would be great.  Although, I really don't care.  So, save your time.

Michigan did make history in that game against Tennessee though.  It is the type of history you will not believe, and, the type of history that makes for a great "Odd Stat of the Week."  Most of the time when "never before" stats arise in the NCAA tournament there is an asterisk stating "since the tournament expanded to 64 teams (1985)."  Not this time.  The Michigan Wolverines became the first team EVER, to win a tournament game, without making a single free throw.  I will give you a chance to digest that fact.  Done?  Not only did Michigan not make a single free throw, they only attempted one.  A single free throw attempted, a single free throw missed, a 30-point victory.  Some of this can be accounted to Tennessee's Athletic Director, who, just days before the game, said on the radio that head coach Bruce Pearl may or may not return next year.  Add that with Michigan's quick start, and, it looked like most of the Vols simply quit.  And, when players don't play hard, fouls don't happen.  Then again, if the Vols had fouled, they may have lost by 50.

Runner-up for Odd Stat of (Last) Week - Ohio State, Cincinnati, Xavier, Louisville, and Kentucky all went to the Big Dance, in the same year, for the first time since.............1961.  Wow.

March Madness Lessons

Issue: What have you learned so far from the first weekend of the big dance?

Short Answer: Please, read on...

Reasoning: No need for a long lead-in here.  Let's get right to it:

The Big East is, once again, the most overrated conference in the country - Now, before anyone starts getting all upset, I didn't say that the Big East sucks (although...).  I don't believe that.  In fact, the Big Ten is the only conference I thought may have been better than the Big East this year (turns out I was wrong there too).  Based on the metrics the selection committee uses, I believe all 11 Big East teams that made the dance, deserved to be there.  And, maybe the metrics is where the problem lies.  See, RPI is one of those metrics (Jay Bilas has said this should stand for "Really Poor Indicator") the committee uses.  Some think RPI (which actually stands for "Rating Percentage Index"...huh?) is actually the best indicator of how good a team is, which, is asinine at best.  RPI is made up of a team's winning percentage (25%), its opponent's winning percentage (50%), and those opponent's opponent's winning percentage (25%).  So, when Cincinnati plays Pittsburgh their RPI skyrockets.  But, it skyrockets even more because Cincinnati is getting credit for Pittsburgh also playing UConn and Georgetown and Notre Dame.  And, since all the media jocks the Big East like the cure for cancer lies somewhere inside the conference, all those teams are highly rated throughout the year.  As of today (3/22/2010) the Big East still has 10 teams in the top 39 in the RPI poll.  Most of them are sitting at home watching the tournament.  Let's take a game-by-game look at the Big East:

• #4 Louisville loses to #13 Morehead State (good start)
• #9 Villanova (who shouldn't have been in the tournament after losing their last 5 games of the year, but, the Big East bias lives) loses to #8 George Mason
• #6 Georgetown gets annihilated by #11 VCU
• #6 St. John's gets whooped by #11 Gonzaga
• Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, UConn, Syracuse, Marquette, and West Virginia actually make it out of the first round
• Round two (or, as the stupid NCAA calls it - Round three)
• #1 Pittsburgh (supposedly the best team in the Big East) loses to #8 Butler
• #6 Cincinnati loses to #3 UConn
• #5 West Virginia chokes against #4 Kentucky
• #3 Syracuse loses to #11 Marquette
• #2 Notre Dame gets embarrassed by #10 Florida State

Ladies and gentlemen, that leaves two Big East teams, out of 11, left in the tourney.  Most people have noticed that two of those teams were knocked out by other Big East foes.  First, if over 17% OF THE ENTIRE BRACKET comes from one conference, a few may have to square off against each other.  Second, all that tells me is if two Big East teams didn't square off to go to the Sweet 16, then, probably none would have made it.  Four single-digit seeded Big East teams lost to double-digit seeded teams.  Keep telling yourself this is because they beat up on each other all year, and they are too tired now.  20-year old kids don't get tired, and, if you can't get yourself up for a national championship run, then you are soft.  And so is the Big East.

Virginia Tech and Boston College got jobbed - Let me explain.  Every year one power conference that everyone thinks is great lays an egg (otherwise known as the Big East), and, one power conference that everyone thinks is not so good turns out to be damn good.  Pre-tournament, I thought this would be the SEC.  They were awful this year, and they seemed to fit the bill.  Turns out however, it was my former conference, the ACC.  Perhaps the best conference in the history of college basketball, the storied ACC only got 4 teams in the tournament this year.  And, Clemson, who was one of the "last 4 in," had to play their way into the tournament.  Clemson lost in the second (?) round to West Virginia after having them down by 10 in the first half.  Duke survived a scare, as did North Carolina, but Florida State looks like a contender after dismantling a Notre Dame team that I had going to the final game (sometimes the bias just seeps through people's skin - eff me).  Boston College was 21-13, 9-7 in the ACC; Virginia Tech was 22-12, 9-7 in the ACC; Clemson was 22-12, 9-7 in the ACC, and was the only one of the three to get in the big dance.  The ACC is now 7-1 in the tournament, which, to me, means the NIT got at least two teams that should have been in the real tournament.  Pretty sure Virginia Tech would beat Georgetown by 50.

The Southwest bracket is March Madness - In the first round alone, the #9, #10, #11, #12, and #13 advanced.  For the first time since the field expanded to 64 teams (1985) have three double-digit seeds advanced to the Sweet 16.  #10 Florida State (who actually led the nation in field-goal percentage defense, held opponents to the lowest field-goal percentage in the NCAA in 10 years (36%)), #11 VCU (who has to be the hottest team in the tournament after destroying Purdue), and #12 Richmond (who is only a #12 because the A-10 had a down year) all advanced to the Sweet 16.  Since Florida State plays VCU, one double-digit seed will reach the Elite 8.  And, if you tell me that Richmond can't beat Kansas, then you haven't been watching much basketball.

Unless they choke, Ohio State will win it all - Now, don't get me wrong, I can see them losing.  They obviously didn't go undefeated during the regular season.  However, every game from here on out is on a neutral court.  When teams don't have to go into a hostile environment, usually, the better team wins.  No one is more talented than the Buckeyes (yes, I say this with extreme prejudice - deal with it).  Every team left is great.  Any one of them can beat Ohio State on any given day.  No question.  But, I believe it is their tournament to lose.  Although, the way I pick brackets and handicap games, they will probably lose to Kentucky.  But I doubt it.

Holy S@%t!!!

Issue: What gives?

Short Answer: This video is unreal.

Reasoning: It's March Madness, so I figured I'd roll with it.  The video at the bottom of this post features Jacob Tucker.  Jacob just finished his senior year at Illinois College, where he was a member of their basketball team.  Illinois College is a Division III school that competed quite well this year, finishing 16-8 (12-4 in conference).  Jacob averaged 14.8 points per game and 7.1 rebounds per game.  Not bad.  But, playing basketball at a Division III school means that you have never heard of Jacob Tucker, nor should you have.  But, soon, you may.  You see, Jacob can jump.  Really, really high.  That doesn't make him any different than most other basketball players, but there are a certain few things that do.

The first thing that makes Jacob different, and the first thing that one may notice when they watch the video, is that he is white.  Now look, I don't want to make this a racial thing, but a white boy that can jump is an oddity.  It's like a white wide receiver, or a black swimmer, or a female athlete (before anyone gets upset, again, I am just kidding - female athletes don't fit in this list because there has never been one, but there have been white wide receivers and black swimmers - just very few).  "White Men Can't Jump" is one of the best, and most appropriately named movies, of all time.  The movie title may have ticked a few people off, but I am not among those.  I am white, and you should see me try to jump - it ain't pretty.  Jacob, however, looks white in the video, but after watching the entire thing (for the 17th time), I am convinced that his whiteness is a well-conceived camera trick.  Or, this dude is a freak.

The second thing that makes Jacob different, although it is tough to tell from the video (apart from the beginning, where it tells you this) is the fact that he is 5'11".  Seriously.  The dude is under six-foot tall and white.  He shouldn't be able to do the things he does in this video.  But he does.  You may remember the video I posted about Johnny Mac "trick shot quarterback", where I basically called b.s. on the content of said video.  My entire being wants to do the same to this video, but, after careful deliberations, I have come to the conclusion that Jacob Tucker is just a complete freak-of-nature.  At 5'11", Jacob sports a 50" vertical leap.  Yes, you read that correctly.  I would have to jump twice in order to reach 50" (alright, maybe three times).  I'm pretty sure, in a dunk contest, I would take Jacob over Blake Griffin.  Never underestimate the shock-and-awe of a short guy dunking (remember Spud Webb?).  Add in the fact that he is white, and I think the judges would be hypnotized along with everyone else.

By the way, Jacob put this video together in order to get into the college slam-dunk contest.  You can vote for him here: http://espn.go.com/sportsnation/post/_/id/6197777/dunk-contest-resume.  I know I will.

The National Football Losers

Issue: Who are the losers, the players or the owners?

Short Answer: The fans.

Reasoning: Because we have to listen to this crap, all day, every day, until this thing gets worked out.  The fans aren't the losers in this situation because we may not get to watch football, bet on football, play fantasy football, etc., but because we have to listen to the players and owners tell us how sorry they are that they couldn't get a deal done.  Any self-respecting fan knows that they are full of it.  The players and owners know that the fans will come back whenever they decide to stop acting like children, so when they are at the negotiating table, the fans are the last thing on their minds.  If this weren't true, a deal would be done already.  You know it and I know it.  The NFL realizes they have made billions of dollars every year because the game is so unique - there is nothing else like it in the world, and we as fans love it too much to walk away.  As Mike Florio says at http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/, "The question for the league and its players — who share responsibility for this lockout no matter what they say — is whether fan anger could possibly turn to ambivalence.   They don’t think it will happen."  The NFL has become a victim of its own success.

Speaking of http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/, if you want to know what is really going on with this lockout, that is the place to get your information.  Mike Florio, who writes most of the posts at the site, is a lawyer (formerly) and can make sense of all the legal mumbo-jumbo that is going on.  I have also been trained as a lawyer (not very well, I might add), and I took a class in antitrust law, so I also have an idea of what is going on.  Kinda.  Antitrust law exists in this country to encourage competition and to stifle monopolies.  Our government does not want any one person, company, entity, etc. to be able to keep others out of the capitalist mix.  Easy example: let's say you live in a rural Iowa town (meaning you live miles and miles and miles from everything - including civilization - trust me, I've been there).  Now, in this town there are only 2 gas stations - and not another around for miles (see, told ya).  These 2 gas stations get together and decide since they are the only one's selling gas within a 100-mile radius, maybe they should jack up the price (yes, even higher than the $3.50 it is right now).  So, they start selling gas at $8.50/gallon.  This is a violation of antitrust laws.  Those 2 gas stations are attempting to create a monopoly, which is illegal.  Well then, what do antitrust laws have to do with the NFL labor dispute?  Good question.

You see, under the Sherman Antitrust Act, unions are exempt from antitrust laws.  Basically, if you are the member of a union you are allowed to collude on issues such as fair labor practices, salaries, benefits, etc.  which, without a union, violates antitrust laws.  You follow?  The National Football League Players Association, headed by DeMaurice Smith (I'm sure you've heard his name enough over the last few weeks), is a union.  They exist to make sure the players in the NFL are taken care of and treated fairly.  But, if there is a union, which is exempt from antitrust laws, how can the players (which include Tom Brady, Drew Brees, and Peyton Manning) file an antitrust lawsuit?  Another good question - you must be following this fairly well so far.  Well, what the players did was decertify their union.  They disbanded it.  The NFLPA no longer exists.  So, players are free to file an antitrust lawsuit against the owners.  You see, if 32 separate business entities are "colluding" to keep these innocent (yes I am being facetious) players off the field, then that is a violation of antitrust laws.  Seem fishy?  I agree.  The players have a union to protect them, but when the union isn't getting what they want, they decertify and sue.  Crap.

Since the lockout began (and even before that) players were blaming owners and owners were blaming players.  My theory is the players believe that the common fan will side with them (the billionaires vs. millionaires argument), so they pretended to be negotiating the entire time, but had their eyes on litigation from the beginning.  The players union (formerly) knew the owners weren't going to give them everything they wanted, so they figured they would have a better chance in a courtroom.  The players were set on decertifying from the very beginning.  Some may view this as a "sham" (I know I do - and almost everyone should).  However, as Mike Florio explains, the owners, in the last collective bargaining agreement, gave up the right to challenge the decertification as a "sham" in certain instances.  "The problem for the players [as to decertification] is that Article LVII, Section 3(a) of the CBA required them to wait six months before filing an antitrust lawsuit if they failed to file it before the expiration of the labor deal."  The players didn't file before the CBA expired and they didn't wait six months after it expired - which means the owners will use the "sham" defense in court.  Now, just because you and I know the decertification of the NFLPA was a sham, doesn't mean it can be proven in court.  Unless the union was dumb enough to put the "sham" into writing somewhere (an e-mail, a letter, on tape, etc.), then it will actually be fairly tough for the owners to prove.  If they do prove it, then the players remain locked out and the fans are stuck with their thumbs up their you-know-where while we wait for the players and owners to negotiate, on their own, a new collective bargaining agreement.  And the players have already proven they are going to drive a hard bargain, maybe hard enough to where they sit out the entire season.  Great.

The bright side?  It's only March.  I hope the players and owners aren't as dumb as we think.  A deal will get done.  Hopefully sooner rather than later.  This is basketball season and I'm tired of these whiny gajillionaires on my television.  I want to watch the kids who don't get paid (allegedly) play some basketball.

The Odd Stat of the Week

Issue: College basketball or the NBA - which direction are you going to go?

Short Answer: Neither.  Let's make this a truly "odd" stat.

Reasoning: I generally attempt to make my "Odd Stat of the Week" correspond with the sports that are being played right now.  Football is over and baseball is yet to begin (Major League baseball, that is - my little brother's Indiana University baseball team has about 10 games under their belts already.  Big leaguers are soft.).  As my faithful readers know, I hate the NBA, so I try not to ever write about it (mostly because I don't know, and don't care to know, much about it).  So, when my brother Casey (doesn't that guy ever work?) sent me a video link, I decided to run with it.

Squash is a sport I know nothing about.  I mean, it looks just like racquetball, but it's not called racquetball, right?  So, I decided to do a little research.  Problem is, when you type "squash" into google, you get mostly recipes.  That left me with Wikipedia, which I feel like using once is one too many times.  So, to eHow.com we go!  I went to eHow.com because they actually had an article on the differences between squash and racquetball, which is exactly what I wanted.  I'm not sure if eHow is correct or not, but I am going to ride it out (at least I tell you I'm not sure, rather than pawning off the information like I know it, right?).  Some of the differences:

1. The rackets - Racquetball rackets are shorter and wider in comparison to squash rackets. Racquetball rackets have a maximum allowable length of 22 inches and look like a small tennis racket, while squash rackets are up to 27 inches long and are similar in looks to a badminton racket.  Huge difference.  I think.
2. The ball - Squash balls are much smaller at 4 cm in diameter versus the 5.7 cm ball used in racquetball. The racquetball is made of rubber and carries momentum as it bounces around the walls, while the squash ball is denser and does not bounce as much.  Does that say "much smaller?"  Really?  4 cm vs. 5.7 cm is not "much" of anything.
3. The court - Allow me to paraphrase here: a racquetball court is bigger than a squash court.  In racquetball you can hit the ball anywhere you'd like, in squash there are areas you cannot hit the ball.  Basically, on the front wall in squash, there are lines designating where the ball must hit, and if it doesn't, the ball is not playable.  Basically, the court is the only REAL difference in the two sports.
4. The scoring - Squash is played to either 9 or 11.  Racquetball is played to 15.  Wow.  These sports are so crazy different.  Since I'm out of shape, it looks like I prefer squash.

The question now is, why the hell does anyone care?  Fair question.  The odd stat this week takes us into the bowels (no offense) of college athletics.  Yes, that's right, college squash.  I will give you a moment to stop laughing.  Done?  Turns out the Trinity College (it's in Hartford, Connecticut) squash team is pretty good.  They are good enough to have now won 244 matches in a row, including 13 straight national championships (they beat Yale last week for their 13th straight title).  Their last loss?  February 22, 1998.  This all coming from a college who plays in the NESCAC, which stands for New England Small College Association Conference.  Awesome.  The video posted below highlights the coach and the players of the longest streak in any sport, anywhere.  However, they may have a bloated view of themselves.  The video opens with one of the players stating "as everyone knows, Trinity is the best school in squash."  Uh, not so much.  Most people know nothing about squash.  Another player: "we get looked at like football players, in a sense, at other schools."  Well, when you go to a college that has less than 2,300 undergraduate and graduate students, and, is division III in all other sports, a squash team that brings home 13 straight national championships may get a little attention.  I do not want to discount this streak though.  It is as impressive, if not more impressive, than any streak I have ever seen.  But, it is squash.  Dang, I did it again.

B"Why?"U

Issue: Brandon Davies?

Short Answer: Yup.

Reasoning: In one of the most talked about stories in recent sports history, Brandon Davies, sophomore forward for the #3 ranked BYU Cougars, was suspended indefinitely from the team for having premarital sex with his girlfriend.  If you have been living in the vicinity of a quarry for the last week, yes, you read that correctly.  A 19-year old sophomore in college was suspended for having sex.  What's next?  Jail time for 5-year olds who are caught eating cookies?  Fines for 22-year olds nabbed sucking back a few (too many) beers?  Probation for little old ladies busted playing bingo?  Geez.  What is going on in Utah?

I have read, and heard, quite a few opinion pieces on this subject.  Mark Kiszla of the Denver Post writes a great one here.  Most of the opinions are that Davies has been screwed harder than Jenna Jameson.  In this situation, it is hard to argue that BYU has done the correct thing because a 19-year old kid's future may be at stake.  However, I believe BYU is being unfairly painted as the villain in this case.  See, BYU "exist[s] to provide an education in an atmosphere consistent with the ideals and principles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."  I took that quote straight from BYU's website.  Part of ideals and principles of the Church are to "live a chaste and virtuous life."  Guess where I got that quote from?  And, if a student decides to not live a chaste and virtuous life, then that "may result in actions up to and including separation from the university."  No need to click on the link - it is, again, from the BYU website.  My point in quoting directly from BYU's honor code is to show that their virtues are not secret.  They didn't nail Davies on some loophole.  He committed an act that is well known to carry with it suspension from athletic teams and/or suspension from school - for better or for worse.  Davies knew what he was signing up for when he decided to attend BYU.  He knew that having sex with his girlfriend could cost him his career.  So then, who is to blame?

Here comes another "duck and cover" moment for me - The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is to blame.  I don't specifically mean the Church, but the failure of that Church to evolve with the times.  Folks, I think religion is one of the greatest institutions in the world.  I admire people who strongly believe in their faith, and do good things in the name of God.  However, religion in general has been passed over by society.  Religion refuses to evolve.  I found an interesting article detailing a list of sins in the Mormon religion.  Some of the highlights include:

• Anger, resentment, and ridicule are the same as murder.  Uh, dude, no they aren't.  I get that each are "sins," but c'mon.  Really?
• Lust is the same as adultery.  Again, not even close.  Lust is an emotion that humans cannot suppress.  What humans can do is not act on that lust - only then does it become adultery.
• Not loving your enemy is a sin.  What?  Seriously?  I do not love those who committed the acts of September 11, 2001, nor those who are set on destroying America.  And I never will.
• Worry is a sin.  Here again, the Church supposes that an emotion is a sin.  I am not a worrier, but I know plenty of people who are - parents especially.  So, if a parent worries about their child they are sinning?  How dare they.
• Anything of a prurient nature is a sin.  Premarital sex, masturbation, and contraceptives are all sins.  Well, it seems that some of us stand no chance.

Thousands of years ago (or hundreds in the case of Mormons), the above list may have been sins.  Today, not so much.  Times and people evolve.  I'm not sure why religion refuses to do so.  I guess I'm just not sure how abstaining from sex when you are 19-years old (or anytime you are unmarried) makes you a better person.  Or a more virtuous person.  Or a more holy person.  I think a 19-year old can learn more from actually having sex than he can from not having sex.  Having sex is a grown-up thing.  It can have grown-up consequences.  So, maybe it can help a young boy grown into a man.  Or, maybe the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints can use it to help end a young boy's promising career.  Which one is worse?

Charlie Sheen

Issue: He has been in two baseball movies (Major League 2 does not count), is that what this post is about?

Short Answer: No.

Reasoning: Charlie Sheen has been in the news a lot lately.  Something about how awesome he and his life are, and, how everyone else is jealous of him.  I don't care about celebrities at all, but, based on how popular reality television, US Weekly, People, and E! Television are, Charlie may not be that far off.  The greatest thing about people falling off the wagon (or, in Charlie's case, jumping back on - again) are the stories from the past that come to light.  Some of these stories are rehashed only because they are hilarious, others may have never been heard before.  And, a story I have never heard before, about Charlie Sheen, is why this post was written.

You see, Charlie Sheen is a big Cincinnati Reds fan (who knew?).  Martin Sheen, Charlie's father, was born in Dayton, Ohio, and lived there until he moved to California.  So, Charlie's first few years on earth were spent in Dayton - which is where his love for the Redlegs comes from.  Now, I'm not sure why a person would leave the utopia that is Dayton, Ohio either, but, some people just don't know a good thing when they have it (if you can't sense my sarcasm here, check your pulse, because you are dead).  The move seemed to have worked out well for both Sheens.  Whatever.  Like many others, Charlie didn't lose his love for his hometown team when he moved across the country.

Flash forward to the late 1980's - early 1990's, when, the Reds are actually good.  Charlie Sheen is a fairly prominent actor, having even starred in "Major League" as "Wild Thing" Ricky Vaughn ("Okay Vaughn.  They say you're a pitcher, you're sure not much of a dresser.  We wear caps and sleeves on this level, son.").  And this story ran in the Cincinnati Enquirer, which details (kind of) two absolute blow-out parties that Charlie Sheen threw for the Reds when they were in town playing the Dodgers.  I wonder if any of the early-90's Reds are just now having to answer for what supposedly went on at these parties?  In this day in age, your past is hard to hide.  Especially when the guy throwing the parties decides to go crazy 20 years later.

The funny thing is - I can totally picture this.  I can see Sheen with the Nasty Boys (Charlton, Myers, Dibble) going so far beyond sobriety that it's not even funny - Charlton especially.  I picture him, shirt off, twirling it around his head, screaming at Eric Davis and Billy Hatcher to drink more beer.  I picture even Sheen shaking his head at ol' Norm.  I picture Piniella in the corner, talking to no one, Budweiser in hand.  I can see Tom Browning and Joe Oliver drinking canned beer and telling each other hunting stories, both greatly exaggerating their kills.  And, if there were hookers there, I can see any and all of the players partaking in the festivities.  I am from the school of thought that famous people caught cheating are just the one's who are dumb enough to get caught.  That before the internet, and Facebook, and Twitter, and blah, blah, blah, things like this went on more than one would think.  Today, pictures from parties like this would be posted on some social networking site in real time.  I'm sure athletes today are jealous of athletes of yesteryear, i.e., the good ol' days, when a married athlete could have a hooker at Charlie Sheen's house and not have to worry about it become public knowledge in 3.6 seconds (not that I condone that sort of thing).

I can also picture the Reds' players faces today, 20 or so years after the parties actually took place, looking like a deer caught in the headlights, wondering how these parties are being talked about again.  Charlie Sheen strikes again.

An Editorial

Issue: Isn't your entire blog an editorial?

Short Answer: Details, details (i.e., I couldn't think of a better title for this post).

Reasoning: I am not what anyone would call a true "fan."  I spent most of my life playing baseball for what I considered some fairly good teams.  Hence, the only team I really ever rooted for, were teams that I was playing on.  Sure, I root for the Bengals and Reds, but I don't live and die with their wins or losses.  I would just rather see them win.  I also root for the Buckeyes because most of my family went there, and I root for the Yellow Jackets because I went there.  When any of these teams win, I am happy.  When any of these teams lose, it doesn't affect me one way or the other.  Like I said before, I am not a true fan.

Over the years of watching sports I have figured out there are only two situations in which I truly root for a team: 1) when I have money on the game (and, yes, sometimes I bet only to have a rooting interest in an otherwise lame-ass game); and 2) when that team is playing against the University of Cincinnati or the University of Georgia (the Pittsburgh Steelers too, but I already covered that here).  I believe situation #1 is self-explanatory, plus, I don't want to get into my gambling habits right here and now.  The second situation may need some further explanation (especially since I am from Cincinnati).  I didn't choose to hate either Cincinnati or Georgia - they made me do it.  See, I grew up in Cincinnati during the era of Bob Huggins and his 0% graduation rate (alright, maybe, just maybe, Keith Gregor graduated - I will have to check the records).  Huggins' teams of the 1990's were made up of some of the worst characters ever to grace a basketball court.  Kenyon Martin, Dontonio Wingfield, Art Long, Rueben Patterson, Melvin Levitt, Danny Fortson, Bobby Brannen, and Steve Logan are just some of the players I could not relate to, nor root for.  When I went to college in 1997, at the heart of the "Bengals-are-the-worst-team-in-the-NFL" era, most of the crap I took from the Georgians I played with was because I came from a city that put the Bearcats on the floor during the college basketball season.  Which, is not that surprising.  Let us also not forget the fact that UC finally had a good year in football in 2009 (1 in 100 or so isn't too bad, right?).  Since UC fans had no idea how to handle prosperity, they started sporting "Buckeye State" t-shirts where the "uc" in "Buckeye" was the UC emblem.  That's right, after Ohio State dominates football for 100 years in this state, UC fans claim the Bearcats have taken over after one good season, which will probably be their last good season.  Or one can hope.  Let's not forget that UC got embarrassed by Florida in the Sugar Bowl that year, and, of course, Ohio State beat Oregon in the Rose Bowl.  I could write for another week about my hatred for UC, however...

I hate the University of Georgia even more.  Now, this hatred comes more from playing against them for four years in college.  The truth is, I started hating Georgia because I went to Georgia Tech, and, well, we were supposed to hate them.  But, after playing against them a few times, especially in Athens, I learned that I really do hate them.  I can remember one game, at Georgia, that I was playing right field.  There were stands behind the right field fence where students would get drunk and rag on the right fielder (I'm convinced that was the ONLY reason they were there).  At other schools, I enjoyed this, because the fans were creative and funny (in fact, at Duke, they were making me laugh so hard I started talking to the fans behind the fence and they told me to come have a beer with them after the game - wish I could have).  Georgia students were not.  They came up with nothing new and nothing original (shocking, I know).  They did however almost hit me with a baseball (during the game) and chucked ice and beer cans on the field when they won the game in the bottom of the ninth inning.  The only solace I had is that we were better than them in every sport when I was there.  I remember leaving my house shortly after Thanksgiving dinner my senior year to drive 8 hours to Athens, so I could be at the GT v. UGA football game that Saturday.  My baseball teammates and I wore our GT letter jackets all around campus that weekend, thinking people would start trouble with us.  Not even close.  Not only did no one say anything to us, they did nothing after we beat the hell out of them in their own stadium, and, tore down the hedges that surround the field.  I.  Hate.  Georgia.  (Credit where credit is due: UGA does have a strip club literally across the street from campus (awesome when you are 19), and tons and tons of hot chicks (although, they go to Georgia, so they are also not smart (which can be good or bad, I guess)).

Some may wonder what prompted this post.  I had to find out a way to post the following picture of a typical University of Georgia fan.  Sick.

Go Dawgs!