Noteblog

Something I may try to do more of is a notebook style of blog. Basically, it's just a list of brief comments on a number of different stories, instead of a longer piece on any one particular story.

So, yes, it's kind of lazy, but with school back in session, I don't have as much free(/writing) time as I'd like.

Pulling for the Cardinals isn't that much fun right now. During a stretch where they played the Pirates, the Nationals, and the Astros (who have a combined .406 winning percentage), the Redbirds have lost six of eight. That's not really playoff-caliber ball they're playing. I was at two of the losses in Washington and just felt miserable about their play. Even Adam Wainwright looked human on Sunday.

Speaking of the Cardinals, I just hung an Albert Pujols "poster" in my campus office. I say "poster" because it's really just a "got milk" ad from the back of an ESPN the Magazine that I had in my office. For the first time ever, I'm not sharing an office, so I decided to decorate a bit. The list so far: Pujols "poster," UNC mini basketball hoop and ball, talking Stewie doll, Pudge Rodriguez bobblehead doll, Anakin Skywalker kid's meal toy. So, basically, I took a lot of toys to my office to show off my professionalism.

I posted a review of Monday Night Combat about two weeks ago but have neglected to mention it. Reviews have been generally positive, though mine was lukewarm at best. I had a lot of fun with it to begin with but lost interest quickly. I played seriously for only a few days.

My former roommate Gregg has started a news site called Geeks and Sports. The "and Sports" part is probably fairly easy to interpret. He posts news about sports. The "Geeks" part is in reference to video game news, though I personally think geeks have wider interests than that. It's new, but it's worth checking out.

I recently upgraded my laptop. The keyboard is different and causing me problems.

My students are now blogging, which means their blogs will show up in my blog list to the right again.

Quote of the Week:

Dan LeBatard on Jay Mariotti's arrest:

"Should we wait for more details [about the arrest]? Of course. But we so rarely do in sports-hate radio and knee-jerk news reaction today, and it['s] why and how we've created things like the totally unreasonable steroid climate. Imagine if you were an athlete today who honestly, genuinely, legitimately false-positived a steroid test, and you were trying to climb out of all the crap surrounding that. Nobody would believe you. Nobody."

This comment seems particularly relevant now, considering Roger Clemens' "not guilty" plea.

You can find LeBatard's complete reaction to the arrest here.

Syllabus blues

The first week or so of the semester, I'm always bogged down with administrative stuff and basically righting wrongs like Batman. So far this semester, I've had to:

• Email about 50 students trying to get into my courses. I'm not exaggerating. It's ridiculously common this semester due to increases in student acceptance rate and decreases in available funds. Also, students seem to think I'm magic or a schmuck and can/will let them into my course without the resources to do so (in this case, primarily desks).
  
• Constantly update my lists of students in my class. This changes daily, often hourly, depending on students' moods, their awesome distaste for me, their own shifting schedules, etc. Since I used Excel sheets to track my students' progress, I have to update those sheets regularly until the enrollment settles down.
  
• Change the room for one of my classes. After a history professor did the thing I was just talking about, he ended up with a group of students too big to fit his classroom, so he requested mine. I obliged. But this butterfly effected a second history professor because I'm teaching 75-minute classes on Monday/Wednesdays while they both teach 50-minute classes on Monday/Wednesday/Fridays. The end result is that I now teach in a classroom that has a map of South America hanging in it. (It might be North America; I can't remember right now.)
  
• Correct a book order that I already corrected then double-checked on but was still wrong. After I took over one course from an instructor who lightened her load, I tried to electronically change the book order to what I wanted instead of what she wanted. Evidently this failed. Then, after receiving an email reminding us to check our book orders over the summer, I attempted to email the bookstore to verify the change. I never heard back and didn't follow up. So, my students were confused and probably disappointed to learn that we weren't using the book that the bookstore had listed. It's since been fixed, but it was a concern.
  
• Finally get a faculty ID card. I'd gone the last year or so without one. Now, I understand, I can get my well-deserved discount at J. Crew.
  

On top of that, I bought a new laptop yesterday (just in time for my fantasy football draft) because mine was being especially squirrely of late, at least in part because the Ethernet port, which I never use, seems to have failed – perhaps overheated. Customizing this new laptop and getting all of my programs to work correctly, particularly email, is time-consuming, if not downright frustrating.

There's also a building list of to-dos, including renewing my parking pass, turning in my "conflict of interest" form, posting my syllabi to my department's website, etc.

But, despite these often menial tasks, I still prefer this moment of the semester to any other moment when I'd have essays piled up, waiting to be graded.

Quote of the Week:

The announcer's call for the final stretch of this race was good enough to make SportsCenter's "Top 10" because it's pretty fantastic.

There will be a next time

Generally speaking, I'm not a fan of censorship in any form. There are a number of reasons for this, one of which is that it's generally not handled all that intelligently.

As I was driving around today, I noticed a fundamental flaw (something I've been doing a lot of lately) in the way that censorship is handled by the censors.

I was listening to that "Love the Way You Lie" song by Eminem with Rihanna, whom I just realized misspelled her own name, on Foxy 99 (the Big Stick).

In his last verse, Eminem raps, "Next time I'm pissed, I'll aim my fist at the drywall." The radio station, or perhaps it was the record company, censored the word "pissed" because that's one of those words you can't say over broadcast airwaves.

But then, like four lines later, Em raps "If she ever tries to fucking leave again, I'mma tie her to the bed and set this house on fire." Of course, "fucking" is censored, but the part about lighting a person on fire is evidently fine.

I've listened to this song a lot, though usually not on the radio, and I'll admit: that's the part that makes me squirm a little (possibly because I know he might actually do it). But the censors don't seem to mind because the words used aren't problematic.

The go-to argument for censorship enthusiasts is that the government (FCC) has a responsibility to protect children from material that is obscene, indecent, or profane. The logic, which does make some sense, is that children are impressionable, like Play-Doh or pennies that you flatten to put images on them at theme parks.

But if children are impressionable and will mimic the media, shouldn't the government protect them from bad ideas as much or even more than from bad language? Is foul language, as this censorship case seems to argue, more dangerous than terrible, terrible ideas?

As much I love language and respect the power it holds, I have to say no.

If a 12-year-old repeats some dirty language he hears on the radio, that might be a bit of a problem. But if a 12-year-old lights his sister on fire, that's definitely a bad thing.

Again, let me reiterate, I'm not a fan of censorship, but if it must exist, let's at least get it right.

Question of the Week:

Considering my schedule for this semester, I have a hunch that I'll be more likely to blog on Tuesdays and Thursdays than on Monday/Wednesday/Fridays. Besides, I rarely blog more than twice a week anyway.

But, I currently have three – count 'em, three – "of the Week" features: Event, Quote, Question. Assuming I drop down to two designated blogs per week (and maintain my own arbitrary rules about "of the Week" features), then I'll need to drop one of those features.

So here's the QotW: which feature should I drop?

1. Event of the Week
   
2. Quote of the Week
   
3. Question of the Week
   

My take: Event of the Week

When I play fantasy football, I wear my Wrangler jeans

It's fun when SportsCenter turns into Access Hollywood. This morning Rachel Nichols is reporting on Deanna Favre's breakfast casserole.

So there's plenty of Brett Favre news right now, but I've yet to see the analysis that I really care about: his fantasy impact. (I've decided that fantasy football accounts for about 60% of my interest in the sport – at least at the professional level.)

Now that I'm about three wine bottles deep in the cellar of our fantasy baseball league, my attention has turned towards our football league.

Considering Favre had his best statistical season of his career last year and was the third-rated fantasy QB (at least in our league), I'd think this angle of his return would garner more extensive coverage.

To be fair, ESPN's fantasy gurus seem to assume his return and ranked him 8^th amongst QBs (again, in our league), but does that change now? Shouldn't Tarvaris Jackson lose his 26^th spot?

And, moreover, what about Vikings receivers? Two of my favorite fantasy players last year were Brett Favre targets. Can I count on them again?

These are the questions I need answered, ESPN. I don't care that Favre and teammates rode from the airport this year in a BMW instead of an Escalade.

But now I know.

Quote of the Week:

"These people [the French Football Federation] are real clowns ... I'm dying of laughter."

-Nicolas Anelka on his 18-game ...er 18-match suspension from France's soccer team

Smamateurism

And my theory regains some steam.

The college sports world is practically ablaze with news regarding the amateur status(es) of college athletes, most revolving around football. Depending on what day it is, the UNC football program is often at the center of the current controversy.

Today happens to be one of those days as the News & Observer is reporting that 49er Kentwan Balmer paid for a Cali trip for former Tar Heel (and hallmate of mine) Cam Thomas and current Tar Heel Marvin Austin, who can't seem to keep his name out of the news for more than a week right now.

According to UNC's assistant AD of compliance, a former teammate's paying for a current college students' trips isn't necessarily illegal under NCAA rules. Even so, this latest "scandal" is important enough to grace the Lead of ESPN's bottomline and will certainly be discussed in the ongoing investigation into UNC's compliance.

Regardless, this instance points to a fundamental flaw in the philosophy of the NCAA's view on college athletes: it unilaterally limits athletes' personal relationships. In fact, it practically eliminates what Jack Donaghy considers the purest expression of friendship: gift giving.

It seems nearly impossible that current professional athletes wouldn't feel close enough to certain current student-athletes to give them presents. In many cases, those athletes spend years together playing sports and building bonds and whatnot. But, again, that's not necessarily illegal.

The NCAA is more concerned with sports agents, boosters, etc. giving gifts to student-athletes. That is illegal and can lead to sanctions that punish an entire program. The purpose of this system is presumably to prevent student-athletes from becoming professional athletes while still on campus (which is a questionable goal).

The problem, as I see it, is that this eliminates the possibility of the type of legitimate gift giving that goes on in the lives of most normal people. Isn't it possible – especially considering many student-athletes come from athletic families that often have close personal ties in professional sports – that an agent or booster or pro coach might genuinely want to show affection to a student athlete through one of the most thoughtful forms of communication?

What if a sports agent – with his multiple contacts and resources in the sports world – raises his son to be the next great student-athlete? Does that mean he can't buy his son birthday presents?

The NCAA argues that student-athletes should be students first and athletes second, but they're eliminating one of the key elements of college life: free stuff. Students love free stuff. When I was in college, I'd joke that free food (especially pizza) was like currency to us. It was the only way our RAs or other community leaders ever got any sizable group of students to do anything.

But student-athletes have to be so careful.

It's frustrating, even for me.

Quote of the Week:

Obviously I could go with any number of quotes surrounding the Cards/Reds series, but there are too many good ones to choose from.

So, here's Jeff Van Gundy, from the Miami Herald:

"They [the Miami Heat] will break the single-season win record. And I think they have a legit shot at the Lakers' 33-game streak, as well. And only the Lakers have even a remote shot at beating them in a playoff series. They will never lose two games in a row this year. They have put together a much better roster than anybody could ever have expected. There is now no good way to defend them. They are unguardable. They are indefensible. They are just too good and have added so much shooting and are so versatile that they will score at will. And with Erik Spoelstra coaching, they will be in the top three defensive teams in the league, as well. The other 29 teams better hope the lockout gets moved up a year."

No! Noooo!

Well, so much for my theory. I guess LeBron really is that stupid and the Heat fans may be facing years of disappointment from "the King."

I randomly watched a good chunk of Brandon Morrow's insane one-hitter yesterday because the Cardinals game was in a rain delay and then was eventually postponed.

When I put the Jays/Rays game on, I commented to Bryan: "Let's watch a few homeruns while the Cards' game is delayed," because that's what the Blue Jays usually do: hit homeruns. They are first in MLB with 175 dingers this season (almost 20% more than #2 Boston) and hit 8 homers just two days ago.

In other words, I wasn't exactly expecting a pitchers' duel.

But, I was kind of hoping for one, since Brandon Morrow is on my fantasy team. I'd been holding onto Morrow most of the season – despite his mediocre 9-6 record and 4.45 ERA – because he's been hovering around the top 10 in Ks. And, as most of my readers know, strikeouts are very valuable in my fantasy league.

So, I was a little more interested than I ordinarily would be in a no-hit bid, especially since it seems like there's a new one every week this year. This particular one had some potential fantasy significance, though.

But here's the thing, even if Morrow had completed the no-no (worth 75 F-points), I still would have lost to the Buckster, who was on a 5-game losing streak going into our matchup. Even if Morrow had thrown a perfect game (worth an additional 100 F-points), I still would have lost by 24 points.

It's demoralizing, really. To be honest, I'm actually glad he lost the no hitter because it would have been seriously embarrassing to lose a fantasy matchup in which one of my pitchers was worth 292 points in one day.

Event of the Week:

The 6^th Annual Pig Pickin'.

The fury of a thousand Heat

I've gotten a bad rap as a LeBron defender, though more often than not, it seems that I'm simply defending myself.

But, for this blog, I will actually be defending the man. The issue, of course, is the advertisement that LeBron placed in the Akron Beacon Journal, in which LeBron thanks Akronites for their support but ignores Clevelanders.

The default response that I've seen so far, at least on Around the Horn, is that LeBron made another PR mistake or that the people advising him in this arena have led him astray once again.

But, personally, I don't think he/they are that stupid. There's no way, really.

Admittedly, LeBron has made some seriously questionable PR moves in the past (his relying on friends over professionals, his refusal to sign a Darfur-supporting petition, his wigging out about getting yammed on by Jordan Crawford), but for the most part, his decisions have specifically been geared towards protecting his image – with varying degrees of success.

I don't think that's what's going on here.

So here's my theory: LeBron is seriously pissed off at Cleveland, Dan Gilbert, the Cavs, their angry tearful fans, maybe even the Indians and Browns. And now he's feeling vindictive – very vindictive.

He certainly has some good reasons to be.

Gilbert publicly lambasted him. His open letter was the harshest, most insulting breakup letter since Shannen Doherty dumped Brodie in Mallrats. Some key words: cowardly, betrayal, shameful, heartless, callous. On top of that, Gilbert typed the message like a 12-year-old text messenger. Even I'm mad at Gilbert for this letter, and it wasn't even about me.

The Cavs fans turned on LeBron before "The Decision" was even over. At least LeBron gave it some thought before stabbing them in the back; the fans were burning LeBron's Cavs jerseys even before the NBA could print his Heat jerseys. Never mind that he made the Cavs (and Cleveland) relevant and gave them some truly fun years. Obviously LeBron made the break, but the fans made it acrimonious. Maybe, now, he's just matching their demeanor.

Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, LeBron might be the most upset at the Cavs. In my mind, his Akron letter gives some credibility to the whispers that Delonte West boinked James' mom. LeBron's disappearance in his final playoff games with the Cavs was the first sign that the rumors might be true and he was giving up on his teammates. Now, it seems like his departure from Cleveland may be as much about anger and disgust with everything Cleveland as it is about winning in Miami.

Again, to me, his exclusion of Cleveland from his thank you note to Akron feels more like anger and bitterness than stupidity. Maybe between basketball camps, bike-a-thons, and Miami nightlife, LeBron is punching pillows or – as Matthew would say – crying into his beer. I don't think he's using his spare time with Hooked on Phonics or practicing his acting chops for Dumber and Dumberer.

The other LeBron news yesterday was that the Heat reportedly play in Cleveland on December 2. I'm sure there will be some angry fans in that arena. I'm also guessing that an angry LeBron will show up as well. If so, this bad divorce may awaken the LeBron beast that the NBA has been expecting: not just the incredible physical specimen, but the unabashedly dominant takeover artist and winner.

The potential is there, as usual. LeBron has always had the potential, but he's never seemed to make good on it, for one reason or another. But maybe this divorce with Cleveland will be the spark to finally actualize his incentivization – a made-up phrase I've always wanted to use.

Barring a truly honest tell-all autobiography, we may never know if LeBron is making idiotic PR mistakes or intentionally and vindictively destroying Cleveland's psyche. But if it's the latter, LeBron might be more like Michael Jordan than he's seemed so far. MJ was the type to hold grudges and, more importantly, follow up on them on the court. Come December 2, LeBron has that chance.

Quote(s) of the Week:

"I know LeBron James is fantastic right now, but if he's still winning championships by himself at thirty-six on the fourth version of himself, we can start talking about him and Jordan. And only then."

"Jordan wanted to vanquish and fueled himself by overreacting to every slight (real or manufactured). Rick Pitino questioned the seriousness of his hamstring injury during the '89 Knicks-Bulls series; Jordan made them pay. The Magic knocked an out-of-NBA-shape Jordan out of the '95 Playoffs; Jordan made them pay. Malone lobbied for the 1997 MVP; Jordan made Utah pay. That's just how it went. When Bulls GM Jerry Krause—someone whom Jordan openly detested—glowingly courted European star Toni Kukoc, Jordan and Pippen wrecked Kukoc in the '92 Olympics with particular fury. Before the 1989 draft, it bothered Jordan that Krause had become infatuated with Majerle's potential, so he torched Thunder Dan in the '93 Finals and screamed 'Fuck you, Majerle!' as the Bulls celebrated right after Phoenix's final miss in Game 6. Did Majerle do anything to him? Of course not. Jordan just convinced himself that he did. That's how the man thought."

-Bill Simmons, The Book of Basketball

Hey, so I wrote a blog. It's been awhile. Sorry. Fortunately, I've seen most of my blog readers in this past blogless month, so you're probably aware of the reasoning.