Ricardo Clark scored on a bending shot from 25 yards out as U.S. Soccer defeated Trinidad and Tobago 1-0 to temporarily move to first place in CONCACAF World Cup qualifying in Port of Spain, Trinidad Wednesday.
The goal was Clark’s second international goal. Landon Donovan notched his eighth assist in the hexagonal round of qualifying.
With just a single point separating the top four teams in CONCACAF, the U.S. knew that this was essentially a must win situation, but their play didn’t reflect that mentality at all.
Sloppy touches, poor decisions, and overall lethargy marred most of the first half, and although less, were still there in the second half.
Although this was the Americans’ first road victory in World Cup qualifying this year, they need much better play in the following weeks to secure their spot in South Africa next summer. The competition will be much stiffer, as Trinidad was in fifth place before the game, and was officially eliminated from the World Cup after the loss.
Yes, the U.S. can clinch a spot in next year’s World Cup with one more win, but that is easier said than done. They will have to play at Honduras, whom they only beat 2-1 in June, and host Costa Rica, who gave the U.S. their worst loss of the hexagonal stage.
The U.S. have showed us two distinct faces this year. One face was during the FIFA Confederations Cup this summer in South Africa.
In the group stage, the Americans displayed embarrassing performances. The media called them out, mostly for playing without heart. Many fans were becoming disgruntled with Head Coach Bob Bradley, and many began to call for his firing. Then the other face appeared.
Up against almost-certain elimination, the U.S. began a run to the final that included a win over No. 1 Spain. Their play was gutsy and inspired. It took the world by storm. It was an arrival for the U.S., as they proved they could play with the best the world had to offer.
Since then, it's been nothing more than a guessing game.
They have not shown dominance over an opponent for a full game in recent qualifying. For spurts they play up to their potential, but they never put inferior teams away, as they either win by a small margin, or have to rally after giving up an avoidable goal.
This inconsistency may not get them to the World Cup, and if it does, it will only deliver embarrassment on the global stage. After Nike highly marketed U.S. Soccer for the 2006 World Cup, they went winless in the group stage, confirming the view held by many that they were overrated, and that they couldn’t handle world-class competition.
This team has a responsibility to build on their appearance in the Confederations Cup. Coming close, then falling back to mediocre play is unacceptable. Not only to ensure a spot in South Africa next summer, but in preparation for what they will face, the U.S. have to establish their identity now. First-class play can no longer be an occasional aspiration, but a team characteristic.
It’s time for U.S. Soccer to look in the mirror and have one face look back.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Love Blinders: The Obama Media Trap
I've never been one to believe in media conspiracy. As a young journalism student, I thought the news came first, opinions came second, and it was as simple as that. Unfortunately it's not simple at all. What happens when the media indulge in irrelevant news? It's news, but not the news that we need. This is our current predicament, as nearly a month after his death, Michael Jackson news is still the center of entertainment (and some major news) channels' programmings.
Yes, Jackson was certainly a GREAT entertainer (don't deny it, because he truly was). He had millions of fans around the world, and captivated arenas at a time with his exciting, smooth dances and smash hits. But how does this at all explain the media's captivation with the King of Pop's death?
It doesn't.
We can even put aside his troubling personal life, and it still doesn't make sense, especially to the Millennial generation, whose main experiences have been with the dark part of his legacy.
Why would Michael Jackson get the same, or even better, funeral/memorial as a United States President? Why would every single major network halt hours of regular programming to show the hearse driving on his funeral day?
The answer is simple, a cliché. The reason for all of this is that we are being blinded to what is really going on. Let's take a look at our fearless leader, Barack Obama.
Six months in office, and he's already done quite a lot. He's taken a controlling share in one of the biggest banks in America (AIG). He's taken a controlling share in one of the biggest automobile manufacturers in America (General Motors). And most likely, he'll get a bill through Congress about "health care reform" which would make it nearly impossible not to purchase health care from the government, and eventually kill the entire health care industry.
These, my friends, are signs of the rise of a socialistic regime. What's the worst part? HE TOLD US HE WAS GOING TO DO THIS WHEN HE WAS RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT! Unfortunately no one listened. The only thing the liberal-minded youth of this nation who voted him into office were thinking of was that they would be able to tell their kids that they voted for the first black president.
Sure, people questioned his political inexperience, but no one really dug into the idea that he went from being a junior senator who had done absolutely nothing in Congress to an international celebrity overnight. And who's responsible for the making of a celebrity? The media.
Many might brush aside the idea that the media are responsible for Obama's rise and eventual election, but it would only be out of denial. What's worse is that he is using his new found power to instill policy that could literally lead to the end of America as we know it, and the media are still covering for him.
We're in the midst of a love affair between the media and Barack Obama that could be detrimental to the future of our democracy. Six months into his presidency, and it seems like we're stumbling toward the point of no return. The point where Obama has done so much damage, that it would take many more terms to undo all of it. But there is hope yet.
Obama's quest for power could lead to his own demise. When oil prices were on the rise, it was only the topic of smalltalk, but once prices got too high, people wouldn't put up with it anymore. Using one of two powers the people have in America, consumerism, we stopped buying. Prices soon dropped back to conceivable prices.
Republicans will have to hope for and anticipate disapproval of the President if they want to makeover the GOP. What Obama did during his highly successful campaign was make the Democratic Party look cool. Republicans now have to do the same thing. Young Republicans have the opportunity to help put aside petty differences within our camps, and unite the party under the principles that this country was founded on. If we make our next Republican candidate a product, an encompassing symbol of what we should have been doing all of this time, we can persuade the people for the only other power they have left: their vote.
Unlike the oil situation, not everyone is aware that bad things are brewing in our country. Most are tuning in to E! News to see the results of Michael Jackson's autopsy report. What we have to do as Republicans is not get sucked into the media trap. Keep the blinders off. We can't wait until 2012 to start brainstorming for the next election.
Yes, Jackson was certainly a GREAT entertainer (don't deny it, because he truly was). He had millions of fans around the world, and captivated arenas at a time with his exciting, smooth dances and smash hits. But how does this at all explain the media's captivation with the King of Pop's death?
It doesn't.
We can even put aside his troubling personal life, and it still doesn't make sense, especially to the Millennial generation, whose main experiences have been with the dark part of his legacy.
Why would Michael Jackson get the same, or even better, funeral/memorial as a United States President? Why would every single major network halt hours of regular programming to show the hearse driving on his funeral day?
The answer is simple, a cliché. The reason for all of this is that we are being blinded to what is really going on. Let's take a look at our fearless leader, Barack Obama.
Six months in office, and he's already done quite a lot. He's taken a controlling share in one of the biggest banks in America (AIG). He's taken a controlling share in one of the biggest automobile manufacturers in America (General Motors). And most likely, he'll get a bill through Congress about "health care reform" which would make it nearly impossible not to purchase health care from the government, and eventually kill the entire health care industry.
These, my friends, are signs of the rise of a socialistic regime. What's the worst part? HE TOLD US HE WAS GOING TO DO THIS WHEN HE WAS RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT! Unfortunately no one listened. The only thing the liberal-minded youth of this nation who voted him into office were thinking of was that they would be able to tell their kids that they voted for the first black president.
Sure, people questioned his political inexperience, but no one really dug into the idea that he went from being a junior senator who had done absolutely nothing in Congress to an international celebrity overnight. And who's responsible for the making of a celebrity? The media.
Many might brush aside the idea that the media are responsible for Obama's rise and eventual election, but it would only be out of denial. What's worse is that he is using his new found power to instill policy that could literally lead to the end of America as we know it, and the media are still covering for him.
We're in the midst of a love affair between the media and Barack Obama that could be detrimental to the future of our democracy. Six months into his presidency, and it seems like we're stumbling toward the point of no return. The point where Obama has done so much damage, that it would take many more terms to undo all of it. But there is hope yet.
Obama's quest for power could lead to his own demise. When oil prices were on the rise, it was only the topic of smalltalk, but once prices got too high, people wouldn't put up with it anymore. Using one of two powers the people have in America, consumerism, we stopped buying. Prices soon dropped back to conceivable prices.
Republicans will have to hope for and anticipate disapproval of the President if they want to makeover the GOP. What Obama did during his highly successful campaign was make the Democratic Party look cool. Republicans now have to do the same thing. Young Republicans have the opportunity to help put aside petty differences within our camps, and unite the party under the principles that this country was founded on. If we make our next Republican candidate a product, an encompassing symbol of what we should have been doing all of this time, we can persuade the people for the only other power they have left: their vote.
Unlike the oil situation, not everyone is aware that bad things are brewing in our country. Most are tuning in to E! News to see the results of Michael Jackson's autopsy report. What we have to do as Republicans is not get sucked into the media trap. Keep the blinders off. We can't wait until 2012 to start brainstorming for the next election.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Don't Look To Others For Truth
America, we need to have a talk. Stop embracing movie, song, and book quotes as worldly truths and anthems of your lives.
It is not clever when someone says, "I'll try," and you say, "Do, or do not. There is no try." How profound of you. You completely took a fine piece of wisdom from Yoda and twisted it into your context. That wasn't a general statement, it was specifically geared toward Luke. Yoda had faith that Luke could be everything that his father could not. He wanted Luke to have that same faith in the Jedi he could become. Yoda knew the statement "I'll try," by Luke was rooted in doubt, as opposed to a sincere statement of intent. In Luke's specific case, there was no try. If he believed he could, he would. Why is it bad to misuse this quote? On top of the fact that it makes you look like an idiot, it sends the wrong message. Do you really want to tell someone not to try? That if they aren't 100% sure of their ability to succeed, that they should give up and move on? Absolutely not. While mediocrity should not be accepted on a regular basis, perfection should not be a demand (however, it should be an aspiration).
Another example of misunderstanding in media is from the semi-fictional Vietnam War novel The Things They Carried by Tim O'Brien. In the chapter How To Tell A True War Story, O'Brien attempts to explain a concept that the way to tell if a war story is true or not is to simply inquire if the answer matters or not. O'Brien claims if the answer to that inquiry is yes, then the story is true. It is a strange idea, and, ironically, it is hard to extract the actual meaning of the chapter. Soon after most of the English classes in my high school had read The Things They Carried, people started using that idea in everyday conversation. A kid would tell another kid an exaggerated story about running from the cops at a party that got busted. The listener would say "Yeah right. Is that true?" The storyteller would ask "Does it matter?" Since it didn't matter, the story was false. The concept O'Brien was trying to convey was that a war story is supposed to make your stomach turn, so you can just maybe understand what war does to a person. If that story is completely made up, but it gets a certain emotion of war across, then it is a "true" story. This concept only fits in the context of his story. It's a mindset, not a truth.
Millennials, Gen Y, whatever you want to call them, are heavily bombarded with media influence, both voluntarily and involuntarily. We let ourselves be overly influenced by what artists and movies say, taking it as fact, as opposed to the opinion that it is. Kids too easily mold their philosophies to those whose songs are on the radio. Sure, wisdom can be found in song lyrics, but just because they are clever doesn't make them true. Don't look too deeply lyrics, because the person who wrote them is just like you and me. We're all searching for truth, but the last place we should look for it is in someone else who is looking too.
It is not clever when someone says, "I'll try," and you say, "Do, or do not. There is no try." How profound of you. You completely took a fine piece of wisdom from Yoda and twisted it into your context. That wasn't a general statement, it was specifically geared toward Luke. Yoda had faith that Luke could be everything that his father could not. He wanted Luke to have that same faith in the Jedi he could become. Yoda knew the statement "I'll try," by Luke was rooted in doubt, as opposed to a sincere statement of intent. In Luke's specific case, there was no try. If he believed he could, he would. Why is it bad to misuse this quote? On top of the fact that it makes you look like an idiot, it sends the wrong message. Do you really want to tell someone not to try? That if they aren't 100% sure of their ability to succeed, that they should give up and move on? Absolutely not. While mediocrity should not be accepted on a regular basis, perfection should not be a demand (however, it should be an aspiration).
Another example of misunderstanding in media is from the semi-fictional Vietnam War novel The Things They Carried by Tim O'Brien. In the chapter How To Tell A True War Story, O'Brien attempts to explain a concept that the way to tell if a war story is true or not is to simply inquire if the answer matters or not. O'Brien claims if the answer to that inquiry is yes, then the story is true. It is a strange idea, and, ironically, it is hard to extract the actual meaning of the chapter. Soon after most of the English classes in my high school had read The Things They Carried, people started using that idea in everyday conversation. A kid would tell another kid an exaggerated story about running from the cops at a party that got busted. The listener would say "Yeah right. Is that true?" The storyteller would ask "Does it matter?" Since it didn't matter, the story was false. The concept O'Brien was trying to convey was that a war story is supposed to make your stomach turn, so you can just maybe understand what war does to a person. If that story is completely made up, but it gets a certain emotion of war across, then it is a "true" story. This concept only fits in the context of his story. It's a mindset, not a truth.
Millennials, Gen Y, whatever you want to call them, are heavily bombarded with media influence, both voluntarily and involuntarily. We let ourselves be overly influenced by what artists and movies say, taking it as fact, as opposed to the opinion that it is. Kids too easily mold their philosophies to those whose songs are on the radio. Sure, wisdom can be found in song lyrics, but just because they are clever doesn't make them true. Don't look too deeply lyrics, because the person who wrote them is just like you and me. We're all searching for truth, but the last place we should look for it is in someone else who is looking too.
Sunday, March 15, 2009
Pre-March Madness Notes
1. Louisville is logical and safe choice as champion
This year's field features a limited number of extremely convincing sides, and a surplus of inconsistent, lackluster Big Six teams. I slaved over this bracket more than any previous bracket, and most of it was due to the first round. For example, the East region 9-8 matchup with Oklahoma State and Tennessee; what can you do? Tennessee was the consensus pick for the overall SEC championship, but was probably one of the biggest disappointments of any of the teams to make a season-long drop off out of the top 25. As for Oklahoma State: what are they other than the other school in Oklahoma? Yes, I know they just beat Oklahoma in the Big 12 tournament, but they're not a better team, and we all know it. I'll take Tennessee, because this is the first year since 1991 that they made it to the SEC final, and they've been to the Big Dance the past three years. It doesn't matter though, because the winner of this game will inevitably suffer a traumatizing beatdown from Pittsburgh.
Some of the at-large nominations from the Big Six are very unconvincing and/or questionable (Arizona, Clemson, Michigan), but the mid-majors didn't help themselves either. With more ambitious non-conference schedules, these teams could have secured better seeds by one or two spots to help them advance an extra round. Not including perennial mid-major powers such as Gonzaga and Memphis, the potential Giant Killers are slim to none. Siena may have had a very good chance to bust the brackets, but they will have to beat Ohio State before facing the top overall seed Louisville. Cleveland State could potentially make it to the Sweet 16, but they'll suffer Louisville as well. If you're just dying for a Cinderella to make it pretty far, your best bet is Temple (see next note).
This year will definitely be considered a weak year, as the top-tier sides easily move to the later stages of the tournament. Most people love the idea of Cool the Underdog taking it to the Big Six, but the later rounds with most, if not every, high seed intact will steal the show. With teams like Louisville, Pittsburgh, UNC, Michigan State, and a few others likely to play in the Elite 8 and further, we should see some extremely high levels of play. However, even the teams previously listed are not on the same level.
After UNC were voted the unanimous pre-season number one, terrorized their non-conference schedule, and sparked debates on whether they could go undefeated just like Bob Knight's Hoosiers, they opened ACC play with a loss to Boston College. In their next game, BC lost to Harvard? It would be okay, because UNC would end up going 13-3 in the ACC to win the regular season title. But something is wrong with them. I can't quite figure out why, but I'm not buying them as elite. Their defense seems to be there at times, and non-existent during others. During their winning streak that lasted the first half of the season, they were scary. I've only watched basketball for a couple of years, but they were the best that I could remember. I wouldn't have wanted to play them. They seem to have unexplainable lapses in play that keep them from reaching their full potential, which would include a dominant performance in this tournament. They would've gone further in my bracket if they had won the ACC tournament. And P.S., they may not have Ty Lawson in the opening round.
Along with UNC, there are a few higher level teams that are not elite, like Connecticut. Although, they may be close to elite, they lost to Pittsburgh twice. UConn was ranked number one in both of those meetings. They also lost in their first round Big East matchup against Syracuse. For those who watched, the game wasn't as simple as, "UConn lost to 'Cuse." But they did lose. Some may be tempted to pick Memphis as elite. After all, they do have the longest winning streak in the nation at 25, but the majority of those are Conference USA wins. It's difficult to determine if they are legitimate until they make it to the later rounds of the tournament. It's also difficult because they lost their superstars from last year's team that reached the final.
We're down to Pitt and Louisville. Both qualify as elite. We now need to seperate them, and this is the easiest part. Pitt didn't win the Big East. They also lost in their first Big East tournament game after their double-bye, against West Virginia. Neither of these are that bad. They placed second, and the Big East was the toughest conference throughout the year. That was apparent to everyone except for Coach K, who at one point said the ACC was better because it was not as top heavy. Even a loss to West Virginia doesn't illegitimatize Pitt. Bob Huggins has toppled many teams while he's coached the Mountaineers.
Louisvile won the Big East regular season title. They also won the tournament. I was not a supporter of the Cards for a while, because of their non-conference losses to Western Kentucky, Minnesota, and UNLV, but they picked it up after that. They went 16-2 in conference play, and have won 10 straight. As an extra bonus, Louisville beat Pitt while Pitt was ranked number one.
They are on a roll at the right time. The 33 point loss to Notre Dame seems to be the result of a different team. They reached number one in the polls for the first time this season in the final poll, and earned the number one overall seed for the tournament. They have shown true poise down the stretch, and have proven that they are the team to beat. They will go into the NCAA tournament as favorites against anyone, and should bring a championship back to Louisville.
2. Best Cinderella: Temple
This is not a great year for the Cinderellas due to their unfavorable seedings, but Temple has the best chance to make some noise. The back-to-back Atlantic 10 tournament champions RSVP'd to the dance, knocking off Xavier on the way. By no means a Final Four contender, but Temple is in the South region, with North Carolina being the only top-tier team (Don't give me Oklahoma, they've been trailing off for a few weeks). With a little bit of help, they have the easiest route to the Elite 8. They play six-seed Arizona State in the first round, and would likely face Syracuse in the second round. Although, Syracuse finished off the season in high fashion, including yet another entertaining performance in the Big East tournament, they are certainly beatable. Temple will require stellar play from the guard, but Dionte Christmas should be fine in that category. His season stats are startling. He averaged 19.2 points a game, scored at least 20 points in 18 separate games, and logged a career-high 37 points against Duquesne in the A-10 final. If they can take advantage of their scoring opportunities, and improve their performance from the charity line (they shoot just under 70%) they could move a few rounds past where their seed indicates. Big games against Tennessee and Xavier, as well as an NCAA appearance last year should help boost their confidence and get them ready to play.
This year's field features a limited number of extremely convincing sides, and a surplus of inconsistent, lackluster Big Six teams. I slaved over this bracket more than any previous bracket, and most of it was due to the first round. For example, the East region 9-8 matchup with Oklahoma State and Tennessee; what can you do? Tennessee was the consensus pick for the overall SEC championship, but was probably one of the biggest disappointments of any of the teams to make a season-long drop off out of the top 25. As for Oklahoma State: what are they other than the other school in Oklahoma? Yes, I know they just beat Oklahoma in the Big 12 tournament, but they're not a better team, and we all know it. I'll take Tennessee, because this is the first year since 1991 that they made it to the SEC final, and they've been to the Big Dance the past three years. It doesn't matter though, because the winner of this game will inevitably suffer a traumatizing beatdown from Pittsburgh.
Some of the at-large nominations from the Big Six are very unconvincing and/or questionable (Arizona, Clemson, Michigan), but the mid-majors didn't help themselves either. With more ambitious non-conference schedules, these teams could have secured better seeds by one or two spots to help them advance an extra round. Not including perennial mid-major powers such as Gonzaga and Memphis, the potential Giant Killers are slim to none. Siena may have had a very good chance to bust the brackets, but they will have to beat Ohio State before facing the top overall seed Louisville. Cleveland State could potentially make it to the Sweet 16, but they'll suffer Louisville as well. If you're just dying for a Cinderella to make it pretty far, your best bet is Temple (see next note).
This year will definitely be considered a weak year, as the top-tier sides easily move to the later stages of the tournament. Most people love the idea of Cool the Underdog taking it to the Big Six, but the later rounds with most, if not every, high seed intact will steal the show. With teams like Louisville, Pittsburgh, UNC, Michigan State, and a few others likely to play in the Elite 8 and further, we should see some extremely high levels of play. However, even the teams previously listed are not on the same level.
After UNC were voted the unanimous pre-season number one, terrorized their non-conference schedule, and sparked debates on whether they could go undefeated just like Bob Knight's Hoosiers, they opened ACC play with a loss to Boston College. In their next game, BC lost to Harvard? It would be okay, because UNC would end up going 13-3 in the ACC to win the regular season title. But something is wrong with them. I can't quite figure out why, but I'm not buying them as elite. Their defense seems to be there at times, and non-existent during others. During their winning streak that lasted the first half of the season, they were scary. I've only watched basketball for a couple of years, but they were the best that I could remember. I wouldn't have wanted to play them. They seem to have unexplainable lapses in play that keep them from reaching their full potential, which would include a dominant performance in this tournament. They would've gone further in my bracket if they had won the ACC tournament. And P.S., they may not have Ty Lawson in the opening round.
Along with UNC, there are a few higher level teams that are not elite, like Connecticut. Although, they may be close to elite, they lost to Pittsburgh twice. UConn was ranked number one in both of those meetings. They also lost in their first round Big East matchup against Syracuse. For those who watched, the game wasn't as simple as, "UConn lost to 'Cuse." But they did lose. Some may be tempted to pick Memphis as elite. After all, they do have the longest winning streak in the nation at 25, but the majority of those are Conference USA wins. It's difficult to determine if they are legitimate until they make it to the later rounds of the tournament. It's also difficult because they lost their superstars from last year's team that reached the final.
We're down to Pitt and Louisville. Both qualify as elite. We now need to seperate them, and this is the easiest part. Pitt didn't win the Big East. They also lost in their first Big East tournament game after their double-bye, against West Virginia. Neither of these are that bad. They placed second, and the Big East was the toughest conference throughout the year. That was apparent to everyone except for Coach K, who at one point said the ACC was better because it was not as top heavy. Even a loss to West Virginia doesn't illegitimatize Pitt. Bob Huggins has toppled many teams while he's coached the Mountaineers.
Louisvile won the Big East regular season title. They also won the tournament. I was not a supporter of the Cards for a while, because of their non-conference losses to Western Kentucky, Minnesota, and UNLV, but they picked it up after that. They went 16-2 in conference play, and have won 10 straight. As an extra bonus, Louisville beat Pitt while Pitt was ranked number one.
They are on a roll at the right time. The 33 point loss to Notre Dame seems to be the result of a different team. They reached number one in the polls for the first time this season in the final poll, and earned the number one overall seed for the tournament. They have shown true poise down the stretch, and have proven that they are the team to beat. They will go into the NCAA tournament as favorites against anyone, and should bring a championship back to Louisville.
2. Best Cinderella: Temple
This is not a great year for the Cinderellas due to their unfavorable seedings, but Temple has the best chance to make some noise. The back-to-back Atlantic 10 tournament champions RSVP'd to the dance, knocking off Xavier on the way. By no means a Final Four contender, but Temple is in the South region, with North Carolina being the only top-tier team (Don't give me Oklahoma, they've been trailing off for a few weeks). With a little bit of help, they have the easiest route to the Elite 8. They play six-seed Arizona State in the first round, and would likely face Syracuse in the second round. Although, Syracuse finished off the season in high fashion, including yet another entertaining performance in the Big East tournament, they are certainly beatable. Temple will require stellar play from the guard, but Dionte Christmas should be fine in that category. His season stats are startling. He averaged 19.2 points a game, scored at least 20 points in 18 separate games, and logged a career-high 37 points against Duquesne in the A-10 final. If they can take advantage of their scoring opportunities, and improve their performance from the charity line (they shoot just under 70%) they could move a few rounds past where their seed indicates. Big games against Tennessee and Xavier, as well as an NCAA appearance last year should help boost their confidence and get them ready to play.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Someone Needs To Show Some Pride
Enough is enough.
After a 2007-2008 school year in which both Mens Football and Basketball competed for SEC titles, there seem to be no remnants of either of those now. What happened? I'm furious as I'm watching the basketball game right now. They're getting raped by Old Miss. OLE MISS. It wasn't too long ago when Tennessee basketball was the outright SEC favorite, and was featured on ESPN just about every week. Every single time, the commentator said something like, "Now they may not be the best, but Bruce Pearl makes sure these Vols work harder than anyone in the country for the whole 40 minutes." And it was no lie. They forced a substantial amount of turnovers, dominated on the boards, and most importantly, won games they were supposed to win. Now the only constants seems to be Tyler Smith having a good, but quiet game, Wayne Chism steadily improving, and JP Prince embarrassing our school as much as he possibly can. Yea, he may score a few points with the occasional dunk, but the stupid decisions he makes astound me. Every game he gets called for charges, fouls on three point shots, travels, just anything he can do to sabotage the team. His stupid face that he makes every time he commits one of these treacherous acts, as he shrugs his shoulders and rolls his eyes, makes me want to punch him. It's beyond him playing poor basketball. Every game he furthers my assumption that he can't count to his single-digit ACT score.
Don't even get me started on football.
After staging a comeback that essentially made the last half of the season a constant playoff, and earning their way to the SEC championship (where they played to a respectable loss against eventual national champion LSU), the Vols had a deceiving 5-8 record this year. Although, they lost longtime quarterback Erik Ainge, the inexperienced Jonathan Crompton looked promising in his two performances prior to this year. He wouldn't inherit a grand offense, but he had a senior running back in Arian Foster, and a few receivers who had over 50 receptions the year before. Too bad for them, Crompton couldn't manage a pass that went over five yards. I don't mean a completion either, I mean a pass, which usually corkscrewed in front of a linebacker into the turf.
After dreaming about coming to this school for 10 years, hearing people tell me they wouldn't be surprised if I shed a tear at the first sight of a packed stadium, the only thing I did was get a sunburn every weekend. I was glad when the games were away, so I could sit in my dorm and get some homework done while I watched them lose yet another game. The only thing that made watching worthwhile was Eric Berry, probably one of the best DBs of all time.
Glorious? For the MAC maybe, but not my dreams of the SEC. There was no excuse for it. Tennessee is one the winningest football programs in the nation in the past 75 years, and had one of the best college football coaches of the past few decades. They lost to Wyoming, a school you've only heard of because it's a state, 13-7. Only after the announcement of Phillip Fulmer's resignation did the Vols put together decent showings against Vanderbilt and Kentucky to end the season.
My question is why did it take Fulmer basically getting fired to start the season? As usual it seems that football players are too good to care about anything. The attitude was the same for most of the football players at my high school as well. They walked around like they were something special, and didn't care about anyone but themselves. At least they went 12-0 before losing to the eventual state champions in the playoffs.
What these numbskulls have to get through their heads is that it's not about them, contrary to what they have been told their whole lives. It's not about the team either. It's about the school. The student body. The University of Tennessee.
If I hadn't seen my own blood before, I would assume it were orange. I love this school so much, and it was truly a dream come true to end up attending. When I was younger, I wanted to play soccer for UT. My dreams were crushed when I was told that UT doesn't have a mens soccer program (thanks Title 9). It's okay, though. It was a longshot anyway. So what can I do? I have to root for the guys who do represent the school. When they put on foul performances like they did this past season, they not only embarrass themselves, but it dishonors me, and all of the students here.
If I weren't 5' 6" and 140 lbs, I would go out there and give everything I had. I wouldn't be the best player, but no one would work harder than I would. Why can't the current players take this attitude? It's not like this is a pushover program in a mid-major conference. This is Rocky Top. BCS Champions just 10 years ago. Plus, the atmosphere Knoxville sets up for every single season has few matches throughout the nation.
An opportunity to compete in athletics here is a true blessing and honor, and it's about time some of these fools start acting like it. Show some pride. If not for your sake, at least do it for mine.
After a 2007-2008 school year in which both Mens Football and Basketball competed for SEC titles, there seem to be no remnants of either of those now. What happened? I'm furious as I'm watching the basketball game right now. They're getting raped by Old Miss. OLE MISS. It wasn't too long ago when Tennessee basketball was the outright SEC favorite, and was featured on ESPN just about every week. Every single time, the commentator said something like, "Now they may not be the best, but Bruce Pearl makes sure these Vols work harder than anyone in the country for the whole 40 minutes." And it was no lie. They forced a substantial amount of turnovers, dominated on the boards, and most importantly, won games they were supposed to win. Now the only constants seems to be Tyler Smith having a good, but quiet game, Wayne Chism steadily improving, and JP Prince embarrassing our school as much as he possibly can. Yea, he may score a few points with the occasional dunk, but the stupid decisions he makes astound me. Every game he gets called for charges, fouls on three point shots, travels, just anything he can do to sabotage the team. His stupid face that he makes every time he commits one of these treacherous acts, as he shrugs his shoulders and rolls his eyes, makes me want to punch him. It's beyond him playing poor basketball. Every game he furthers my assumption that he can't count to his single-digit ACT score.
Don't even get me started on football.
After staging a comeback that essentially made the last half of the season a constant playoff, and earning their way to the SEC championship (where they played to a respectable loss against eventual national champion LSU), the Vols had a deceiving 5-8 record this year. Although, they lost longtime quarterback Erik Ainge, the inexperienced Jonathan Crompton looked promising in his two performances prior to this year. He wouldn't inherit a grand offense, but he had a senior running back in Arian Foster, and a few receivers who had over 50 receptions the year before. Too bad for them, Crompton couldn't manage a pass that went over five yards. I don't mean a completion either, I mean a pass, which usually corkscrewed in front of a linebacker into the turf.
After dreaming about coming to this school for 10 years, hearing people tell me they wouldn't be surprised if I shed a tear at the first sight of a packed stadium, the only thing I did was get a sunburn every weekend. I was glad when the games were away, so I could sit in my dorm and get some homework done while I watched them lose yet another game. The only thing that made watching worthwhile was Eric Berry, probably one of the best DBs of all time.
Glorious? For the MAC maybe, but not my dreams of the SEC. There was no excuse for it. Tennessee is one the winningest football programs in the nation in the past 75 years, and had one of the best college football coaches of the past few decades. They lost to Wyoming, a school you've only heard of because it's a state, 13-7. Only after the announcement of Phillip Fulmer's resignation did the Vols put together decent showings against Vanderbilt and Kentucky to end the season.
My question is why did it take Fulmer basically getting fired to start the season? As usual it seems that football players are too good to care about anything. The attitude was the same for most of the football players at my high school as well. They walked around like they were something special, and didn't care about anyone but themselves. At least they went 12-0 before losing to the eventual state champions in the playoffs.
What these numbskulls have to get through their heads is that it's not about them, contrary to what they have been told their whole lives. It's not about the team either. It's about the school. The student body. The University of Tennessee.
If I hadn't seen my own blood before, I would assume it were orange. I love this school so much, and it was truly a dream come true to end up attending. When I was younger, I wanted to play soccer for UT. My dreams were crushed when I was told that UT doesn't have a mens soccer program (thanks Title 9). It's okay, though. It was a longshot anyway. So what can I do? I have to root for the guys who do represent the school. When they put on foul performances like they did this past season, they not only embarrass themselves, but it dishonors me, and all of the students here.
If I weren't 5' 6" and 140 lbs, I would go out there and give everything I had. I wouldn't be the best player, but no one would work harder than I would. Why can't the current players take this attitude? It's not like this is a pushover program in a mid-major conference. This is Rocky Top. BCS Champions just 10 years ago. Plus, the atmosphere Knoxville sets up for every single season has few matches throughout the nation.
An opportunity to compete in athletics here is a true blessing and honor, and it's about time some of these fools start acting like it. Show some pride. If not for your sake, at least do it for mine.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Cops and Robbers
The legendary battle involving Kobe/Lebron/Madison Square Garden could only take a week away from the woes of America's past time. And that was before A-Rod admitted to steroid use.
This weekend's addition of Sports Illustrated reported that Alex Rodriguez tested positive for steroids in what was supposed to be an anonymous test, in 2003. Of the 104 players who tested positive on the same list, A-Rod's name was the only one that was leaked.
Within just a few days, Rodriguez admitted in an interview with ESPN that in the years 2001-2003 (later saying 2004) he took performance-enhancing drugs. Although, his decision to quit using the drugs was rooted in his narcissistic nature (he claimed he stopped only after injuring himself before spring training in 2004), A-Rod did what many in his position haven't been manly enough to do: own up to his mistake.
Saying he was naive and stupid about 10 times during the interview, Rodriguez did not have much other than what appeared to be an honest apology. Claiming the pressure to be the "one of the greatest" was on his shoulders, he started using in 2001. It's not too hard to believe. Coming straight out of high school to play with the Mariners, the now football-sized player resembled baby-faced Davidson guard Stephan Curry. Nevertheless, this situation begs more questions than it answers.
How did he get the drugs? Is he completely owning up, or will someone dig up even more he didn't admit? Does this exclude A-Rod from Hall of Fame contention?
Only time will answer these questions, but what can be done now? Another one of the best will forever have an asterisk preluding his name, except for on his personal checks.
MLB may think it is doing itself a service by allowing players to cheat and use steroids with no consequence, but with stars dropping like flies, it's only a matter of time before this transcends an era, and permanently marks the game of baseball forever.
MLB claims that there is no place in the game for these performance-enhancing drugs. Really? Prove it. Swear it to me. For three years, it's been time for baseball to put up or shut up, and its sweep-it-under-the-rug attitude may not get them through this one.
There's plenty of blame to go around. One's first guess might be the players, but since when are they responsible for their actions? When they shoot themselves in the thigh in night clubs, assault women, and other thoughtless, shameful acts, it seems like they get a slap on the wrist, and then a slap on the butt along with a "Get back out there!"
So, who needs to step up? Crazy as it sounds, it needs to pit the MLB enforcement vs the individual ball clubs.
One of the things that most baseball clubhouses have in common is the money they drop on their star players. They're not going to consistently and truthfully test their players for steroids, and report to whomever to ban them. In what seems to be the name of the game for baseball, forgetting morals, they have to protect their investments. It's just smart business.
MLB on the other hand, whose current agenda seems muddled and unclear, needs to have entirely different motivations than the ball clubs. Their main goal should be clearing the name of baseball. They should see this steroid-abuse, as well as other means of rule-infractions, as a threat to the game. Because eventually, not only will individual names be tarnished forever, but people will cringe at the word "baseball" like they do when they hear "Barry Bonds."
Like a big game of cops and robbers, the MLB needs to chase after the players. And I mean chase. They need to send everything they can, from Seattle to Tampa Bay, to find and diminish these threats. Hit some big names too, ones that will get a lot of press-coverage. Every player caught and suspended is a win. Of course, if someone wins, someone loses.
If a club's player gets caught on steroids, he'll be suspended as his punishment. But as a punishment to the clubs, they will still have to pay the player's salary during the suspension. This would be extreme motivation for the clubs, because George Washington whispering in your ear 250 million times over would make you realize how much money you're losing.
If the MLB does it right, it would be pointless for the clubs to try to conceal any sort of steroid abuse by the players, so they themselves would probably start conducting tests to make sure their investments won't be taken away. With the potential for the MLB police to come in and take some tests out of nowhere, clubs would start to keep their players on tight leashes.
Obviously, this is quite ambitious, and almost absurd. But not as absurd as how long steroid abuse has gone unchecked. MLB must take action, and take it now. If not, baseball may turn from America's past time, to America's past.
This weekend's addition of Sports Illustrated reported that Alex Rodriguez tested positive for steroids in what was supposed to be an anonymous test, in 2003. Of the 104 players who tested positive on the same list, A-Rod's name was the only one that was leaked.
Within just a few days, Rodriguez admitted in an interview with ESPN that in the years 2001-2003 (later saying 2004) he took performance-enhancing drugs. Although, his decision to quit using the drugs was rooted in his narcissistic nature (he claimed he stopped only after injuring himself before spring training in 2004), A-Rod did what many in his position haven't been manly enough to do: own up to his mistake.
Saying he was naive and stupid about 10 times during the interview, Rodriguez did not have much other than what appeared to be an honest apology. Claiming the pressure to be the "one of the greatest" was on his shoulders, he started using in 2001. It's not too hard to believe. Coming straight out of high school to play with the Mariners, the now football-sized player resembled baby-faced Davidson guard Stephan Curry. Nevertheless, this situation begs more questions than it answers.
How did he get the drugs? Is he completely owning up, or will someone dig up even more he didn't admit? Does this exclude A-Rod from Hall of Fame contention?
Only time will answer these questions, but what can be done now? Another one of the best will forever have an asterisk preluding his name, except for on his personal checks.
MLB may think it is doing itself a service by allowing players to cheat and use steroids with no consequence, but with stars dropping like flies, it's only a matter of time before this transcends an era, and permanently marks the game of baseball forever.
MLB claims that there is no place in the game for these performance-enhancing drugs. Really? Prove it. Swear it to me. For three years, it's been time for baseball to put up or shut up, and its sweep-it-under-the-rug attitude may not get them through this one.
There's plenty of blame to go around. One's first guess might be the players, but since when are they responsible for their actions? When they shoot themselves in the thigh in night clubs, assault women, and other thoughtless, shameful acts, it seems like they get a slap on the wrist, and then a slap on the butt along with a "Get back out there!"
So, who needs to step up? Crazy as it sounds, it needs to pit the MLB enforcement vs the individual ball clubs.
One of the things that most baseball clubhouses have in common is the money they drop on their star players. They're not going to consistently and truthfully test their players for steroids, and report to whomever to ban them. In what seems to be the name of the game for baseball, forgetting morals, they have to protect their investments. It's just smart business.
MLB on the other hand, whose current agenda seems muddled and unclear, needs to have entirely different motivations than the ball clubs. Their main goal should be clearing the name of baseball. They should see this steroid-abuse, as well as other means of rule-infractions, as a threat to the game. Because eventually, not only will individual names be tarnished forever, but people will cringe at the word "baseball" like they do when they hear "Barry Bonds."
Like a big game of cops and robbers, the MLB needs to chase after the players. And I mean chase. They need to send everything they can, from Seattle to Tampa Bay, to find and diminish these threats. Hit some big names too, ones that will get a lot of press-coverage. Every player caught and suspended is a win. Of course, if someone wins, someone loses.
If a club's player gets caught on steroids, he'll be suspended as his punishment. But as a punishment to the clubs, they will still have to pay the player's salary during the suspension. This would be extreme motivation for the clubs, because George Washington whispering in your ear 250 million times over would make you realize how much money you're losing.
If the MLB does it right, it would be pointless for the clubs to try to conceal any sort of steroid abuse by the players, so they themselves would probably start conducting tests to make sure their investments won't be taken away. With the potential for the MLB police to come in and take some tests out of nowhere, clubs would start to keep their players on tight leashes.
Obviously, this is quite ambitious, and almost absurd. But not as absurd as how long steroid abuse has gone unchecked. MLB must take action, and take it now. If not, baseball may turn from America's past time, to America's past.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
