Another installment in the book reviews about my current reading.
Today: Surprised by Joy by C.S. Lewis.
I am always enthralled by my latest good book, but I am sure this is by far my favorite.
After a rash of sports books, I hardly know how to review a regular book—especially one as good as this.
In a mix of autobiography and a case on how he came to his Christian faith, C.S. Lewis shows some of his best writing in Surprised by Joy. He tells a good story, making us really see what it was like to grow up in his shoes (or, as he so vividly describes, his pants that buttoned at the knee, leaving him with red marks on his leg every night). Better yet, he helps us see the Joy that surprised him so well.
Lewis's technique starts with giving a basic telling of his life, which goes from his childhood through his schooling to the war through his time in academia. In the midst, he gives humorous accounts of different situations he faced, such as poor teachers or the discovery of a great new book, and insights into regular parts of growing up, such as understanding his father.
But Lewis also uses the simple telling of his life story to set up a platform for what he sees as the reason for his life: the discovery of God. In the first chapter, he introduces "Joy," that state where he gets a glimpse of God through something on this earth, although he doesn't know quite what he's feeling or where it's pointing him to.
Lewis carries this theme throughout the book as God uses friendships, literature, aesthetic settings, and other experiences to challenge Lewis's thinking and give him more glimpses of Joy. Eventually, it all clicks for Lewis. Titling one of his chapters "checkmate," Lewis is clear on how God methodically cleaned out his pawns, bishop, and queen until Lewis recognized the King.
The path there is a beautiful one, and Lewis does a great job capturing the human existence as he explains his journey. The reader sees how Lewis's views were shaped by customs and events similar to ones we all face, and the reader can identify with many parts of Lewis's story.
All the way, Lewis weaves the story around the theme that is Joy, providing a compelling centerpiece that all who can understand will see their narratives circle around as well. His passages on Joy, although few, are exhilarating, and you can find yourself excitedly anticipating the next mention, to see how Lewis will tie it in with the human experience we all have.
Lewis not only tells a good story in an interesting way but also clearly explains his philosophical path to God in an understandable way. You don't have to get deep concepts to see his different views throughout the book, and he connects them and shows the progression without boring the reader. Yet he also gives enough of a glimpse of the rabbit holes he ran through that readers can venture further if they wish.
Lewis is a great writer, and he always gives a good explanation. The book is good throughout, with passages of sheer brilliance. For even those who are not Lewis fans, there's a nice story, spots that encourage thought, and a tantalizing description of that feeling we all have but can't quite pin down until we're surprised by God.
His story, albeit about a dowdy Englishman, is funny, well-written, deep, resolving, and uplifting.
3.31.2010
Big Duke
A couple good Sports Illustrated columns on Final Four member Duke: Andy Staples talks about the Duke big men, and Stewart Mandel on not hating the Blue Devils.
March book reviews, part 2
The next installment in a series of book reviews on my current reading.
Today: The Yankee Years by Joe Torre and Tom Verducci.
Yesterday I said I would be reviewing two New York Yankees-related books, with the good one first. That leaves the lousy one for today.
And this one was truly lousy. You'd think that if one of the most successful managers in baseball, who was in charge of one of the most storied franchises in the game for over a decade, would get together with an elite sportswriter, you'd get a great book. Nope. It's terrible.
The problem, I think, starts with Tom Verducci, who obviously did most of the writing (with the "by Joe Torre" part due to his supplying quotes and background). I always thought Verducci was a great writer, but when I think back to his Sports Illustrated pieces, they all have the same qualities: magazine-length writing, great sources, and a couple good flourishes.
This book is written the same way. But the problem is, it's a book, not a magazine article. So, rather than getting a sweeping story of Torre's time with the Yankees, we get a bunch of individual storylines mashed together with horrid transitions (or a nice horizontal line off to the left of the page that's meant to indicate that we should not expect any kind of transition, or that the sections before and after the line will not be connected even remotely).
The book is really Verducci's take on all things baseball within the last decade and a half, with baseball's biggest centerpiece—the Yankees—providing a nice hook and an excuse to write an excessively long book (about 500 pages). You can tell he wrote several Sports Illustrated articles out of the content he has in the book, and he had no qualms dropping them in there among his bland telling of the franchise under Torre's reign.
The chapters are hastily divided and thwatched together with no apparent thought. Verducci employs terrible writing techniques, such as rhetorical questions—"What was it about Jeter that enabled him to succeed in clutch situations?"—then proceeds to answer them, like a cub reporter filing his first softball report.
It's no wonder all the reviewers of the book were focused on pulling random quotes and facts out then blowing them up for sensational story lines; there's no story here, and the details Torre and Yankees players reveal are the only interesting parts.
The magazine-style brevity to Verducci's storylines, which hiccup around within chapters and are awakened hundreds of pages later to be beat unreadable again, are just one of the ways Verducci shows he's not made for a full-length book. His two other aforementioned strengths—great sources and a couple good flourishes—also show up in the book, but they're ill-suited for a project of this magnitude.
Verducci overuses his sources, especially guys such as David Cone, who is quoted on nearly every other page. You can tell Verducci used Cone as a major source for everything, including non-Yankees material. It's as if Verducci humored the guy in the retirement home then felt he had to use everything he said. Now, Cone was extremely important to the Yankees' franchise and their string of championships, but couldn't a great writer like Verducci get a wider variety of sources?
Verducci's moments of good writing also doom him, because you can see what the book could have been. He has paragraphs of brilliance, with great storytelling and details. But most of the book is blandly written. He botches scintillating sports moments; he explains ideas and opinions until they're left to a whimperless death; he skips around on details and event descriptions that could have been organized far better.
By overrelying on quotes, Verducci misses the great storytelling that could have powered this book. Although he interviewed many good sources, they were all also mainly baseball players, which means when you quote them at length, you're going to have something that sounds as riveting as the news conference players give after their 152 games a year.
When it comes time to recount a great moment of Yankees history, such as the 2003 American League Championship Series, Verducci does a great job. It's just too bad he tells how it's going to end, and all the attitudes that went with it ending, before he has a chance to wind through the great narrative.
It's like an amateur tried to write the story, with no clue how to get good information, how to organize the information that he had, or how to dress up drab details enough to carry the reader.
Verducci does have strong moments. His chapter on steroids has a bit of a narrative, smooth writing, and good insight. Similar writing pops up elsewhere in the book. His use of statistics, and chronicling why the Yankees suffered during the Moneyball era despite having plenty of money, is top-notch. But a slow, unpowerful beginning kills the book before it can begin and sets the tone for all that the book really is.
I really think all these problems are Verducci's fault, because he had a willing subject to work with. Torre is very candid throughout the book, sharing not only juicy details but also his team concepts. While a manager, Torre was open with the media and easy to work with, and he even had some keen observations buried in the 15-line paragraph quotes Verducci chose to run.
Where the writing failed is in showing who Torre is. Over and over, Verducci tells us about Torre wanting this or liking this, or having the team be honest and blah blah blah blah blah. Show us this man. Give us some physical description. Reveal what he looked like during these great moments in Yankees history. Get inside his head, but not in block quotes. Where is his childhood? How much did you talk to his wife? His old teammates? Writers who have covered him?
The book lacks because it has been treated as an encyclopedia to hold Yankees details, not a story to show Yankees lore.
For those needing to brush up on their Yankees history, or to get inside the game of baseball via a great Verducci essay, this book is fine. But if you want a story, if you want the mystique that is New York, you will not find it here.
Today: The Yankee Years by Joe Torre and Tom Verducci.
Yesterday I said I would be reviewing two New York Yankees-related books, with the good one first. That leaves the lousy one for today.
And this one was truly lousy. You'd think that if one of the most successful managers in baseball, who was in charge of one of the most storied franchises in the game for over a decade, would get together with an elite sportswriter, you'd get a great book. Nope. It's terrible.
The problem, I think, starts with Tom Verducci, who obviously did most of the writing (with the "by Joe Torre" part due to his supplying quotes and background). I always thought Verducci was a great writer, but when I think back to his Sports Illustrated pieces, they all have the same qualities: magazine-length writing, great sources, and a couple good flourishes.
This book is written the same way. But the problem is, it's a book, not a magazine article. So, rather than getting a sweeping story of Torre's time with the Yankees, we get a bunch of individual storylines mashed together with horrid transitions (or a nice horizontal line off to the left of the page that's meant to indicate that we should not expect any kind of transition, or that the sections before and after the line will not be connected even remotely).
The book is really Verducci's take on all things baseball within the last decade and a half, with baseball's biggest centerpiece—the Yankees—providing a nice hook and an excuse to write an excessively long book (about 500 pages). You can tell he wrote several Sports Illustrated articles out of the content he has in the book, and he had no qualms dropping them in there among his bland telling of the franchise under Torre's reign.
The chapters are hastily divided and thwatched together with no apparent thought. Verducci employs terrible writing techniques, such as rhetorical questions—"What was it about Jeter that enabled him to succeed in clutch situations?"—then proceeds to answer them, like a cub reporter filing his first softball report.
It's no wonder all the reviewers of the book were focused on pulling random quotes and facts out then blowing them up for sensational story lines; there's no story here, and the details Torre and Yankees players reveal are the only interesting parts.
The magazine-style brevity to Verducci's storylines, which hiccup around within chapters and are awakened hundreds of pages later to be beat unreadable again, are just one of the ways Verducci shows he's not made for a full-length book. His two other aforementioned strengths—great sources and a couple good flourishes—also show up in the book, but they're ill-suited for a project of this magnitude.
Verducci overuses his sources, especially guys such as David Cone, who is quoted on nearly every other page. You can tell Verducci used Cone as a major source for everything, including non-Yankees material. It's as if Verducci humored the guy in the retirement home then felt he had to use everything he said. Now, Cone was extremely important to the Yankees' franchise and their string of championships, but couldn't a great writer like Verducci get a wider variety of sources?
Verducci's moments of good writing also doom him, because you can see what the book could have been. He has paragraphs of brilliance, with great storytelling and details. But most of the book is blandly written. He botches scintillating sports moments; he explains ideas and opinions until they're left to a whimperless death; he skips around on details and event descriptions that could have been organized far better.
By overrelying on quotes, Verducci misses the great storytelling that could have powered this book. Although he interviewed many good sources, they were all also mainly baseball players, which means when you quote them at length, you're going to have something that sounds as riveting as the news conference players give after their 152 games a year.
When it comes time to recount a great moment of Yankees history, such as the 2003 American League Championship Series, Verducci does a great job. It's just too bad he tells how it's going to end, and all the attitudes that went with it ending, before he has a chance to wind through the great narrative.
It's like an amateur tried to write the story, with no clue how to get good information, how to organize the information that he had, or how to dress up drab details enough to carry the reader.
Verducci does have strong moments. His chapter on steroids has a bit of a narrative, smooth writing, and good insight. Similar writing pops up elsewhere in the book. His use of statistics, and chronicling why the Yankees suffered during the Moneyball era despite having plenty of money, is top-notch. But a slow, unpowerful beginning kills the book before it can begin and sets the tone for all that the book really is.
I really think all these problems are Verducci's fault, because he had a willing subject to work with. Torre is very candid throughout the book, sharing not only juicy details but also his team concepts. While a manager, Torre was open with the media and easy to work with, and he even had some keen observations buried in the 15-line paragraph quotes Verducci chose to run.
Where the writing failed is in showing who Torre is. Over and over, Verducci tells us about Torre wanting this or liking this, or having the team be honest and blah blah blah blah blah. Show us this man. Give us some physical description. Reveal what he looked like during these great moments in Yankees history. Get inside his head, but not in block quotes. Where is his childhood? How much did you talk to his wife? His old teammates? Writers who have covered him?
The book lacks because it has been treated as an encyclopedia to hold Yankees details, not a story to show Yankees lore.
For those needing to brush up on their Yankees history, or to get inside the game of baseball via a great Verducci essay, this book is fine. But if you want a story, if you want the mystique that is New York, you will not find it here.
3.30.2010
March book reviews, part 1
The latest in a continuing series of book reviews of my current reading.
Today: A-Rod by Selena Roberts.
Earlier this month, I sampled two New York Yankees-centered books, and as the time comes to finally write my thoughts about them before March is gone (and they are no longer "March book reviews"), I will start with the good one first.
"Good" may actually be an understatement.
Selena Roberts' A-Rod is in the uppermost class of sports tomes, a well-researched book that not only breaks news but also tells a compelling story.
What is most well-known about the book by now, of course, was the case it laid for Alex Rodriguez's use of steroids, a story that Sports Illustrated scribe Roberts broke while writing the book. That vaulted the book to new levels of popularity and spawned numerous stories, but Roberts should be lauded for keeping the book's story intact once it was published. Steroids is just one storyline in the multi-faceted package that is her telling of the story of Rodriguez's life.
In the book, Roberts explains that the point of her taking on the project was to get to the bottom of a sudden aberration in A-Rod's life: His suddenly inconsistent, tabloid-courting public persona. A-Rod had always been a public figure, and always seem to attract trouble and distractions, but during the past couple years his life had suddenly erupted into a publicity extravaganza as he estranged his family, posed for cameras, started dating Madonna, and became increasingly erratic in his team commitments and public appearances.
Roberts decided to dig behind the image that was A-Rod and figure out who Alex Rodriguez was, and she explains in the book that there is a difference: A-Rod is the carefully sculpted image that is rich, famous, manipulated, and manicured; Alex is the person who knew how to play baseball and became obsessed with pleasing people but still had a human side.
Throughout the book, Roberts calls Rodriguez "Alex," and that is no coincidence. Rather than jumping on the bandwagon of criticism and pigeonholing that would be so easy after exposing him as a huge fraud and empty individual, she instead gives Rodriguez the benefit of the doubt. She doesn't prey on his faults but instead tries to explain them. She shows his family background and uses his friends' supporting voices. You can easily see how Alex became A-Rod, and you can even feel it's not Alex's fault. You can even hope Alex will return to being Alex.
But A-Rod is the title of the book, for that is what Alex Rodriguez has become. From his high school days to his current ego-bloated self, Roberts show a slow transition from a person-pleasing, talented youngster to the image-obsessed man who wants to break records, have the perfect body, be the best, and gather adoration. The problem was always the same: Rodriguez saw what he wanted to be (often from the mouths of ill-intentioned friends and advisors), and he chased it even if he could never become what was on the other end.
The result was the reputation that sticks to A-Rod more than his great baseball numbers or his kind moments; he is known as a fraud, as an empty person putting on a show he is desperately trying to support.
It's a terrible trap, and Roberts' exploration of how key choices along the line in choosing advisors and lifestyle attitudes can derail a life. From Rodriguez's father leaving him as a child to a money- and power-hungry agent (Scott Boras), A-Rod could never get enough to complete that perfect image, and all his tries along the line only humiliated him more. No one ever told Rodriguez that he could just be Rodriguez; years later, that Alex doesn't even exist anymore.
Ironically, A-Rod's need for self-gratification was what led to his biggest collapse. When he moved to New York, all the factors that had been contributing to him becoming a more controlling, self-centered, fraudulent person were basically put on Big Apple steroids. He courted the intellect, the fashion, the popularity of the city, and within a few years, his family was in shambles as he was chasing pseudo religions and 50-year-old pop stars. His alarming emergence into total tabloid buffoonery started Roberts' investigation, and she was totally shocked when she started hearing whiffs of steroids.
Through careful reporting, Roberts found there was more than suspicion; A-Rod was one of the biggest users. So, in an attempt to write a story about A-Rod and his strange image quest, Roberts unearthed the biggest emblem of who this A-Rod was: In a desire to please, Rodriguez lived off of steroids because of the great pressure he felt to please people and be the best.
When the steroid story broke, Rodriguez of course tried to take down Roberts, but her research was flawless, and she had many mainstream sources to corroborate her case. Near the end of the book, Roberts spends a little time explaining this and defending herself. She is respectful yet firm and complete in showing that the charges were ludicrous, and that the way Rodriguez treated her (even in an "apology") only reinforced the entire book she had just written. Still, Roberts is a class act for placing her justification in the back of the book. She could have easily gloated and led the first two chapters with her self-defense, but instead she does just a little bit of pumping up (for a story that was massive in relation) to emphasize her points. Then she lets it go.
And what are we left with? An amazing portrait of a baseball star. The pressures, the insecurities, the culture—an amazing glimpse of modern baseball, with all its painful moments, are laid out in excellent storytelling. Roberts never suffers from the disease some sports writers have where they gather press clips and tell the consensus version of a story; she instead is a real writer, with piles of interviews providing all those sacred details that make for a great narrative that literally shows you what the high school baseball diamond looked like, and what the extent of A-Rod's public appearance snafus felt like to those watching.
Roberts is a great reporter, and you can see it in this book. And for those wanting a brief treatment in the world of baseball, superstars, or the human condition, this book is the place to go. Full of great details and quotes, it covers the game well without getting off-track. It teaches implicitly, from steroids to fatherhood to selfishness. It makes you cringe and realize there are many parts of Rodriguez you have seen in yourself, or someone you love, that you'd like to eradicate.
Best yet, though, is that Roberts is not dive-bombing A-Rod. When the steroid scandals broke, she told it straight and made sure everyone knew what he was doing. Those details are still in the book. But when Roberts tells Alex's story, it's honest enough to make you realize this didn't have to end up this way. Things could have been different. Alex, the ever-pleasing Alex, could have done it all differently.
Which means he still can.
Alex Rodriguez is a very flawed human being, but he still has amazing talent (and not just hitting a baseball). The guy had an ability to engage people, to be kind, to be genuine, and when he was dragged from the pinnacle he was trying to hard to stay aloft, it created the perfect opportunity to do a rewrite.
A season has passed since the steroid story broke and the book was published, and A-Rod acted considerably different this year. You may remember that the past season ended with the New York Yankees winning a World Series championship. It was an ultimate redemption for the superstar who was trying so hard in so many failing ways to be that perfect being—but who only got that ultimate World Series crown when all he had was taken away.
Rodriguez approached last season a new way, with considerable less gaffes, a lot less fawning and publicity, and very good baseball. He fought injuries and never saw his numbers rise. Yet there were rumblings he was showing signs of being a better teammate, and he started hitting when his team actually needed hits. The image wasn't his primary focus; his public life was considerably less eventful. He answered questions politely yet never felt compelled to answer everything, solve everything, be everything.
This is why we root for our superstars: Yes, he's flawed, but he's living despite the flaws. (For an alternative to Rodriguez's willingness to face his problems and turn things around, see Woods, Tigers.) And he's no longer trying to hide those flaws, or excuse them, or make them go away through sheer power, social connections, or showmanship. The world already knows. Why not just play?
A-Rod is no Derek Jeter. But neither are most of us.
Today: A-Rod by Selena Roberts.
Earlier this month, I sampled two New York Yankees-centered books, and as the time comes to finally write my thoughts about them before March is gone (and they are no longer "March book reviews"), I will start with the good one first.
"Good" may actually be an understatement.
Selena Roberts' A-Rod is in the uppermost class of sports tomes, a well-researched book that not only breaks news but also tells a compelling story.
What is most well-known about the book by now, of course, was the case it laid for Alex Rodriguez's use of steroids, a story that Sports Illustrated scribe Roberts broke while writing the book. That vaulted the book to new levels of popularity and spawned numerous stories, but Roberts should be lauded for keeping the book's story intact once it was published. Steroids is just one storyline in the multi-faceted package that is her telling of the story of Rodriguez's life.
In the book, Roberts explains that the point of her taking on the project was to get to the bottom of a sudden aberration in A-Rod's life: His suddenly inconsistent, tabloid-courting public persona. A-Rod had always been a public figure, and always seem to attract trouble and distractions, but during the past couple years his life had suddenly erupted into a publicity extravaganza as he estranged his family, posed for cameras, started dating Madonna, and became increasingly erratic in his team commitments and public appearances.
Roberts decided to dig behind the image that was A-Rod and figure out who Alex Rodriguez was, and she explains in the book that there is a difference: A-Rod is the carefully sculpted image that is rich, famous, manipulated, and manicured; Alex is the person who knew how to play baseball and became obsessed with pleasing people but still had a human side.
Throughout the book, Roberts calls Rodriguez "Alex," and that is no coincidence. Rather than jumping on the bandwagon of criticism and pigeonholing that would be so easy after exposing him as a huge fraud and empty individual, she instead gives Rodriguez the benefit of the doubt. She doesn't prey on his faults but instead tries to explain them. She shows his family background and uses his friends' supporting voices. You can easily see how Alex became A-Rod, and you can even feel it's not Alex's fault. You can even hope Alex will return to being Alex.
But A-Rod is the title of the book, for that is what Alex Rodriguez has become. From his high school days to his current ego-bloated self, Roberts show a slow transition from a person-pleasing, talented youngster to the image-obsessed man who wants to break records, have the perfect body, be the best, and gather adoration. The problem was always the same: Rodriguez saw what he wanted to be (often from the mouths of ill-intentioned friends and advisors), and he chased it even if he could never become what was on the other end.
The result was the reputation that sticks to A-Rod more than his great baseball numbers or his kind moments; he is known as a fraud, as an empty person putting on a show he is desperately trying to support.
It's a terrible trap, and Roberts' exploration of how key choices along the line in choosing advisors and lifestyle attitudes can derail a life. From Rodriguez's father leaving him as a child to a money- and power-hungry agent (Scott Boras), A-Rod could never get enough to complete that perfect image, and all his tries along the line only humiliated him more. No one ever told Rodriguez that he could just be Rodriguez; years later, that Alex doesn't even exist anymore.
Ironically, A-Rod's need for self-gratification was what led to his biggest collapse. When he moved to New York, all the factors that had been contributing to him becoming a more controlling, self-centered, fraudulent person were basically put on Big Apple steroids. He courted the intellect, the fashion, the popularity of the city, and within a few years, his family was in shambles as he was chasing pseudo religions and 50-year-old pop stars. His alarming emergence into total tabloid buffoonery started Roberts' investigation, and she was totally shocked when she started hearing whiffs of steroids.
Through careful reporting, Roberts found there was more than suspicion; A-Rod was one of the biggest users. So, in an attempt to write a story about A-Rod and his strange image quest, Roberts unearthed the biggest emblem of who this A-Rod was: In a desire to please, Rodriguez lived off of steroids because of the great pressure he felt to please people and be the best.
When the steroid story broke, Rodriguez of course tried to take down Roberts, but her research was flawless, and she had many mainstream sources to corroborate her case. Near the end of the book, Roberts spends a little time explaining this and defending herself. She is respectful yet firm and complete in showing that the charges were ludicrous, and that the way Rodriguez treated her (even in an "apology") only reinforced the entire book she had just written. Still, Roberts is a class act for placing her justification in the back of the book. She could have easily gloated and led the first two chapters with her self-defense, but instead she does just a little bit of pumping up (for a story that was massive in relation) to emphasize her points. Then she lets it go.
And what are we left with? An amazing portrait of a baseball star. The pressures, the insecurities, the culture—an amazing glimpse of modern baseball, with all its painful moments, are laid out in excellent storytelling. Roberts never suffers from the disease some sports writers have where they gather press clips and tell the consensus version of a story; she instead is a real writer, with piles of interviews providing all those sacred details that make for a great narrative that literally shows you what the high school baseball diamond looked like, and what the extent of A-Rod's public appearance snafus felt like to those watching.
Roberts is a great reporter, and you can see it in this book. And for those wanting a brief treatment in the world of baseball, superstars, or the human condition, this book is the place to go. Full of great details and quotes, it covers the game well without getting off-track. It teaches implicitly, from steroids to fatherhood to selfishness. It makes you cringe and realize there are many parts of Rodriguez you have seen in yourself, or someone you love, that you'd like to eradicate.
Best yet, though, is that Roberts is not dive-bombing A-Rod. When the steroid scandals broke, she told it straight and made sure everyone knew what he was doing. Those details are still in the book. But when Roberts tells Alex's story, it's honest enough to make you realize this didn't have to end up this way. Things could have been different. Alex, the ever-pleasing Alex, could have done it all differently.
Which means he still can.
Alex Rodriguez is a very flawed human being, but he still has amazing talent (and not just hitting a baseball). The guy had an ability to engage people, to be kind, to be genuine, and when he was dragged from the pinnacle he was trying to hard to stay aloft, it created the perfect opportunity to do a rewrite.
A season has passed since the steroid story broke and the book was published, and A-Rod acted considerably different this year. You may remember that the past season ended with the New York Yankees winning a World Series championship. It was an ultimate redemption for the superstar who was trying so hard in so many failing ways to be that perfect being—but who only got that ultimate World Series crown when all he had was taken away.
Rodriguez approached last season a new way, with considerable less gaffes, a lot less fawning and publicity, and very good baseball. He fought injuries and never saw his numbers rise. Yet there were rumblings he was showing signs of being a better teammate, and he started hitting when his team actually needed hits. The image wasn't his primary focus; his public life was considerably less eventful. He answered questions politely yet never felt compelled to answer everything, solve everything, be everything.
This is why we root for our superstars: Yes, he's flawed, but he's living despite the flaws. (For an alternative to Rodriguez's willingness to face his problems and turn things around, see Woods, Tigers.) And he's no longer trying to hide those flaws, or excuse them, or make them go away through sheer power, social connections, or showmanship. The world already knows. Why not just play?
A-Rod is no Derek Jeter. But neither are most of us.
3.29.2010
Convergence reversed
With Internet use growing, many news organizations moved toward convergence, that is, they stopped being print-only or TV-only and tried to find ways to do everything, all available on the Web. But my conversation with an editor of new media for some Massachusetts weeklies, and this article on Poynter today about the Christian Science Monitor, point toward why this trend may be reversed soon: not many people take advantage of the videos online. They're a better place for runaway commenting. Even if they do get a bunch of views, it's nowhere near the cost it takes to develop them.
At least for now, it appears most viewers and readers are still separating their news consumption; they're either going to read it or watch it, and probably not at the same place. I wouldn't guess that this trend will continue, as most people will just end up using the Internet, but I would guess that this will lead to news organizations picking their poison and doing either one or the other. As niche markets rise on the Web, a news organization would do better to be known for its video or its articles than poorly try to do both.
At least for now, it appears most viewers and readers are still separating their news consumption; they're either going to read it or watch it, and probably not at the same place. I wouldn't guess that this trend will continue, as most people will just end up using the Internet, but I would guess that this will lead to news organizations picking their poison and doing either one or the other. As niche markets rise on the Web, a news organization would do better to be known for its video or its articles than poorly try to do both.
Clean energy? Ehh... Clean politics? Hmm!
This Boston Globe article today explores a special way to raise political funds that is currently being used in Maine. Basically, if the candidates can collect enough $5 donations, they get to use public money and don't have to worry about raising tons of cash, which eliminates the rich companies and individuals that try to sway political races each year. Great article; great idea.
3.28.2010
Baylor bedeviled
It's another Final Four for the Blue Devils after Duke's 78-71 win over Baylor today in the Elite Eight.
After a tight contest throughout, Duke's bigs made the difference late in the second half with some key offensive rebounds, which Nolan Smith and Jon Scheyer capitalized on with some timely 3-pointers to notch Duke the win.
Smith ended the game with 29 points, and Scheyer had 20. The other member of Duke's "big 3" in scoring, Kyle Singler, never found his mark after early foul trouble and finished 0-for-10.
But the Blue Devils survived without him. Thanks to the big-man resurgence that's taken place over the last two weeks, coinciding with the tournament, Duke's glasswork and defense has been enough to take down early-round cupcakes and would-be contenders. Brian Zoubek, who still turned in a great game despite constant foul trouble, continued his strong presence inside, and Duke's greatest X-factor asset, Lance Thomas, was again raking in the rebounds. (Unfortunately, when left open for shots, he was bricking them away or being blocked (2-for-9). This guy is supposed to rebound, not shoot; let's hope he doesn't have another look the rest of the tournament.) Brothers Miles and Mason Plumlee had two of their strongest games all season.
(Duke was helped by a late technical foul against Baylor, too, which gives credence to the cliche that it helps to have tournament experience for the nerves, emotions, etc.)
In this game, Duke fought a tough zone, but when forced to go back to its outside shooting (which it had mostly forsaken in the three games thus far), the Blue Devils turned it on without a hitch. Duke netted 11 of 23 shots beyond the arc, compared to 11 of 38 inside it.
Duke won both the rebounding and offensive rebounding battles by a margin of six (with the second-chance points accrued probably the deciding factor). Duke also went to the line 29 times (10 times more than Baylor), which got its offense going again in the second half. Baylor racked up seven blocks, most of them on inside shots when the Blue Devil big men were trying to create.
Duke now faces West Virginia on Saturday, with Michigan State and Butler in the other semifinal. My picks: Duke and Michigan State in the final. The Spartans ride a little farther that lucky streak that this tournament has been for them, but after getting to the national championship game for the second week in a row, the Blue Devils take the crown no one expected them to contend for...as the sleepers roared in the Final Four.
After a tight contest throughout, Duke's bigs made the difference late in the second half with some key offensive rebounds, which Nolan Smith and Jon Scheyer capitalized on with some timely 3-pointers to notch Duke the win.
Smith ended the game with 29 points, and Scheyer had 20. The other member of Duke's "big 3" in scoring, Kyle Singler, never found his mark after early foul trouble and finished 0-for-10.
But the Blue Devils survived without him. Thanks to the big-man resurgence that's taken place over the last two weeks, coinciding with the tournament, Duke's glasswork and defense has been enough to take down early-round cupcakes and would-be contenders. Brian Zoubek, who still turned in a great game despite constant foul trouble, continued his strong presence inside, and Duke's greatest X-factor asset, Lance Thomas, was again raking in the rebounds. (Unfortunately, when left open for shots, he was bricking them away or being blocked (2-for-9). This guy is supposed to rebound, not shoot; let's hope he doesn't have another look the rest of the tournament.) Brothers Miles and Mason Plumlee had two of their strongest games all season.
(Duke was helped by a late technical foul against Baylor, too, which gives credence to the cliche that it helps to have tournament experience for the nerves, emotions, etc.)
In this game, Duke fought a tough zone, but when forced to go back to its outside shooting (which it had mostly forsaken in the three games thus far), the Blue Devils turned it on without a hitch. Duke netted 11 of 23 shots beyond the arc, compared to 11 of 38 inside it.
Duke won both the rebounding and offensive rebounding battles by a margin of six (with the second-chance points accrued probably the deciding factor). Duke also went to the line 29 times (10 times more than Baylor), which got its offense going again in the second half. Baylor racked up seven blocks, most of them on inside shots when the Blue Devil big men were trying to create.
Duke now faces West Virginia on Saturday, with Michigan State and Butler in the other semifinal. My picks: Duke and Michigan State in the final. The Spartans ride a little farther that lucky streak that this tournament has been for them, but after getting to the national championship game for the second week in a row, the Blue Devils take the crown no one expected them to contend for...as the sleepers roared in the Final Four.
3.27.2010
A better reason to play
As much as I love the New York Yankees, I hate it when the players say a year was a failure because they didn't win the World Series (unless they are requisitely stacked, well-managed, and blow it...which many years of this past decade was not the case). Yes, they are paid a lot, and yes the goal is excellence, but you can be excellent without always winning it all; it's difficult to put together all the factors that equal a championship, and not winning it doesn't account to complete inferiority. (If Derek Jeter finishes with 10 World Series rings in 15 seasons, is he a 67% failure? Or 33%? No, he would be far beyond the modern standard. Lost seasons are part of the game; the Yankees just need to get all the different factors together to give them the best chance they can to win, and then do it.)
That's why coach Mike Krzyzewski's take on Duke not being to the Final Four since 2001 is so refreshing. He wants to win games, and he wants to be in the Final Four, but he knows it's difficult and not always a given. He considers 30-win seasons a success and measures his players by how much they fulfill their potential.
A national championship would be amazing (especially after North Carolina's dominance this past decade), but Duke has something better. Rather than a coach embroiled in recruiting scandals, academic ineligibility accusations, player violence, or demeaning attitudes, their coach supports playing the game, and seeing where it will take them. That's what will make a championship, or a Final Four, or even an Elite Eight, this year that much more fantastic.
That's why coach Mike Krzyzewski's take on Duke not being to the Final Four since 2001 is so refreshing. He wants to win games, and he wants to be in the Final Four, but he knows it's difficult and not always a given. He considers 30-win seasons a success and measures his players by how much they fulfill their potential.
A national championship would be amazing (especially after North Carolina's dominance this past decade), but Duke has something better. Rather than a coach embroiled in recruiting scandals, academic ineligibility accusations, player violence, or demeaning attitudes, their coach supports playing the game, and seeing where it will take them. That's what will make a championship, or a Final Four, or even an Elite Eight, this year that much more fantastic.
3.22.2010
Obama and health care, part 2
This Slate column does a pretty good job of encapsulating what health care passage means for President Barack Obama, which I wrote about yesterday. The writer's greatest perspective is how Obama used his sway to pull the Democrats along like lemmings over a cliff, knowing re-election is going to be very difficult. But that only supports what Obama says he stands for (making this a bittersweet win-win, in fact): "Given that grim landscape, Obama and congressional Democrats are making the purest test of whether voters want what they say they do —politicians who follow their conviction no matter what the consequences."
The Republicans are already prepared for the next round of fights, working their angles to put the Democrats in a bad light just as much as the Democrats are trying to do the same to them. In this battle, it's become all how you frame the results, not what the results actually are.
And, in a nice, juicy tidbit, George W. Bush speechwriter David Frum explains why this whole health care debacle has hurt the Republicans a lot — and it was mostly their fault for letting it play out this way. Pay attention especially to how he reveals that the people who got most of the Republican base upset, the talk show hosts, aren't necessarily always looking for the Republicans to do well, either. By presenting an extreme angle in holding out on the Democrats, the Republicans ended up hurting themselves in the long run as health care was passed, when a more moderate approach may have led to some of their opinions making it into law.
The Republicans are already prepared for the next round of fights, working their angles to put the Democrats in a bad light just as much as the Democrats are trying to do the same to them. In this battle, it's become all how you frame the results, not what the results actually are.
And, in a nice, juicy tidbit, George W. Bush speechwriter David Frum explains why this whole health care debacle has hurt the Republicans a lot — and it was mostly their fault for letting it play out this way. Pay attention especially to how he reveals that the people who got most of the Republican base upset, the talk show hosts, aren't necessarily always looking for the Republicans to do well, either. By presenting an extreme angle in holding out on the Democrats, the Republicans ended up hurting themselves in the long run as health care was passed, when a more moderate approach may have led to some of their opinions making it into law.
3.21.2010
Tiger tantrums
Tiger Woods says he's sorry, and that he respects the game, but in his slow slog back to respectability (if it will ever come) keeps stepping on top of people who have been behaving far better than he. Today, he granted five minutes to the Golf Channel and ESPN to interview him, once again presenting himself as an in-control, nose-in-the-air attention-grabber. Worse yet, he did it when one of his golf colleagues was winning the weekend event. (His first public statement, in February, came at a busy point in another golf tourney, not coincidentally sponsored by Accenture, which had dumped him as a sponsor when its slogan, "Be a Tiger," became understandably awkward.)
Never thought I'd say this, but Tiger is more A-Rod than Jeter. And if you want to know what that means, check out Selena Roberts' A-Rod or Joe Torre's The Yankee Years for the full treatment.
If Tiger's really sorry, he will allow himself to be really questioned, with no caveats, and he will give real answers. This is simply PR crap meant to placate the masses enough to he can put his foot back in the game he has always controlled. Who's to say that once Tiger starts winning, people won't forget the whole November incident? (Many are already giving him a free pass, calling it his personal life.)
Personal life or not, whether what he did was right or not, he violated the public trust that is intertwined in the game, and that is what he needs to answer for. Fine, he won't talk about his family. But these little controlled speaking sessions where he leads the media around on the leash (when the public wants some real answers, and some reasoning for why their hope in the image he had presented was crushed), are not acceptable. Especially when he continues to snub the integrity of the golf world.
Never thought I'd say this, but Tiger is more A-Rod than Jeter. And if you want to know what that means, check out Selena Roberts' A-Rod or Joe Torre's The Yankee Years for the full treatment.
If Tiger's really sorry, he will allow himself to be really questioned, with no caveats, and he will give real answers. This is simply PR crap meant to placate the masses enough to he can put his foot back in the game he has always controlled. Who's to say that once Tiger starts winning, people won't forget the whole November incident? (Many are already giving him a free pass, calling it his personal life.)
Personal life or not, whether what he did was right or not, he violated the public trust that is intertwined in the game, and that is what he needs to answer for. Fine, he won't talk about his family. But these little controlled speaking sessions where he leads the media around on the leash (when the public wants some real answers, and some reasoning for why their hope in the image he had presented was crushed), are not acceptable. Especially when he continues to snub the integrity of the golf world.
A Zoubek sighting
I didn't have a lot of faith in Brian Zoubek earlier this season, but getting healthy and getting some game-time experience has turned this under-performing behemoth into a big-time player for Duke. Today he got to hone his skills against an eighth-seeded, weak-inside California team that couldn't handle the bigs that the Blue Devils rarely deploy for scoring purposes. (Duke's star trio of Jon Scheyer, Kyle Singler, and Nolan Smith regularly account for most of the Blue Devils' points.) Zoubek led the team to its 15-point victory with 14 points and 13 rebounds.
At the beginning of the season, Coach Mike Krzyzewski and analysts were predicting that Duke's new presence inside would be the difference for the Blue Devils this year, and they weren't kidding. After some terribly premature exits in the tournament over the last half-decade, Duke no longer has to depend on its 3-point shooting, and, as it went tonight, can even coast through games on the back of some strong rebounding guys.
Next up: A weak Purdue team that can be called a Cinderella just for surviving this far in the tournament without Robbie Hummel. Yes, Duke has an easy bracket (especially with Villanova falling), but with these decisive victories so far, you can't say the Blue Devils are taking anything for granted. By getting all their players valuable tournament time, they'll be ready for Friday's Sweet 16 matchup.
My picks for Friday:
(6) Tennessee vs. (2) Ohio State: The Vols have skills, but the Buckeyes have Evan Turner and Jon Diebler. This region is completely Ohio State's now with Kansas gone, and only a major choke will derail their deep crew.
(10) St. Mary's vs. (3) Baylor: The Gaels are obviously good enough after two quality victories to get to the Sweet 16, and classic big man (meaning he takes care of business under the basket with strong fundamentals) Omar Samhan is just ridiculous. His 32 points the other night came on 13-of-16 shooting. 13-of-16. And I've never had confidence in this Baylor team, or their guard named Tweety.
(9) Northern Iowa vs. (5) Michigan State: I think Northern Iowa capitalized on a weak Kansas effort, yet I'm still wary about Michigan State after two hideous, turnover-laden games that managed to come out as wins for Tom Izzo. Still, the Spartans are tourney-tested (and were in the national championship game last year, if anyone remembers). So we'll give them another try, with the winner of this game going to a smooshing at the hands of Ohio State as the Buckeyes race to the Final Four in the next round. Disclaimer: Kalin Lucas suffered an injury in the Spartans' narrow victory over Maryland; without him, Michigan State can still win, but it will be difficult.
(4) Purdue vs. (1) Duke: The Blue Devils are serious this time around, and with a #1 seed, depth inside, and an easy regional, they will end the Boilermakers' improbably run without star Robbie Hummel.
At the beginning of the season, Coach Mike Krzyzewski and analysts were predicting that Duke's new presence inside would be the difference for the Blue Devils this year, and they weren't kidding. After some terribly premature exits in the tournament over the last half-decade, Duke no longer has to depend on its 3-point shooting, and, as it went tonight, can even coast through games on the back of some strong rebounding guys.
Next up: A weak Purdue team that can be called a Cinderella just for surviving this far in the tournament without Robbie Hummel. Yes, Duke has an easy bracket (especially with Villanova falling), but with these decisive victories so far, you can't say the Blue Devils are taking anything for granted. By getting all their players valuable tournament time, they'll be ready for Friday's Sweet 16 matchup.
My picks for Friday:
(6) Tennessee vs. (2) Ohio State: The Vols have skills, but the Buckeyes have Evan Turner and Jon Diebler. This region is completely Ohio State's now with Kansas gone, and only a major choke will derail their deep crew.
(10) St. Mary's vs. (3) Baylor: The Gaels are obviously good enough after two quality victories to get to the Sweet 16, and classic big man (meaning he takes care of business under the basket with strong fundamentals) Omar Samhan is just ridiculous. His 32 points the other night came on 13-of-16 shooting. 13-of-16. And I've never had confidence in this Baylor team, or their guard named Tweety.
(9) Northern Iowa vs. (5) Michigan State: I think Northern Iowa capitalized on a weak Kansas effort, yet I'm still wary about Michigan State after two hideous, turnover-laden games that managed to come out as wins for Tom Izzo. Still, the Spartans are tourney-tested (and were in the national championship game last year, if anyone remembers). So we'll give them another try, with the winner of this game going to a smooshing at the hands of Ohio State as the Buckeyes race to the Final Four in the next round. Disclaimer: Kalin Lucas suffered an injury in the Spartans' narrow victory over Maryland; without him, Michigan State can still win, but it will be difficult.
(4) Purdue vs. (1) Duke: The Blue Devils are serious this time around, and with a #1 seed, depth inside, and an easy regional, they will end the Boilermakers' improbably run without star Robbie Hummel.
Health care, as a measure of a president
The passage of health care legislation looks imminent, with a simple majority vote for reconciliation looking to be the deciding factor after the long, drawn-out process that resulted in the passing of two health bills in the two Congressional houses in late 2009.
But, while people dispute the merits and necessity of such legislation, and many point to the political implications for this fall, health care's main message points back to the man who got the ball rolling: President Barack Obama.
Much has been said about whether Obama is a successful president, or whether he is keeping his campaign promises. He said he'd bring bipartisanship and change people could believe in; critics say he's sticking with his party and doing more of the same.
But I think this health care process has shown that, although he may not have reached the Messiah-like levels the electorate was expecting in November 2008, he is keeping those campaign promises pretty well.
While he has not been able to achieve much bipartisan movement, much of that can be attributed to the vociferous immovability of the Republican side, which is more apt to denounce and hedge against plans rather than think up their own. Obama did, in fact, court Republican lawmakers at the beginning of the health care process, but once erroneous attacks were made (see: death panels) and the bickering stretched out for almost a year, he did what every leader has to do at some point: Stop being popular, stop being conciliatory, and get it done.
(Even after the seismic election of Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown, which showed a big change in what the American people wanted, Obama called Republican lawmakers back to hear their suggestions. But no headway was made. Whether he could have done more to cooperate with them, I don't know, but there was an effort there. And, in a fact no one will dispute, Obama has not been nearly as liberal as most Democrats hoped he would be.)
That move by Obama, to be a leader and get it done, is how he has kept his second campaign promise, of change people can believe in. "Change" is a word that can be twisted and used in many ways, but Obama made it clear in his campaign that he had some very practical ways he wanted change to be applied to American politics and the White House. For him, the biggest practical application of change was health care for all Americans. He saw this as fundamental to changing the American way of life toward the better.
So, despite the many different views, all the bickering, and the chance that a renegade senator from Massachusetts supposedly representing an unhappy American populace were threatening the change he promised, Obama kept pushing. He didn't see the public backlash as a sign that he was wrong; he saw it as a sign that his message was being misinterpreted. As president, he has been elected to make the best choices for the country, and that is why, despite all the mess that this health care process has become, he has kept pushing health care. He really thinks it's important.
Throughout the campaign, Obama promised to be a person of character, a calm voice of reason, a bull-headed champion for what needed to be done. He did that with the health care process. He got everyone involved and heard everyone's complaints, but he still pushed forward with his bottom line: to get health care to everyone, somehow. His masterful regrouping after the effort seemed lost several times showed his leadership capabilities, and his drive to keep what he sees as his promises.
Whether health care is a good idea is an entirely different matter. No matter what the politicans say, it's going to cost way more, and a lot of people are still going to be lacking. Furthermore, required health care is the first government requirement a person is susceptible to by just being alive (whereas public-use facilities, other types of insurances, and taxes all depend on something being bought, sold, or owned). This is a definite advancement of the government declaring that it knows what's best for people, and that it can make those decisions.
But without the content of this health care deal muddying the picture, it is obvious that the long process has at least revealed this: Obama is serious about what he sees as the fulfillment of his promises, and in this case, the leader figured out a way to get it done.
But, while people dispute the merits and necessity of such legislation, and many point to the political implications for this fall, health care's main message points back to the man who got the ball rolling: President Barack Obama.
Much has been said about whether Obama is a successful president, or whether he is keeping his campaign promises. He said he'd bring bipartisanship and change people could believe in; critics say he's sticking with his party and doing more of the same.
But I think this health care process has shown that, although he may not have reached the Messiah-like levels the electorate was expecting in November 2008, he is keeping those campaign promises pretty well.
While he has not been able to achieve much bipartisan movement, much of that can be attributed to the vociferous immovability of the Republican side, which is more apt to denounce and hedge against plans rather than think up their own. Obama did, in fact, court Republican lawmakers at the beginning of the health care process, but once erroneous attacks were made (see: death panels) and the bickering stretched out for almost a year, he did what every leader has to do at some point: Stop being popular, stop being conciliatory, and get it done.
(Even after the seismic election of Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown, which showed a big change in what the American people wanted, Obama called Republican lawmakers back to hear their suggestions. But no headway was made. Whether he could have done more to cooperate with them, I don't know, but there was an effort there. And, in a fact no one will dispute, Obama has not been nearly as liberal as most Democrats hoped he would be.)
That move by Obama, to be a leader and get it done, is how he has kept his second campaign promise, of change people can believe in. "Change" is a word that can be twisted and used in many ways, but Obama made it clear in his campaign that he had some very practical ways he wanted change to be applied to American politics and the White House. For him, the biggest practical application of change was health care for all Americans. He saw this as fundamental to changing the American way of life toward the better.
So, despite the many different views, all the bickering, and the chance that a renegade senator from Massachusetts supposedly representing an unhappy American populace were threatening the change he promised, Obama kept pushing. He didn't see the public backlash as a sign that he was wrong; he saw it as a sign that his message was being misinterpreted. As president, he has been elected to make the best choices for the country, and that is why, despite all the mess that this health care process has become, he has kept pushing health care. He really thinks it's important.
Throughout the campaign, Obama promised to be a person of character, a calm voice of reason, a bull-headed champion for what needed to be done. He did that with the health care process. He got everyone involved and heard everyone's complaints, but he still pushed forward with his bottom line: to get health care to everyone, somehow. His masterful regrouping after the effort seemed lost several times showed his leadership capabilities, and his drive to keep what he sees as his promises.
Whether health care is a good idea is an entirely different matter. No matter what the politicans say, it's going to cost way more, and a lot of people are still going to be lacking. Furthermore, required health care is the first government requirement a person is susceptible to by just being alive (whereas public-use facilities, other types of insurances, and taxes all depend on something being bought, sold, or owned). This is a definite advancement of the government declaring that it knows what's best for people, and that it can make those decisions.
But without the content of this health care deal muddying the picture, it is obvious that the long process has at least revealed this: Obama is serious about what he sees as the fulfillment of his promises, and in this case, the leader figured out a way to get it done.
3.20.2010
Today's take on March Madness
The big news today, of course, was that No. 9 Northern Iowa upset the No. 1 seed in the tournament, Kansas. Some people are asking if this is biggest upset in tournament history (see the poll at CBSSports.com, and the outrageous amount of people who think it is), but I don't think it's anything other than a classic top-seed-falling-early. (And remember, Bill Self, a perennial early fader, is coaching these Jayhawks.)
This year, college basketball's one major trend was that there was a new No. 1 team every week, and that team, upon reaching the top spot, was quickly deposed with a loss or losses the very same week. Kansas was just the one picked to be top at the end of the season, and, despite the many who thought the Jayhawks were great this year, there are just as many who can show you their weaknesses, poor games, and tendency to fade (Sports Illustrated highlighted this in last week's issue).
It's an upset, yes, but not the biggest one in history. Depending on the next couple weeks (or tomorrow), it may not even be the biggest one of this tournament.
Speaking of upsets, I may have gotten a little too excited about today's possible upset wagon, so for tomorrow's round I'm going to try to calm down my picks a little bit. The Sunday selections:
(8) Gonzaga vs. (1) Syracuse: The Orange have been very strong this season, from being neglected at the start of the season (no Top 25 spot for them) to late dominance. They will hold off a Zags team that has long lost its Cinderella luster.
(10) Georgia Tech vs. (2) Ohio State: With Kansas gone, it's Evan Turner time in the regional. The Buckeyes are too deep for a Yellow Jacket team that is entertaining and enterprising but not exceptional.
(5) Michigan State vs. (4) Maryland: This is the hardest game to pick, with two great coaches (Terps' Gary Williams, Spartans' Tom Izzo) and two perenially great tournament teams. Maryland's strong ACC season will make the difference over the recently shaky Spartans.
(10) Missouri vs. (2) West Virginia: I'd love to take Mizzou in the first upset of the day, but West Virginia, one of the final flickers for the Big East, is too good.
(12) Cornell vs. (4) Wisconsin: I will take at least one upset today. As much as I love Wisconsin and its badger-resembling coach, Bo Ryan, I think the Big Red have a chance in this one. They were hot in the first round and still look good.
(6) Xavier vs. (3) Pittsburgh: Another Big East remnant, Pitt, is too strong for the pesky Musketeers.
(5) Texas A&M vs. (4) Purdue: Not really an upset here: The Boilermakers just aren't that strong without Robbie Hummel, despite their surprising first-round win over Siena, and the Aggies have had a great season.
(8) California vs. (1) Duke: The Blue Devils aren't messing around this year, and the Pac-10 will have to rest its hopes with Washington.
This year, college basketball's one major trend was that there was a new No. 1 team every week, and that team, upon reaching the top spot, was quickly deposed with a loss or losses the very same week. Kansas was just the one picked to be top at the end of the season, and, despite the many who thought the Jayhawks were great this year, there are just as many who can show you their weaknesses, poor games, and tendency to fade (Sports Illustrated highlighted this in last week's issue).
It's an upset, yes, but not the biggest one in history. Depending on the next couple weeks (or tomorrow), it may not even be the biggest one of this tournament.
Speaking of upsets, I may have gotten a little too excited about today's possible upset wagon, so for tomorrow's round I'm going to try to calm down my picks a little bit. The Sunday selections:
(8) Gonzaga vs. (1) Syracuse: The Orange have been very strong this season, from being neglected at the start of the season (no Top 25 spot for them) to late dominance. They will hold off a Zags team that has long lost its Cinderella luster.
(10) Georgia Tech vs. (2) Ohio State: With Kansas gone, it's Evan Turner time in the regional. The Buckeyes are too deep for a Yellow Jacket team that is entertaining and enterprising but not exceptional.
(5) Michigan State vs. (4) Maryland: This is the hardest game to pick, with two great coaches (Terps' Gary Williams, Spartans' Tom Izzo) and two perenially great tournament teams. Maryland's strong ACC season will make the difference over the recently shaky Spartans.
(10) Missouri vs. (2) West Virginia: I'd love to take Mizzou in the first upset of the day, but West Virginia, one of the final flickers for the Big East, is too good.
(12) Cornell vs. (4) Wisconsin: I will take at least one upset today. As much as I love Wisconsin and its badger-resembling coach, Bo Ryan, I think the Big Red have a chance in this one. They were hot in the first round and still look good.
(6) Xavier vs. (3) Pittsburgh: Another Big East remnant, Pitt, is too strong for the pesky Musketeers.
(5) Texas A&M vs. (4) Purdue: Not really an upset here: The Boilermakers just aren't that strong without Robbie Hummel, despite their surprising first-round win over Siena, and the Aggies have had a great season.
(8) California vs. (1) Duke: The Blue Devils aren't messing around this year, and the Pac-10 will have to rest its hopes with Washington.
An argument for the genuine
Roger Cohen editorializes in the New York Times about the need for a genuine response from our politicans, whether it be undoctored quotes or spontaneous action that shows the inner character.
I 100% agree, and wish for a day when you can be graded for what you do on the fly rather than the amount of tweaking/fixing/adjusting you put into your life. We prepare ahead of time so our spontaneous actions can be well-done, not spend our life preparing so the world will never see our true selves.
I 100% agree, and wish for a day when you can be graded for what you do on the fly rather than the amount of tweaking/fixing/adjusting you put into your life. We prepare ahead of time so our spontaneous actions can be well-done, not spend our life preparing so the world will never see our true selves.
Duck Duck Duke
For all that jabbering that Duke shouldn't have been a #1 seed, the Blue Devils go out and lay the biggest victory of the tournament (and Duke history) with a 73-44 stomping of Arkansas-Pine Bluff, the play-in winner.
Here's my picks for tomorrow (with gambling encouraged since I don't have to float a whole bracket for this one):
(10) St. Mary's vs. (2) Villanova: Big V got a first-round scare, but the Gaels don't have enough to push past a Big East survivor.
(13) Murray State vs. (5) Butler: I'm not an Indiana believer this year, thinking instead that the team that took down Vandy will upset again.
(14) Ohio vs. (6) Tennessee: Bruce Pearl is one of those coaches that doesn't let his team have two lousy performances in a row; Ohio's personnel looked out-of-place in a tourney arena.
(9) Northern Iowa vs. (1) Kansas: The Jayhawks will be rolling for a while.
(11) Old Dominion vs. (3) Baylor: Notre Dame wasn't necessarily a heavyweight, but I also don't think Baylor is that great. Why not another upset?
(11) Washington vs. (3) New Mexico: This 11-over-3 upset is due to the Pac-10 looking mighty fine in this tournament. The Marquette win was quality for the Huskies.
(7) Brigham Young vs. (2) Kansas State: Jimmer Fredette shows up with some more bombs and sneaky one-handed layups.
(9) Wake Forest vs. (2) Kentucky: The Wildcats have a little more breathing room before their first big test, but I don't think it will come from the ACC's up-and-down Demon Deacons.
And in other March Madness news: Doesn't it seem like there's a lot more blocked shots than usual? Everything is getting swatted away.
Here's my picks for tomorrow (with gambling encouraged since I don't have to float a whole bracket for this one):
(10) St. Mary's vs. (2) Villanova: Big V got a first-round scare, but the Gaels don't have enough to push past a Big East survivor.
(13) Murray State vs. (5) Butler: I'm not an Indiana believer this year, thinking instead that the team that took down Vandy will upset again.
(14) Ohio vs. (6) Tennessee: Bruce Pearl is one of those coaches that doesn't let his team have two lousy performances in a row; Ohio's personnel looked out-of-place in a tourney arena.
(9) Northern Iowa vs. (1) Kansas: The Jayhawks will be rolling for a while.
(11) Old Dominion vs. (3) Baylor: Notre Dame wasn't necessarily a heavyweight, but I also don't think Baylor is that great. Why not another upset?
(11) Washington vs. (3) New Mexico: This 11-over-3 upset is due to the Pac-10 looking mighty fine in this tournament. The Marquette win was quality for the Huskies.
(7) Brigham Young vs. (2) Kansas State: Jimmer Fredette shows up with some more bombs and sneaky one-handed layups.
(9) Wake Forest vs. (2) Kentucky: The Wildcats have a little more breathing room before their first big test, but I don't think it will come from the ACC's up-and-down Demon Deacons.
And in other March Madness news: Doesn't it seem like there's a lot more blocked shots than usual? Everything is getting swatted away.
3.17.2010
Brainy Musketeers
I don't know what impressed me more in this front-page New York Times story yesterday: that Xavier has graduated every single one of its basketball seniors, or the great sports reporting from the Times (which is stuck on the NFL concussion trail, strange analysis columns, or bland game stories with odd page jumps).
3.16.2010
Indefatigable rain
Ducks swimming on the infield are just one of the problem Eastern Massachusetts athletic directors are facing this week. My latest (and, may I add, the lead story on MetroWest Sports online for March 16) on local sports.
3.15.2010
3.14.2010
Bye Bye Becks
It appears David Beckham's soccer year is over. Snapped Achilles tendon...what a way to go.
3.12.2010
Lunacy on the op-ed page
I think it's ridiculous that the New York Times ran this op-ed piece wherein the author suggests that the rash of Toyotas crashing are because the drivers mix up the gas and brake pedals. (Now, I can understand this being the case in some situations, but as you see by reading his piece, he is suggesting that it is the bulk of the reason why this huge amount of crashes have happened.) On one level, this could be a plausible explanation, but since the Times was the paper that broke through with the great original reporting, including the story where it detailed the 911 call from an experienced highway patrolman who couldn't get his car to stop, I would guess that this writer is totally off-base. So why did the Times, whose own original reporting showed the problem in the first place, give voice to this over-simplifying author? There's op-ed, and then there's lunacy. Good journalism exists to establish facts, in order to keep the deducing citizens from having to deal with such lunacy.
3.10.2010
Fired-up Falcons
The Bentley women's basketball team is ready for a run in this year's Division II NCAA Tournament.
3.09.2010
Changing of the guard
In my latest for the MetroWest Daily News, Hopkinton welcomes a new football coach.
3.06.2010
Start Hughes, sit Joba
With spring training well under way, it's time for me to weigh in on the reliever/starter controversy between Yankees pitchers Phil Hughes and Joba Chamberlain.
I commented on the choice last year, with statistics to match, and have the same opinion now: Start Hughes, sit Joba.
Hughes proved to be more consistent, whether pitching-wise or personality-wise, in his starts, while Joba has the emotion and fireball to be great in relief.
Former Yankees pitcher and Hall of Famer Goose Gossage agrees with me, too.
I commented on the choice last year, with statistics to match, and have the same opinion now: Start Hughes, sit Joba.
Hughes proved to be more consistent, whether pitching-wise or personality-wise, in his starts, while Joba has the emotion and fireball to be great in relief.
Former Yankees pitcher and Hall of Famer Goose Gossage agrees with me, too.
3.03.2010
A fantastic blunder
Check out this fantastic blunder on a photo caption in today's NewYorkTimes.com.
A savior for the sieve
The Daily News Tribune turns it all-star journalism eyes to Bentley University, where the women's team fights off an 18-point deficit to advance to the semifinals in the Northeast-10.
3.01.2010
Millennials
A couple Wellesley players score 1,000 points as Newton South is ousted from the playoffs. MetroWest edition/Daily News Tribune edition
And also: All-State wrestling, from the Tribune
And also: All-State wrestling, from the Tribune
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
