This happened a few days ago, but we were in Lafayette yesterday looking at a house we're not going to move into, so I haven't had a chance to write about it yet. Reggie Wayne resigned* with the Colts the other day. I thought he would be gone. If you're going to rebuild, then let's get serious about this. Now, I actually don't mind this signing, especially in light of some of the other moves they've made. *That is he signed again. He didn't quit. I don't think Reggie Wayne would have remained a Colt if Pierre Garcon* had stayed around. Since he bolted to Washington, Wayne made for a very attractive back up plan. Despite Garcon being significantly younger, I think most Colts fans would rather take Wayne over Garcon any day, myself included. He's a more accomplished, more reliable receiver. He will give Andrew Luck somebody to throw to, which is very important. The last thing the Colts need is for Luck to be a bust because the team has been stripped down to bare bones around him. He also provides a link to the past, when the Colts did things the right way. He is the veteran leadership this team will need to mold back into the Colts of the Manning era. *Sorry, I can't seem to get the accent mark to show up in Weebly. This isn't to say I'm happy Garcon is gone. As you may be aware, Garcon went to Mount Union College,* which is a Division III powerhouse. He was in school the same time I was, back when Mt. Union won every year instead of being the runner up every year. So I'm probably one of the few Colts fans that have followed Garcon since his college days. I'm sure most of the others to do this probably went to a Division III power as well, most likely Wabash or DePauw. Although chances are better it was Wabash, since we make the playoffs just about every year as opposed to every five or ten. Burn! *At the time. It has recently renamed itself to the University of Mount Union. I still like the MUC abbreviation much better than UMU. I haven't gotten used to it yet over at D3Football.com. I like seeing D3 guys do well in a larger stage, and Garcon maybe more than most because we were in school at the same time. He was the premiere D3 athlete of my collegiate generation. Of course, a big part of that is because he was a Division I talent, but he didn't have a Division I SAT score. Normally that would put him out of the running at most smaller schools that don't do athletic scholarships, but Mt. Union is known to be, well, loose with their admission criteria. They claimed it was because Garcon is Haitian and he didn't do as well on the SAT because he is a native French speaker. I'm sure his football ability had nothing to do with it. In any case, I do wish Garcon well in Washington. I just think the Colts, although it might not have been exactly drawn up this way, made the right decision. Oh, and good back-to-back blowouts by the Pacers over Portland and Philadelphia. Philly is a playoff team, currently sitting a spot ahead of the Pacers due to leading their division. Portland isn't quite as good, but they're only 3 games under .500 as of today. There are definitely worse teams the Pacers could have beaten by 20. I don't know if I've officially done this or not, but I'd like to welcome India to the international fold. I noticed that awhile ago. I also see I have some Mexican readers now. I don't think Mexico has shown up on analytics before, but that has changed now for sure. I also noticed that my Facebook badge has stopped pulling in my wonderful status updates. What a shame. I might have to look into fixing that. No time for that today, though. I've got big plans in just a couple hours. Today is the home opener for Wabash baseball, which means I'll be in one of those seats you see pictured at the top of the page this afternoon. If you're in Crawfordsville around 3 today, you'll find me there. Trust me, there aren't that many seats. I know I've made my feelings known on college baseball before, but I'm still all for live baseball action, even if it is a subpar product. I'm that starved for the old ball game. The new ballpark is really wonderful, and I'm happy to see that Wabash has become a track powerhouse, too. A 'Bash runner just took home the national title in the mile run this year, and that team now has back-to-back indoor titles. But I do have some mixed emotions about all the athletic upgrades. On the one hand, it definitely helps to get athletes when you've got great facilities. The baseball stadium definitely qualifies. The soccer stadium looks great, though I wonder about playing soccer on artificial turf. Same for football.* But as much as I love sports, do we really want to be known as a jock school? *I question playing any sport on artificial turf, actually. And that was easily the biggest upgrade to the football stadium. The other was a new (and relocated) scoreboard, which was probably needed. The old one was almost impossible to read most games because the sun would shine directly on it. That part was nice, but bring back the grass! I'm not there every day any more,* but it seems to me that I would rather become a factory for Rhodes scholars than a football factory. And I'm told that Wabash is starting to pull some great athletes with questionable classroom skills. Now, there have always been some athletes that were maybe a little softened in the admissions process, but none that I felt shouldn't be at the school. And I think that's a good balance. I just hope all this money spent to upgrade the athletic facilities isn't putting pressure for teams to win over getting great students who are also good athletes. *Could possibly be changing, but I won't know until April. And for those unfamiliar with Division III athletics, I would really stress for you to check them out. Unless you live out west, where there seems to be a dearth of D3 institutions, there is probably a small school near you. Admission to most events is free, and if you do need to buy a ticket, it won't run you more than $10. The majority of schools are like Wabash, where the only thing they charge for is football. And don't buy the myth that it's glorified high school. I suppose there are some teams like that, but that's not the majority, and it's sure not the upper end teams. Take a gander sometime at your local D3 football or basketball teams next season. I think you'll be really surprised at the product you'll encounter. That time of year is upon us again. It's March Madness! I don't agree with some of the seeding decisions the committee came up with. Indiana being a four is chief among them. But, it is what it is now, so I won't gripe too much. I don't have any big gripes about what teams got into the tournament, and that's much more important. I'll tell you a few things about my bracket. I picked Syracuse as my champion, though I very seriously considered going with Missouri, who is my other finalist. My other final four teams are Duke and Kansas, though I wouldn't be shocked if Georgetown makes it out of the midwest bracket. I just realized I didn't pick any 12 seeds to win. I'll probably regret that. I did pick an 11 in Colorado St., though I'm not all that enthused about it. I think that game will be very tough and come down to the wire. I don't mean any disrespect to Murray St. I just think Colorado St. maybe should have been a bit higher. I didn't pick it, but I won't be shocked if New Mexico St. tops Indiana. I don't think I would have seeded New Mexico St. any higher, but that's a team that I think a lot of people have undervalued. It's kind of shame, but I can't argue too hard about where the committee put Purdue. I figured they would be in either the 8-9 or 7-10 game, and that's where they ended up. I would absolutely love for them to pull the upset over Kansas, because they have definitely been playing much better here toward the end of the year. But Kansas is a very good team. I don't think this year's Purdue team has the firepower. If we could take this year's Robbie Hummel (and this year's DJ Byrd, for that matter) and inject them on last year's squad, I think Purdue has a national title on their hands. Sadly, it doesn't work that way. That's all I've got for the moment. I'm sure I'll have more to write when games actually start happening. I'm sure I'll watch the play-in games, but Thursday is when the real madness begins. One of the things about being married is sometimes you have to watch things you wouldn't otherwise. There are varying levels of this. Sometimes it turns out it's something you enjoy to a surprising degree, sometimes it's easy to remember why you stopped watching the show in the first place. Or never started. American Idol is one of those shows. I didn't watch the first season, but I watched the next few mostly because I was at home and didn't have all that much choice. Then a few years ago, I got out of it's grip. I have remained pretty blissfully ignorant of what went on in that world. Then I got married. I watched every episode of The X Factor, which is Simon Cowell's reimagining and recapturing of what American Idol once was. And I did actually enjoy it. Quite a bit, actually. It really did seem to get back to what made American Idol fun. Now, of course, American Idol is back on the airwaves. I've been made to watch this, too. And that's okay. I do enjoy music and competition. And, well, if you watch enough of anything, you'll start become an expert of sorts on it. Here's my take on things: American Idol is an awfully stale product with judges that, on the surface, should be interesting, but really aren't and don't add anything to do the show. So much of what happens with the judges either feels like them spouting meaningless words and leave me questioning whether they were really listening to what just happened or not. Or Randy Jackson trying his hardest to be Simon Cowell and be mean for the sake of creating drama, but it clearly hasn't been working. That brings us to the man in the picture up there. That's Jimmy Iovine. He's been in the music industry for quite some time and worked with some people I greatly admire, including John Lennon, Bruce Springsteen, and Tom Petty. Or so his Wikipedia entry tells me. He's now in his second season as "Mentor in Residence" with Idol. Maybe this happened last year, too, I don't know, but this year, it seems they've really leaned on him to speak his mind and be the asshole of the group. I don't necessarily agree with a ton of what he says,* but at least he's not just gushing praise or manufactured criticism like the other judges. Here's the rub: he's not a judge. Instead of sitting out at the little table and speaking with the contestants face-to-face, he spends the week working one-on-one with the contestants in side sessions and helps them develop their song for that week. On the night of the competition, he is piped in on a video screen to give his opinion, which is usually the most critical of the singers. *This actually is a difference from Simon. I actually agree with the vast majority of what he has to say. He's just blunt about it. Does Idol need somebody like that? Sure. But don't hide away from who you're talking bad about. If you want to have your opinion aired, at least have the balls to come out and tell it to the performer's face. If you can't handle that, then keep your mouth shut. Or at least off the camera. And because this will probably be my last post on this subject, let me say that I'm definitely all for Heejun Han. He is a surprisingly good singer, but more than that, his demeanor and humor remind me of a good college buddy of mine, John Chuang. Who, incidentally, runs a blog of his own. It's over here. I'm sure the whole Asian thing doesn't hurt, either, but I do think I would think of Chuang regardless of Heejun's It was finally made official yesterday. I haven't watched all of the press conference, but I've certainly read quite a bit about it and heard quite a bit about it from many people. It really is a shame that Peyton Manning won't be a Colt for life,* but I do think this was a mutual decision. And one that neither Manning or Jim Irsay took lightly. I'm sure they both had a good cry together in Irsay's office when they finally decided this is the way to go. *I do think he will be a Colt for life in the collective imagination. The same way Johnny Unitas is a Colt and Joe Namath is a Jet. This ultimately will be good for Peyton and the Colts. Related to this, I wouldn't expect to see Reggie Wayne back, or Dallas Clark (whenever his contract is up) for that matter. This past season revealed a lot of warts about this current Colts team. Most of the problems were known, but nobody realized just how deeply they ran. As such, Irsay had to rebuild this team from the ground up. This doesn't happen in one off-season, no matter how good Andrew Luck is. You might remember that Peyton went 3-13 his first year, and I would anticipate something along those lines for the next season or two for Luck. It wouldn't really be fair to make Peyton suffer through these last few years of his career for nothing but pure nostalgia. A player of his caliber deserves to try to play for a championship, and that wasn't going to happen in Indianapolis. Better to just make a clean break and let everybody get to their future faster. I'm still a Colt fan, but like everybody who has watched the team for the past decade plus, I'll be rooting for Peyton wherever he ends up. Sorry again, folks. It's been a crazy schedule lately, I know. We had to get the car in for some additional repairs, and I somewhat unexpectedly ended up in Lafayette all day, which means no real post. There probably won't be a post tomorrow, because I have a 2-hour in-person interview tomorrow. See you Thursday! Ten respect points on the line for knowing where I got that line from. Think you've got it? If you guessed "Emaline" by Ben Folds Five, you're right! You don't really win much, though. Anyway, aside from welcoming Germany as within my international grasp, I wanted to write about this new MLB playoff system. See that picture of a straining Bud Selig over there? That's him pretending he can't hear the many multitudes of people saying "This is a bad idea." It's unfortunate, but there was nothing that was going to deter this from happening. If you haven't a clue what I'm talking about, MLB approved another wildcard team being added this year. The way this is going to work is a one-game playoff between these two wild card teams, and then we go into the usual playoff format. Mostly, anyway. Instead of 2-2-1, the divisional round is now 2-3 to cut down on travel and time. Whatever, that part doesn't bother me too much. But why just a one game playoff to decide who the best non-division winner is? We already have that. It's called the previous 162 games. If the Braves and Red Sox deserved to be in the playoffs last year, all they had to do was win one more game. They didn't, so they were left crying in their collective beer. Beyond making more money (both off attendance and TV), I also think this is Selig's* way of guaranteeing all the drama we've had at the end of the past few seasons. We've had a few game 163s. The two I remember recently were both in the AL Central, first with the White Sox and Twins, and then with the Tigers and Twins. There might have been the Rockies and Padres, too, but that may have also been game 162 that just happened to carry the same implications.** And then, of course, was one of the greatest days in MLB history on the final day of last year, when both the Braves and Red Sox completed their collapses. Not to be lost in that was the Cardinals and Rays doing their parts to avoid a 163rd game in pretty dramatic fashion. *And I have to say, I actually think Bud Selig is probably the best commissioner in sports today. I've generally agreed with all he's decided other than making the All-Star Game count. I don't like replay in baseball, but that was a train he couldn't stop, so I appreciate that he's kept it limited. Maybe that's how I'll feel about this new wildcard spot in a few years, but I doubt it. The lead up to this was much, much different than the runway into replay. **Also, I still don't think Matt Holliday has touched home in Denver, though I was kinda pulling for the Rockies to make the playoffs. I do agree with what the commissioner's actions have said. Those were great, great moments for baseball, chock full of drama and intrigue. The problem is, as soon as you institutionalize them, they are no longer dramatic. If you script the drama every year, it ceases to be dramatic. I do think the most important part of what made those moments so tense, so enthralling, was just how organically they happened. Neither of those collapses were seen coming in fashion. And there was no rule change forced in to make sure the last games were so tense. They sprung up in the existing framework. Sorry, Bud, but you can't force those moments by a sham of a game to see who wins the wild card. The example I heard on MLB earlier today was from a former A's player (didn't catch who it was, unfortunately) who used the example of the 2001 A's. They won 102 games that year, which is usually enough to run away with a division. But, of course, that was the year the Mariners exploded for 116 wins. If the new rules were in place, the A's would have had to earn their playoff berth against an 85-win Twins team. Now, 85 wins is fine, that's a good year. But it would have been outrageous if they were allowed to go to the playoffs over the A's because of the results of a contrived "must win" game. And, if you follow baseball at all, you know it isn't like most other sports. It's true in any sport, actually, but even more so in baseball. Any team can beat any other team in a given day. That's why there's so much emphasis on series in baseball. Because the cream will eventually rise to the top, but it can take some time. Unlike, say, football. This new format just goes against everything baseball has been for the past century and quarter or so, and I imagine the first time we come up with a situation like would have happened in 2001 and whoever is in the Twins' shoes wins, this format is going to go up in smoke. We can only hope. It's a big weekend. Purdue's women kick off Big Ten tournament play tonight against Michigan St. Purdue's men will look for vengeance against the Hoosiers on Sunday. The Blackhawks look for another big win to try to climb into a position to get home ice again tonight. The Pacers look for their sixth straight win tomorrow. Good times all around. The problem is, they are all in the future, and prognosticating those games doesn't make for very interesting reading. What might be a little more interesting is a "What would happen if the playoffs started today?" game with the NHL. Let's start out west, because those are the teams I know better. In the first round, Vancouver would take on Dallas, Detroit would have San Jose, Phoenix would have Chicago, and St. Louis would have Nashville. I think all the top seeds would move on here except for Phoenix. The Blackhawks catch a pretty big break here because of how the NHL playoffs are set up. Unlike the NBA, divisions mean a little bit in hockey. Division winners get the top three seeds and guaranteed home ice. This means that even though the Coyotes only have 75 points, which would have them in a tie for sixth with the Blackhawks, they get to slide into third. I think the Blackhawks are much better than sixth place, but unfortunately find themselves there thanks to an extended losing streak that sticks out like a sore thumb. I think they'll fix that by the playoffs. After the reseeding in the second round, that would pit Vancouver against Chicago (again), and Detroit against St. Louis. I think Vancouver would probably take care of Chicago fairly easily. They are just finishing off their revenge after Chicago kept putting them out of the playoffs until last year. Detroit and St. Louis would be a very good series against probably the two best home ice teams in the league. Because of this, I'm saying it would go seven games and end with a Detroit win. In a Vancouver-Detroit conference final, I want to pick Vancouver. I don't really know what's holding me back from it, either. But my gut is saying Detroit takes this one surprisingly easily. Five games. I don't want to be right about that, but that's what I'm seeing. In the Eastern Conference, the first round would have the Rangers taking on a surprisingly spry Jets team, defending-champion Bruins against the Devils, Florida against Ottawa, and Pittsburgh against Philadelphia. The Jets would put up a much better fight than if they were in the same position in Atlanta, just because of the crowd and buzz around them in Canada. But, the Rangers would prevail, I think. I also think the Bruins would brush by the Devils no problem. Ottawa and Florida would be a very good series, both being pretty surprising squads. I think I would pick Ottawa, though it would be a seven gamer that could go either way. And Pitt-Philly would also be a seven-game series, probably the best series of the first round. I'll take the Pens here, mostly because as much as Fluery scares me sometimes, he's still light years ahead of anybody the Flyers would stick in goal. In the second round, that leaves us with the Rangers taking on the Sens and the Bruins with the Penguins. A couple solid series, but I think both top seeds would move on without too much trouble. And then the Blueshirts magical run would end, because the Bruins are a very, very good team who are looking to repeat. As much as I would like a repeat of last year's Stanley Cup, I do think it will be Detroit and Boston. Still a good match up, and Original Six ordeal. I'd be pulling for Boston in this one, but I think Detroit would take it. Maybe it's because Detroit was so dominant when I first really started paying attention to hockey, maybe the fearful Blackhawk fan in me (it doesn't take long to pick up, trust me). But I think Detroit would take this one, we'll say in six games. It'll be interesting to revisit this a little closer to the playoffs, though, because both conferences are still so tight in their seeding. Things are definitely subject to change. Before I get started today, I just checked my analytics. I can add more countries to my list of readers. Welcome to Spain, Poland, and the Philippines. As I'm sure is obvious, I am a Pacer fan. I have the utmost respect for the team and their connection to Indianapolis and the state as a whole, and I've written quite a bit about that on a blog that is supposedly about baseball. For some time now, though, the Pacers have been almost invisible in the town. The reason isn't too hard to see. I would say the real reason was they went through the least successful period of their NBA tenure since being hamstrung at the merger. But the reason the team stopped winning? Pretty simple. It was all about cleaning house after the brawl. Why bring this up now? Well, readers of Grantland probably read this piece yesterday. That piece is probably the best I've ever read about the brawl. It set the Pacers back years on a number of fronts, and they really only just started recovering last year. As it turned out, the roster the Pacers have this year was almost custom made for this shortened season, which I'm hoping will speed the recovery and bring the fans back. In a not-so-surprising revelation, I watched the brawl live. I remember sitting on the couch at my mom's and I had already started browsing away at my laptop, because the game had been decided. I heard the crowd getting excited, so I looked up, just in time to see Ben Wallace shove Ron Artest with everything he had. From there, I thought all was settled as Ron-Ron went to go cool off. Then the cup came down, and the rest is history. I found this post I made (and the subsequent thread) on the Straight Dope message boards I used to frequent. I made that post in the immediate aftermath of the brawl. Or maybe even before all the dust had settled. As you can see, the first several posts made closer to the incident put the blame almost entirely on the fans. It wasn't until later that blame shifted more towards Artest. I tend to blame the fans for the escalation. Was Artest right in charging into the stands? Of course not, and Stephen Jackson was even more wrong to go up after him. The suspensions that were earned* were deserved. If the fans had just backed off other than holding Artest and Jackson back, it still would have been a black eye on the NBA, but it wouldn't have become the legendary incident it became. *Except for maybe Jermaine O'Neal. He threw his punch at a fan who had come onto the court. I am of the opinion that, once you enter the field of play, you forfeit all protection. If you're dumb enough to square off with professional athletes (especially basketball players who are typically at least 6'3" or so) on their turf, you deserve what's coming to you. Of course, none of this is addressing that the Pacers may have been the champions that year if they had their full complement of players. They probably should have beaten Detroit the year before in the playoffs. There is no doubt in my mind (or the minds of most connected to that Pacer team) that they would have beaten the Pistons that year. Instead, the Pacers would spend the next five years being not quite good enough to make the playoffs, but not quite bad enough to snag a really high lottery pick. It took longer than expected, but it seems that this year's team might finally exorcise those demons. The fans still aren't coming back the way they should be, though it's still better than it was. But the team is winning. The team is sitting in third at the moment and really should be able to win at least one round in the playoffs. Maybe two if they can meet the Bulls in the second round. I don't know what it is, but the Pacers seem to give these Bulls absolute fits. And that's the great panacea: winning. You win in the playoffs, and fans will take notice. Besides, it's not like we have Peyton Manning to root for any more. |
Archives
March 2022
|