AZ's Slant on Sunday - Terror of Turf

I've had this topic in draft mode for well over a year and a half. I figured it was time to fully unleash on the topic after another former baseball player--former Phillies and Marlins catcher Darren Daulton--had been diagnosed with brain tumors. There is a link to his case, and it's a serious link.

When I first drafted this topic, I had just finished watching a feature of the 1980 World Series on the MLB Network. Since I'm from Philadelphia myself, I know by fact that four men who participated in that Series had fallen ill and died from brain cancer; the four men were Tug McGraw, Dan Quisenberry, John Vukovich, and [another Royal who didn't pitch in the series] Ken Brett. Now, if it was only one man who had passed away from this ailment, you would consider it to be a tragedy and go through the motions. However, I just named four men who played baseball in the same era, and both teams played in a ballpark that contained a common item: artificial turf (in this case, AstroTurf). Coincidence?

Back in the 1960's, artificial turf such as AstroTurf was all the rage. It was durable, it hardly required maintenance, and it was cheap. Many sports stadiums around the country (not just baseball) installed the artificial turf to save costs not only on grass maintenance, but on long-term care due to durability. While it had more cushion than standard grass and prevented hard-landing injuries, it handled sunlight differently and could--in many cases--burn an athlete's skin. Imagine being an outfielder and you have to make a diving catch in the middle of August.

Mordor, ladies and gentlemen.

Despite this minor setback, artificial turf was a common sight to see at many stadiums throughout the 1970's until the mid-2000's. It was a great display of technology and efficiency; however...there was a major dark side to the use of artificial turf before more advances in technology cleaned up the materials.

Do we know what this is?

This is lead.

If you know science, it doesn't take a lot of this to make a human or an animal sick. This element in a large enough amount can destroy the nervous system and cause disorders in the brain.

This could be found in AstroTurf.


Lovely, yes? As I mentioned above, this can cause massive problems in the brain. Due to great exposure of the turf, especially in different kinds of weather and other forms of activity, it isn't a coincidence that there have been numerous deaths of baseball players who have A) Played on AstroTurf at some point in their careers, and B) Had found brain tumors while in their 50's. [Note: Quisenberry, whom I mentioned above, is an exception. He succumbed to cancer at the age of 45.] The element had enough time to settle in and cause problems once certain parts of the body begin to phase out due to old age.

Aside from lead, there have also been more toxic elements found in the turf that could cause nerve and cardiovascular damage, such as zinc (in exponentially large amounts, of course), cadmium, chromium, and arsenic. Yes. Arsenic. Whenever it rains or is incredibly windy, these components can hit the lungs and settle in the body, and Heaven help you if you already have a preexisting health condition such as asthma. Drainage from the stadiums after rain could also get into the sewer system and mess with the water supply in various cities. Although an extreme scenario, it is a completely plausible one. What could be an issue on the field could bleed into a home issue, ruining residential homes and hurt common citizens. Birth defects? Lead poisoning? All could be completely possible.

With this revealed, the big question is this: Why on EARTH was this used in the first place?

Were we that stupid, or did we just not know how dangerous this stuff was? In this case, it was a "trial and error" at the expense of athletes later on in their lives. In a post-war era, this was an: "Oh my goodness, we just made something that will pay for itself. Let's throw it out there," kind of thing. If you ever saw those 1950's reels showing the "Kitchen of the Future," you could understand why something like this was so big, regardless of what materials were being used for the product. If it worked, it worked. While it was a great invention that saved a lot of money, it wasn't exactly the safest and healthiest thing manufactured [to compare it to a current issue, think of the whole "GMO" debacle if you're a foodie]. Since we know a lot more about particular materials and the effects it has on the human body, developers are a lot more cautious as to what they use in products that require a lot of usage and durability. Many athletes have suffered for this innovation, but if it weren't for their suffering--for the lack of a more honorable term--we wouldn't realize the dangers of the artificial turf that was used from the 1960's until the late 1990's.

Although there have been great advances in science to perfect the composition of artificial turf, it is still a controversial product, as all but two MLB ballparks play on natural grass. The two fields--Tropicana Field in St. Petersburg [Tampa Bay Rays] and the Rogers' Centre in Toronto [Blue Jays]--use a turf called FieldTurf, which is more rubber-based. Other forms of turf are being derived from plastics, and while there is still some concern and controversy with the kinds of turf fibers, it is in high demand in countries that are unable to grow large amounts of grass in their climate. Most of these countries request this material for their soccer fields. This is understandable, and economically speaking, could prove to be a better resort than attempting to grow exorbitant amounts of grass and not be able to take care of it as well as other countries could.

Unfortunately, we could see more athletes that could suffer the same problem as many before them due to the terrors of turf in the near future. Whether there will be faster diagnosis and treatment for these possible cases that will develop before that time, we can't be sure of that. While we should embrace innovation and technology, there always comes a price to these things.

--AZ

For more information, these are the sources I checked out for this piece: (1, 2, 3, 4)

AZ's Slant on Sunday - The Ultimate Slugfest

The one thing I remember about my Dad when I was younger was how he would sit in his rocking chair and watch Friday Night Fights. As time progressed, my older brother got him into MMA and he became interested in that. This would have been something interesting to talk with him about, that's for sure.

Saturday night was declared Fight Night in Las Vegas as Floyd "Money" Mayweather Jr. took on Robert "the Ghost" Guerrero. After being away from the ring for a year, many had expected the fight to be extremely exciting due to the spice and fire from Guerrero. After 12 rounds, loads of strategy, and hard offense, Mayweather won by unanimous decision and increased his fight record to 44-0. Many people had noted how Mayweather had played a safe, defensive fight and used strategy and an extra cheerleading boost from his father at ringside. Whatever it was, it certainly worked.

One major thing I had noticed was that because it was a major title fight involving two of the best boxers of today and that there was a backstory behind both fighters, estimates on total pay-per-view buys and viewership is expected to be extremely high. These factors rehash a theory that I have stored up in the noggin' for quite a long time: Over the past several years, the world of Mixed Martial Arts has been outselling and outclassing the boxing universe due to points such as frequent main-event carding and the overall amount of household names involved in the product.

Without a doubt, the biggest MMA business around is UFC, headed by president Dana White. In its 20 years of existence, it has been known as a source of display for different fighting arts, a source of controversy due to lack of rules in the beginning (some guys wore sneakers...dead serious), and its surge in the mid-00's through reality television and breakthrough to mainstream media audiences. Because of the atmosphere and degree of action contained in an MMA event, it became extremely popular in a short time. While it hasn't exactly been measured to a huge extent, MMA has become more of a household name as far as consistency in the United States than boxing.

With Floyd Mayweather Jr.'s successful title defense on Saturday night, could this be the beginning of the rebirth of mainstream boxing in North America?

I'm not a huge fan of neither boxing nor MMA. Off of the top of my head, I can only name four active major boxers: Mayweather, Manny Pacquiao, Sergio Martinez, and Bernard Hopkins. However, I can tell you a lot more names involved in UFC. There are four major boxing organizations in the world, and numerous events are held all over the world. The big difference between these guys and UFC is that not many of these events are televised and most knowledge of events are spread through word-of-mouth or through popular boxing outlets. Recently, ESPN 2 has revived Friday Night Fights on their programming, and different boxers from around the world are getting more mainstream exposure to boxing fans old and new. This can be a massive victory for boxing, as it is shown more frequently to audiences and can be considered "not dead" to the uninformed.

In the same vein as the frequency of seeing televised events and knowing who is fighting who, there is a well-publicized pay-per-view event that occurs every month. There are also well-promoted televised events (with thanks to FOX Sports) that occur every so often between these PPV events. You don't really hear about any major boxing events unless if it's a major title bout--which don't often occur as frequently due to the possibility of boxing matches occurring outside of North America--or if it's a storied fight featuring well-known and marketable names (in this recent case, Mayweather).
__________________________________________

With these facts set straight, it's time to face the overall verdict of this bout between Boxing and MMA--this is a business and corporate-driven world, and MMA-giant UFC is currently in the driver seat.
The boxing business is still based strictly on sport and basic media attention. In today's media-driven society, UFC incorporates all media outlets like a sports business normally does and makes the best out of it. Heck, you will see UFC action figurines in stores before you will ever see a figure for a boxing icon--unless if it's memorabilia or something. The boxing industry is still very old school in the sense of using social media and promotions; while it still has it's glamour and glitz during the event itself, they still use the older approach to attract fans and outside viewers.

While this case may be different for people outside of the United States and Canada, boxing can't truly be considered a "dead sport," as it still holds firm as an Olympic sport and is still extremely popular in South American and in some regions of Europe and Asia. However, if you're looking for an undisputed champion in winning over the North American hearts, you have to give the title to MMA. Since UFC has become a massive conglomerate, they have won this region in the business sector and gaining sponsorship and viewership. However, boxing culture is still king in the Eastern Hemisphere and in South America. I'm not partial to either of them, but it's a dog-eat-dog world, and these two Kings of Fighters will be duking it out for a long while. It's all about culture, legacy, and honor, and both of these schools have a slough of both. It should be a nice, long fight to the finish.

--AZ

AZ's Slant on Sunday - Man's Best Friend and Competitor

This post has been in development hell since the last Super Bowl. I am not kidding.

I don't know whether it's a good thing or a bad thing when you get an idea for a post by watching the Puppy Bowl on Animal Planet. I've either got a really wicked groove or my head was wired incorrectly at birth.

[Aside: PETA is probably going to either really really like this post or really really hate it. Hey, they're the masters of controversy, so all I'm doing is playing the same game. ;-)]

Dogs are pretty cool animals. Cats are pretty interesting too. Horses are pretty spectacular. In certain religious teachings, animals were created to serve man. Those scientist people out there believe that animals have evolved over time due to natural selection and that's why animals are so advanced in instincts and form.

In human terms, instincts usually refer to feelings and in some cases survival. Survival of the fittest: It's a sport of life. OH. SHOT OF RELEVANCE. FEEL IT.

Sure, some of these forms of sports may prove to be unethical in some standards, such as greyhound racing, bull riding, some forms of horse racing, and even those old school rodeo pig-chasing competitions. But this stuff isn't what I will be referring to in this post. I'm going to refer to the power of friendship and how they make us stronger. I'm going to use the film Rocky as an example here. Before this memorable scene, Adrian buys Rocky a dog from her pet store so he would have someone to run with. When in shape, dogs will push you to keep going when you give up. If not for that dog, I don't think Rocky would have dared to go up those steps in the first place. Maybe not, but you understand where I'm going with this. Pets can be seen as workout partners and friends that help boost one's motivation when it comes to aiming high for something.

A lot of real-life athletes own pets and even support what I'd like to call "pet equality." A lot of them are advocates for animal rescue and often try to go for runs and play games with them. It looks rather obvious that many athletes realize the importance of having a pet in one's life when it comes to competition and management of stress.

Speaking of...

When it comes to stress and the usual struggles in life, these buddies can also make you feel better. I can't begin to tell you how pleasantly surprised I was when I saw so many Facebook statuses and Tweets about this year's Puppy Bowl. I won't lie. I'm a fan of it. I remember when it was a big deal in my house at first because the late Harry Kalas did play-by-play for it and I wanted to see what was up with that. Men, this program will probably make you want to punch a wall out of cuteness in order to gain your masculinity back. Women...it's just totally adorable, right?

From PeoplePets.com

 Look at this. LOOK AT THIS. It reeks of cute.

Sure, it probably isn't the absolute best alternative to "Super Sunday," but it's definitely better than watching pointless television during the day.

My point is, the animal kingdom isn't exactly a stepping stone for the human being, but they're practically equals in their own right. Think about it: In sports, humans want to work hard to be the very best at what they aim for; with that said, our natural instinct is to work out and get strong enough to take down the competition. It's in our genes, more or less. Animals don't necessarily have concrete forms of "sport," but through their instinct, they compete in what they specialize. For example, horses run. Even though it's mostly human-driven, they're still doing something natural that is in their nature: running. When it comes to something silly like the Puppy Bowl, puppies play. This is their own form of competing. The last time I checked, animals have no conscience, so they just do what their instinct tells them to do. We--with the ability of having a conscience--see their form of "instinct" and call it a sport.

At the same time, we see their efforts and it almost forces us to be better at what we do. Not only is the human body an amazing thing, the body of an animal is just as amazing. Animals (or pets in this case) are constantly evolving. They help us physically and emotionally; it's a known fact. They truly can be man's best friend and man's best competitor. I may believe in the whole "circle of life" thing, but we're all here on this earth to help each other out. We're all here to get stronger and better in life, and we're all in it together.

I was going to end this with what Bob Barker used to say at the end of every broadcast of The Price is Right, but I'll just let him do that for me.


--AZ

AZ's Slant on Sunday - For the Country, or for the Paycheck

Of thee I sing.

For athletes all around the world, being in the Olympics is kind of a big deal. Winning any kind of medal could deem you a national hero. First time medalists like Grenada's Kirani James will forever be recognized in the history of the country as the first countryman to win a medal (a gold medal at that) for the country. Other perks come along with winning a medal too. For example, Kenyans make their medalists official "lion hunters" of their tribe, which I think is pretty awesome, considering that their culture still stands today amid the crazy advances in technology and culture. Also, in South Korea, the bronze medal soccer team is exempt from mandatory military service for a whole year (story here). Being an Olympic athlete can also be a gateway to something more personal if the athlete is successful. Australian diver and 2008 Olympic gold medalist Matthew Mitcham came out as being openly gay and inspired gay people and athletes worldwide.

Stuff like endorsements in larger-scale countries may be cool too, but hearing the foreign culture perks is some powerful stuff. Smaller countries take these things so much more seriously than others may let on. In the United States, some people might actually take their status for granted. They might...actually want to get paid for doing this.

The 1992 Dream Team was better as far not complaining, that's for sure.

Current Miami Heat player Ray Allen was rather vocal about this a couple of months ago, stating that since NBA players are practically walking-talking-advertisements, they should get their own sort of "royalties" for taking part in the Olympic Games. Dwayne Wade agreed with this, saying it would be "fitting for the players to be compensated" since they only have two weeks of rest until the NBA rush starts. Kobe Bryant wouldn't mind this, but he'd still play anyway.

Per NBCSports' Kurt Helin:

“[Allen states:] Everybody says, ‘Play for your country.’ But (NBA players are) commodities, your businesses. You think about it, you do camps in the summer, you have various opportunities to make money. When you go overseas and play basketball, you lose those opportunities, what you may make… If I’m an accountant and I get outsourced by my firm, I’m going to make some money somewhere else.”

Helin then responds by saying: 

"I think Allen misses the mark here because there is a huge financial incentive for the top guys — it’s about international brands and shoe sales. Allen is spot on with his premise that NBA players are commodities in the eyes of teams, but they are also their own brand if a guy is a smart businessman."

Somebody gets it.

I remember watching women's diving a few nights ago and Pandelela Rinong, a young woman from Malaysia, became the first female to win a medal (a bronze) at the Games. She said during her post-event interview on NBC that she was "proud to be a Malaysian." Isn't that enough to feel that happiness inside for her? Even during the preliminaries for track and field, the announcers were saying that a lot of the competitors (most were from super tiny Pacific islands and small African countries) were just happy that they made it to the Olympic Games to represent their country. And then...we have some guys that think they're too big for their own britches and think that representing their country isn't enough. It's as if there are some people out there in the U.S. that don't appreciate what the Olympic Games are all about. They think it's another opportunity for exposure and a bonus. Sure, you will hear other American athletes saying how proud they are of their heritage and say that the United States is the greatest country in the world. You don't really hear the verbal diarrhea like Allen's statement coming out of their mouths like that. It's ridiculous, in my opinion. Whatever happened to patriotism?

When you are an Olympic athlete, you share the same stage with the greatest athletes from other countries. Some of these countries are so poor that they had to work something out with the IOC and find a way to get their athletes to London this year. Heck, some people were actually "independents" that couldn't get endorsements from their host country or their country is in such peril that they "seceded" in a sense in order to compete. There are so many unfortunate people out there and their Olympic-caliber talent is all they may have. These people might not even get paid at all; some medalists actually owe money (hello, Missy Franklin!) because their medals are worth something and they may have to pay taxes on the thing. 
[Thinking about that, I wonder how much Michael Phelps has had to pay over the past eight years...]

(Credit to Bleacher Report)
Just look at Kenya's David Rudisha. Do you think he's thinking about  his world record run or why he's not getting a fat sum from this?

As far as money goes, WHAT MONEY? You might not get the profit you think you deserve, but aren't you getting your foot in the door for bigger bonuses to come? Speaking about getting money outright from the Olympics itself couldn't be any more boneheaded. I was always taught to "think outside the box," and it sounds like there are some athletes out there that have agents that think for them and those athletes couldn't even negotiate their way out of a box to begin with. Just as Kurt Helin mentions in his story, you're a professional athlete playing in a professional sports league. That most likely means you know how the business works; it's absolutely difficult to play in a league and not know what's going on financially around the league or what have you. I'm pretty sure you know how to be a good businessman and make the most of what you have. There's no reason to go knocking on the IOC's door asking where your paycheck is. You have the exposure now--get the endorsement deals. That's going to give you the money you want. 

It's an honor to play in the Olympics. It's not an entitlement, nor is it a multi-million dollar deal, and it isn't something that should be treated like a standard sports practice. An international competition like the Olympics is so much grander than that. Coming from a large country like the United States, I guess that could be difficult to fathom since we may have a better set-up for most sporting events and every sports final is a big deal in the country. But getting the recognition from smaller countries on a big stage like this should be enough. In the Olympic Games, t's about the love and passion, not the money. This year's Olympic motto was "Inspire a Generation." You're in no way "inspiring" if you're sounding whiny because you're not making money like you think you should. Again, this is an honor and not a choice here.

Do it for the country, not for the paycheck. You're proving to the world that you come from the greatest country of all and you're proud of where you came from.

Mr. Allen, if you want more money, go ask Spike Lee to make He Got Game 2: The Big Time.

--AZ

(Sources of today's tirade: 1, 2)

AZ's Slant on Sunday - EVERYONE HAS A PRICE

GAAH HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

But in all seriousness...

I read an "unusual fact" on Twitter a couple of days ago. It read: "65% of former NBA players & 80% of NFL players go bankrupt after a few years of retirement."

We have officially confirmed that the recession is affecting everybody in the country. We don't need to name the athletes under fire, of course, but you can clearly tell that there are athletes out there that are afraid to retire from the sport out of fear of running out of money.

In today's day and age, we may think of the argument of what I like call "The Old Yeller Complex" which I had talked about on The Sports Nut Blogs last year. In a nutshell, there are arguments such as: if there are athletes that are still healthy and want to play despite their age, they should play; or if older athletes still hang onto the game, it eliminates the chances of younger guys getting in the game and forming their own careers and legacies. In this era, it doesn't matter about how much you love the game and how old you're getting; in this terrible economy, it's either work or wither.

Our economy. It's beautiful, isn't it?

Some athletes are fortunate that after retirement they are welcomed back by sports organizations to work in the front offices or in recruitment staff. There are others that are incredibly fortunate and even get a job in broadcasting regardless of how terrible their analyses can be. Not to sound partial, but issues like this totally suck for people like me that just recently got out of college and are looking for a job/additional experience (because God knows some don't have enough for anybody). But in being impartial, these athletes have worked for years and years and received a hefty paycheck. However, when they stop working, they're not getting a viable source of income, and taxes start spanking them around the spanking court. Let's not get into possibilities that there are underground practices, because that could be killer on the bank account too. Anyway, they may get benefits post-retirement, but it might not have the same perks like if you were a military retiree or a big businessman that is stepping down after so many years.

You may also have to configure the psychology on how big of a hit bankruptcy can be on a big athlete post-retirement. Sometimes moving backwards isn't always smiled upon, especially if the money that was spent at the time of "gaming," as I call it, was on cars and condos and what have you. When you see the big drop they take after losing so much money due to taxes and inactivity, you can feel bad for them. That's why they have no choice but to go back and do anything possible. Most of the time, you'll see the lesser known retired people taking broadcasting or front office jobs, and then you'll see the bigger guys take on the endorsements and television deals. Some of it isn't terrible, but it's a dog-eat-dog world, and everyone has a price.

I'll admit, once these guys become professional athletes, they're always gonna have a foot in the door, so if there's any danger of bankruptcy, there's always a way to rebound. It might not seem like it, but they have it pretty well. Too bad they have the two things they can't avoid: death and taxes. For those guys that take their foot out of the door, they can downward spiral into some dangerous stuff. Yaaay, economy! But in some cases, the foot in the door can eliminate the chances for other non-athlete workers to get their chance in the spotlight. If a guy wanted to do analysis for the NBA and has been working hard for nearly ten years to get there, I'd think he'd be pretty angry if he lost it to Charles Barkley. That would be turribul.

For people like us, it isn't fair. However, it also isn't fair that there are guys that have worked their bodies to the point of falling apart just to lose it all once they retire due to national policies. Trust me, I wouldn't really want to see a guy like Curt Schilling working at a Walmart. That would just be awkward. At the same time, it would almost be degrading for him because he was at the top of the world at one point, and stupid stuff happened where he just lost everything he practically earned over the course of 15 years. If I had a ton of savings due to a lavish broadcasting career with some sports news outlet, I'd be pretty mad too if I lost it all in a matter of minutes.

Welcome to the vicious cycle that we call life, sports world! Enjoy the ride through the Tunnel of Rejection and Financial Crapolla!

--AZ

AZ's Slant on Sunday - Mood Swings and Finger-Pointing That Accompany Horse Racing

PETA, if you don't like my post, then go back into your cubicles and make more inappropriate advertisements and PETA porn, mmkay? Now that I got that out of the way...

I LOVE HORSIES.

No, really, horses are cool. So cool that they can run great distances in a certain length of time. Seeing them race each other is pretty darned exciting at times. What's even better is seeing people lose hundreds of dollars betting on these beauties.

But anyway, it's interesting to see so many people invested in one athletic colt.

LOOK AT THIS CUTIE PIE

For the record, this is considered a colt since he is under the age of four. (Thanks, Wikipedia!)

Ladies and gentlemen, it was announced on Friday that the colt above, named I'll Have Another, had been scratched from the big race at Belmont. After winning the Kentucky Derby and the Preakness, this dandy of a horse was a favorite to win the Belmont, ultimately becoming the first horse to win the Triple Crown since the horse named Affirmed in 1978. After a little run around the stable the other day, I'll Have Another (which will be shortened to IHA during the rest of this post for my own sake) was feeling tension in his leg. After medical attention, it was noted that there was a swollen tendon, leaving the owners no choice but to scratch IHA from the race on Saturday.

He will be retired.
Most of America cries at this announcement.
I know I did.

The thing that fascinates me is how many people get invested in the Triple Crown races just because one horse defies the odds and wins the first two races. Sure, the races are incredibly grueling; the Belmont race is the longest of the three--a mile and a half, actually--and it can really wear out horses. There are other people that probably didn't bother watching the Belmont Stakes because IHA wasn't be in contention. I remember back in 2004 when Smarty Jones was in the running to win the Triple Crown and all of Philadelphia was rooting him on.
(Aside: 2004 was a really awkward year in Philadelphia sports, I'll tell you that right now. The Eagles were in the Super Bowl in the 04-05 season, for cripes' sake.)
The whole area was rooting for this little guy, and about 98% of the people in Philly never knew about this colt until the Kentucky Derby. It was pandemonium, and that was only in the city. I could only imagine what went on nationwide.

There are mood swings that often accompany horse races. When you turn on the television, you'll probably say: "Wow, those are some well-groomed horses," or if you're a female: "Awwwww, they're so cute! I want one!" Then when the guy on TV says "...and they're off," you turn into a hardcore football fan waiting for the fourth down play. It's like, "C'MON [insert long horse name here]!! HANG BACK! PACE YOURSELF!" Then during the final stretch, there could be one of a few things: jumping up and down, garbled yells, the soul-burning stare, or the mid-chew pause, among other things.

Does the media make the horse? In some ways they do, but in cases such as IHA, all you had to do was watch to see the horse come from behind in the Kentucky Derby and see the considerably smaller horse make quick work of the other big guys. When it comes to animals, I think a lot of people have that soft side to root for the horse that just races and runs around for a living.

However...

There are others that think it's animal cruelty and should be stopped. Are there reasons behind that? Sure. The horses are being trained to do it, and to make them go faster, there are times when they're whipped in the behinds. The aspect of gambling on horses can be mentioned too, although that usually isn't the reason brought to the forefront. Don't mention the words "glue factory" either; I think that would make any person cry to hear that be the outcome of any horse.

Horses--and even animals in general--don't really have to do much but act in their own natural ways to win crowds over. Think Shark Week; those things could kill you, but when you see what they do on TV, it's pretty awesome and you just think sharks are the coolest thing ever. Horses run around and eat lots of oats and draw carriages, but watching them race is rather hypnotizing. Is it cruel? I don't think so. They're doing something that's absolutely natural to them, so there's no reason to be upset that they're competing in the human world. If you asked them to swim an Olympic-sized pool, on the other hand, I'd consider that to be cruel since that's not a natural thing for them. I invest a lot of emotions in these guys, and frankly, I don't really mind it.

--AZ

AZ's Slant on Sunday - ESPN: The Real-Life Psychological Thriller

(After writing this, I fully realize that this post will either make or break the dream I may have of maybe working at ESPN. Still I write.)


I don't know about you, but I'm getting absolutely irritated by the often unnecessary coverage on ESPN about the realignment of some NCAA teams, aren't you? There's that expression of beating a dead horse, right? I think there should be a new expression called "beating the Kentucky Derby" after all of this.

Me, being the nerdy "one who still reads newspapers" kind of person, I read a copy of USA Today a few weeks ago. It mainly highlighted how ESPN may be the driving force in much of the realignment occurring in NCAA sports conferences today. How is that, you ask? The article states: "As a TV rights holder, ESPN is a business partner to a wide array of conferences and schools (its total college outlay will average more than $700 million annually by next year)" (Berkowitz et al. 2011). Time out...really? Oh wow. We're talking about an overhaul of juggernaut proportions here. There are now speculations of scripting these things just so people can keep watching like it's some soap opera in danger of being canceled because it's "out of style."

Here's the thing though, they (ESPN) won't be a public "you do this or else" kind of group--they'll only really start talking about it once it's brought up. Once that happens, they'll blow it up to Chernobyl-like proportions so people have no choice but to talk about it at the dinner table with your sons/dad or at the bar with your buddies. If you read my previous post, you know exactly where I'm going with this. ESPN isn't exactly telling them what to do, but they're certainly making a big deal out of it so the people have it on their mind and their opinions have a possibility of swaying something.

It irritates me, is all. This is what the media does day in and day out. At this point, you're probably asking why I still insist on going into this field. Trust me, it's not for the swaying or the setting of the agenda for the people. I want to write about things, just as I am right now; however, when it comes to blowing something up, then we've got problems.

When it comes to the agenda, it's like the organizations watch the coverage, and then they go, "huuh, we're actually doing this? Since when?" Because of the false coverage, high officials start asking questions, and just to keep suit, the organization will try to deny the allegations, leading to more and more controversy. If it sounds like it's a bad thing if a team is covering something up, that will lead to more press (bad press at that). Geez, I wish I had a blackboard at a time like this. If I were to display examples to you, I'd draw something that would ultimately resemble a vicious-looking cycle. Nobody is safe from the press. ESPN is this huge conglomerate that can make or break you. They've been doing it for over 30 years now, so they're pretty much seasoned veterans when it comes to making a mountain out of a molehill. Do they do it all the time? No, but they're certainly infamous for showing favoritism toward certain topics (coughcoughTimTebowcoughcough). On that note, nobody would really care about what Tebow does personally if ESPN wasn't constantly breathing down his neck...am I right or am I right?

Anyway, media outlets that primarily deliver news have the tendency to pick brains and psychologically screw around with your mind in some way. Is it ethical? Unfortunately, that is still up for discussion. People have to make money, so people have to make news stories. Is starting certain moves such as talking about division moves the right way to go about making things interesting for the audience? Well...I don't think we're ever going to avoid it. This is going to horribly confuse presidents of University status, but it looks like the world of college football is sucked into the realm of psychological drama and they're [art of the all-star cast.

Oh, journalism. How two-faced can you be...

[You can find the digital article I had mentioned here. You're welcome.]


--AZ

AZ's Slant on Sunday -- I Love LA, but for Football...?

As a lot of you might know, there are three big keys to marketing a home: location, location, and location.

There's obviously a lot of people in LA, you know. Even in the projects.

There has been a large amount of speculation that started in the beginning of the month that the next NFL relocation will be hitting the Los Angeles area. Some of the teams that may be in danger of relocation (as far as I know) have been Buffalo, Jacksonville, and Carolina among others. Because California could probably qualify as it's own country at this point, they have a strong chance for being the next possible NFL team within the next five years.


I know we're looking hard into the future, but after the approval of a football stadium being built in the City of Angels, you have to start asking questions and having opinions about these things. Am I at least right about that part?

Oh hey look...it's Randy Newman playing for us while you read this blog post!

 Here's right here, goofy.

As far as the population density goes, this fits relatively well for the state. The largest metropolitan area in California is in fact the Greater Los Angeles area. That means it's so big, they have three basketball teams (2 NBA, 1 WNBA), a hockey team, a soccer team, and one and a half baseball teams--the half being the annexation of the Angels from Anaheim. I guess if they want to complete the plating of the major sports teams, they need a football team.

Los Angeles is the second largest media market in the United States. However, they are the largest without an NFL team. That wasn't the case about 15 years back, as the Raiders and Rams danced around there until they landed in Oakland and St. Louis, respectively. Since then, LA has been very determined in gaining stature back in the league by acquiring another team. There have been several repercussions over the years though, and at the rate they are going, this is the closest they have been to gaining a new team. Before this, the closest they were was in 1999 when the Houston Texans happened. Since then, there has been talks of a revival of the USFL among other constructions of buildings and arenas for football. So far, about 90% of those talks have fallen through. The thing that makes me scratch my head the most is where all of the money for this is coming from, especially in a recession like this. I hope Arnold isn't digging into is Terminator earnings fund just to save face.

However, is it absolutely necessary for a large metropolitan area to have at least seven or eight major teams? When did cities become so separated with this stuff? It's like sports have begun to have secret affairs with our political system or something. I come from a metropolitan area myself, so I sort of understand why teams may be so clumped around one particular region. Cities can be so big that they do have sections along the lines of a North and South. Think of the New York Jets and the New York Giants for a second. With Buffalo aside, you have all of the sections of the New York metro area, plus the state of New Jersey swimming around in there whenever it pleases. There's enough of a fanbase out there that they can keep a team. Plus, they play in New Jersey anyway, but that's beside the point. Sometimes areas are so big, they can get away with having more than one team in a sports league. However, there are those times when a whole state only has the capacity to have a team for the rest of the state or states like the Tennessee Titans or the New England Patriots. Then you have the people in the dead zones that are forced to root for out-of-state teams, like people in the Dakotas, for instance.

I myself am not too keen on having an established team relocate to an area that can be considered a sports juggernaut of a state, but if there are the people out there to support it, there isn't much one can do but to wait and see what comes out of it. Just look at what happened when Winnipeg got another NHL team recently; sure, the people in Atlanta who were Thrashers fans (or lack thereof) may have been crushed by it, but the team was relocated to an area that bled hockey and really benefited from this. It could go either way; we don't quite know just yet how beneficial it will be to the gainer and the loser.

Some people do fear change, but oh well.

Without question, this is going to fuel rivalries between LA, the Raiders, and the Rams, so that would obviously be something fun to see. However, there's going to be fumbling with the divisions again, so there's a chance that teams will have to get ready to face adjusted divisions and new rivalries. Does everybody win all around on that one? You see, I was too young when all of the teams had the heavy amounts of relocation and renaming in the 90's; you can't hold that against me. Something like this to people like me are a bit of a culture shock. Once you're used to one thing, it's hard to see it re-branded or changed. But if it's for the people (not so much for the money) I'm okay with it.

There is one final thing I do want to ask: Despite the CFL existing in Canada, why did they shop around in Los Angeles before any other major city in Canada like Toronto? The NFL is wildly popular up north, and you would think they would extend the boundaries to get more people involved with the league and to gain a bigger and wealthier unit of fans and benefactors. I guess I'm asking the question that's too obvious for answering. I guess I'll find out soon enough.

Is the NFL in Los Angeles 2016 bound? Most likely. At this point, it's not going to stop for anybody.

--AZ

AZ's Slant on Sunday -- Jacknifed at Home Plate

Written in Red Whine Fashion...

Oh boy, aren't I being a commoner in this topic? Deal with it. I have a say for it too.

As many people have seen on the news or have watched on ESPN, Giants catcher and 2010 NL Rookie of the Year Buster Posey was caught in a collision with Marlins outfielder Scott Cousins on May 25th. This resulted in Posey sustaining a broken fibula and torn ligaments in his ankle.

After this collision, players, officials, and even baseball analysts are up in arms and thinking about either banning the concept of home plate challenges or fining players that cause violent collisions at home plate. People are not just claiming the idea of the collision to be completely unnecessary, but that it puts catchers (and oncoming players) in too much danger of serious injury. There have been statistics stating that more damage is done from a baseball player coming full force at a catcher than a linebacker coming full force at a quarterback. The main reason for this is that there is more padding involved, speed and size of the mass, and of course the positioning of the object about to get rocked. Officials want to cut this whole worry out completely.

Firstly, isn't it male human nature to pretty much fight for what you think is yours? That run is yours, you're going to do whatever it takes to earn what you're running for. What are you going to do? Steamroll the little bugger! But then I guess it's all fun and games until someone pokes an eye out in that case. Former catchers are all coming out now and stating their likes and dislikes about home plate collisions. Retirees like color commentator Tim McCarver have stated disgust and the disregard for plays like that. On the other hand, others such as Mike Matheny have seen no problem for the plays, only that they can be easily avoided and not needed to be worried about like it is now. Players like Matheny will state, "I'll forgive, but I won't forget. Just watch your behind next time." They don't believe it would be practical to change the rules. How can you stop a thing like this?

This whole thing about changing the rules is malarky. Are you kidding me? Remember Pete Rose and that famed home plate collision during the 1970 All-Star game? Catcher Ray Fosse had a separated shoulder after that--it didn't end his career, guys--and the game back then was so much rougher and more exposed to injury than today. Yes, Rose got a lot of flack for what he did, but that didn't deliver this whole big stink that it is now. Rose didn't exactly get death threats like Scott Cousins is right now. This recent collision has caused Cousins to get death threats and even harsh comments from Giants general manager Brian Sabean.

From the Associated Press, he stated:
"if I never hear from Cousins again, or he doesn't play another day in the big leagues, I think we'll all be happy."

Lemme get this straight, Mr. Sabean, how old are you? Not even Posey himself said the inappropriate garbage that you did. It's one thing to let your emotions get in the way, but it's another thing to be completely immature and overdo the "protection" of your team. Get real. You're a general manager, and you should know better than to be a pompous idiot. Frankly, I think Bruce Bochy is taking this rather well compared to your remarks. I hope Joe Torre dropkicks you.

Grumble-grumble-grumble-verbal vomit-grumble-grumble...

With that said, should there be rules or fines implicated when it comes to catchers and baserunners in this situation? How could you? I see big collisions like that coming about as accidents, and well...accidents happen. Think about it--if they banned the collisions, the only way the baserunner would be able to challenge the catcher would be through the "slide or surrender" rule which [correct me if I'm wrong here] is mostly incorporated in NCAA baseball/softball. They're adults, and there's no need for the sissy-nanny slide or surrender; this is the major leagues, for cripes' sake. If you have a really big problem with it, plate blockage needs to be evaluated and fixed in order that the catcher has the ability to stand (or crouch) firmly without rolling over joints and being bent in ways that they shouldn't be bent. If you're a baserunner, there should be measures taken to teach the boys not to lower their heads and ram the catcher like they're ruffians. There shouldn't be any of this "forearming the catcher" crapolla like the guys did back in the 70's and 80's. I hate to put it like this, but we people are more "dainty" in this day and age, and we can really describe ourselves in the context of the bull in the china shop.

Boys, let's just play nice, okay?

--AZ

(Quotes and information researched from ESPN.com)

AZ's Slant on Sunday -- Breakfast with Conference Champions

Good morning, everyone. I hope you're enjoying your holiday weekend.

Some...AT THE BEEEEEEEEEACH!!!!

Ah, Ocean City, New Jersey...where I will eventually get my Mack & Manco pizza, Kohr Bros. ice cream, salt water taffy, and FUDGE. See you in August, wonderful boardwalk...

Meanwhile, in another part of town...

Two major sports leagues are entering their championship matches, and there have been some intense matchups and some complete blowouts. What I find interesting is that each league is alternating their play around each other, so Game 1 of the NBA Finals starts on Tuesday, and Game 1 of the Stanley Cup Finals is the night after, and so on, and so forth. Pretty awesome. There will be something good and worth watching on TV every night. I'm sorry, I don't really watch much television other than sports, Jeopardy, Wheel of Fortune, and The Big Bang Theory.
But enough about me...let's talk about our upcoming duels in the NHL and NBA this week.
________________________________

NBA FINALS

Miami Heat vs. Dallas Mavericks

2006 REMATCH

In one corner, you've had the all-season statistic favorites led by Bosh, Wade, and LeBron, and in the other corner you have the team led by Dirk Nowitzki and Jason Kidd that's looking for their first title in franchise history owned by the madness that is Mark Cuban.

During the playoff run the Heat had, they made quick work of the 76ers and last year's runner-up Celtics. However, the Bulls were believed to give the Heat a run for their money, but the Heat had begun to show how clutch they could truly be. The Heat could definitely be seen as a threat and an answer to the ratings issues that the NBA Finals may have had in the past.

The Mavericks had a bulldozer-like run like the Heat. They not only gave the TrailBlazers and Thunder a shocking problem, but they even made Phil Jackson and the LA Lakers look like fools. With Nowitzki's brilliance and the team chemistry that has been proven unbreakable throughout this postseason, they're going to definitely deliver problems and make a good run.

Players to Watch:
Dallas: Jason Terry, Dirk Nowitzki, Jason Kidd
Miami: Chris Bosh, Dwayne Wade, LeBron James

Prediction: Miami in 7
Dallas is filled with skills and precision. However, Miami will definitely turn up the heat (no pun intended) and come in the clutch when absolutely necessary. That doesn't mean it'll be a clean sweep. It's going to be one heck of a series. If Miami doesn't get frustrated, they could gain control of the series very early on.

_____________________________

NHL STANLEY CUP FINALS

Vancouver Canucks vs. Boston Bruins

Champions: 20 Years in the Making

Vancouver, who has yet to win a Stanley Cup, has already made a good show by winning the President's Trophy and shown a strong resilience to letting a game slip by them. Boston, on the other hand, has a long legacy of being a threat in the NHL, but have yet to win a Stanley Cup since the 1971-72 season. In their only season meeting, Boston defeated Vancouver 3-1. Will the case be the same this time?

The Canucks have made a very strong showing all season. However, the Canucks have let sweet victory slip through their fingers many times this postseason, especially in games against the Blackhawks. It's been shown that Luongo isn't exactly a miracle drug despite the fact that only God saves more than him. If the Canucks want to win the Cup, they need to give their 100% in each and every game. No half efforts. It's happened way too many times already to count.

Boston had their brief ups and downs, but definitely came down in the clutch when needed. Based on the series already played, it seems like any player on the team is bound to be dangerous at any time during any game. Although it looked like that their clean sweeps and lack of problems in the playoffs make them look good on paper, their path here was not easy. Tim "The Tank" Thomas was an absolute monster in net, keeping damage control to a tolerable limit. Heck, I think he made a lot of game-saving dives and what have you as well. The whole team is well-rounded, and they could beat you on all ends if you let them sneak by you.
[Hey, maybe if they win, Mark Recchi the dinosaur will finally retire as a happy camper. Okay, that wasn't nice to say. He's still the man at the ripe age of 43.]

Players to Watch:
Vancouver: Daniel Sedin, Henrik Sedin, Ryan Kesler, Roberto Luongo
Boston: Tim Thomas, David Krejci, Nathan Horton, Patrice Bergeron, Zdeno Chara

Prediction: Boston in 6
The main thing that will keep the Bruins keeping up will be Tim Thomas in net and Zdeno Chara playing massive defense in the back. However, Roberto Luongo won't let lollipops of goals in as much as Antii Niemi (and basically every Flyers goaltender that played) did. Where Boston's defense excels, Vancouver's is highly lacking. If Vancouver wants to survive, they need to stick together as a unit and make sure that the walls are bolstered. This should be quite the show if every teammate decides to show up each game.

___________________________________

And that, my friends, is my Slant on Sunday.

Oh wait, I mentioned breakfast in the title....

Have fun with it. Enjoy the rest of your weekend.

--AZ

AZ's Slant on Sunday -- No, I Will Not Spend $4.75 for a Bottle of WATER.

This lovely post is dedicated to overpriced ballpark food.

The main culprit...

Last week, I went to Citizens' Bank Park with my family for the Phillies/Mets game. (school-sponsored) Usually on those days I practically starve myself so I can stuff my face with yummy sweet treats at the game. At this point, I'm somewhat questioning this method now. Ever since the Phillies became a dynasty, prices have gone up and the middle class has to pretty much go, "So wait, you want me to pay just as much for food as I did my ticket??"
Grant it, CBP has their "Dollar Dog Nights" which is every college student's dream: beer and unlimited hot dogs that are quickly boiled and wrapped so enough is made for all of the ramen-infested bellies that want more substance in their lives. But aside from that, some of the online food menus that I've looked at over the past day and a half is absolutely crazy, especially when it's done so that the seating prices don't have to be raised to astronomical levels. Just think, you crappy teams out there; because you guys suck, the food is penalized, and people don't eat your stuff because it's not reasonably priced.

But get this: even when the teams are doing well, the prices go up so the city gets more revenue and the organization itself gets more money to throw around for big names and other big things that I can't think of at this moment. It's a rather vicious cycle when you start thinking about it. Just using Philly as an example because I live in the city, ticket prices this season rose $2 overall, and it's not because nobody's coming to the games. Because there are so many people that come to the games day in and day out, the organization is guaranteed money because the people want to see winners and want to go often. I believe that the statistic is that over 3,000,000 people went to the ballpark last year, and the stadium has had about 115 consecutive sellouts give-or-take a few. Does that mean that the food prices have to be so ridiculously high? I say nay to that one, kids. Since the seating prices are high enough, there has to be a halfway meeting with the food.

Last week, I had a hot roast pork sandwich from Tony Luke's [which has the best cheesesteaks in the city--end of aside] and a bottle of water. Grand total of food (not including the rest of my family): $14.25. What. On Earth...? I understand why the sandwich was so much (it was $9.50, and it's Tony Luke's for God's sake) but the water...why??? I could get water from a tap with the same quality as Dasani! Anyway, although some of the prices at the park are reasonable (Chickie and Pete's crab fries are about $6.50 the last time I checked--and that's enough for about two people), the prices of drinks are rather uncalled for.

It's a real sneaky ploy, but it's somewhat unethical. To be perfectly frank (see what I did there?) about this whole thing, you actually need water more than food to survive. You shouldn't ask someone for water that costs $5 in order to either replenish thirst on a hot day or to wash down 20 under-boiled hot dogs that your body just ingested. Be thankful that we even have the money to spend during this recession to do leisurely things like sit down with family at the ballpark and eat and watch the home team be awesome and everything related to that.

I know one post about complaints isn't going to save the world of this problem. If people are hungry or thirsty, they will buy something. After all, you're usually not allowed to bring any foreign food or drink into stadiums. There's also the issue with tailgaters eating [and boozing] before the games in the parking lots so whomever doesn't have that luxury of coolers and portable grills has to find a way to stuff the face while at the stadium. I guess season ticket holders are smart enough to avoid these things every time they go to a game.

How did my inspiration turn for inanimate objects? I just expanded on a complaint about a bottle of water. Man, I guess this means I'm a crazed writer and I'll get a good job someday.

--AZ

AZ's Slant on Sunday - Star Power!

(Written for the fact that the Cavs broke their 26-game losing streak this past Friday against the Clippers. Way to go, failboat captains!)

What makes a team? Is it the star power or is it the overall skill and talent of the team? Can one name lead a team and franchise to glory?
Don't try to answer it. It's rhetorical, and there's no way you're going to get a definite 'yes' or 'no' from it.
Many arguments may go into consideration when it comes to thinking that it may be one man or a few men that make a team.

Have you ever seen the movie Kicking and Screaming? It's one of those Will Ferrell sports/slapstick movies. Anyway, in the middle of the movie, all the little guys had to do was pass the ball to "the Italian kids" and they'd score and win the game.

In another childish example, the characters from the cartoon Arthur had Francine Frensky...

and the characters from Doug had Patti Mayonnaise.

[...How ironic that in the last two characters that I've mentioned, both females were depicted as athletes.... could that be another post? I don't know yet.]
These following characters epitomize the stigma that one person unifies the team and makes the team better as a whole, and this particular leader "shines" and is set apart as the best player of the group.

To bring up my point of writing this post, let's take a look at the Cleveland Cavaliers basketball team.

Looking at their roster as a whole, the team has zero big-name players. And being perfectly honest, none of the players on the team average over 20 points a game. The team has zero momentum, has only won nine of 54 games, and...LeBron James dropped them like a bad habit and flew to South Beach to play with the Miami Heat.

Speaking of this dude, let's now look at the Miami Heat.

 

Miami is 39-14. They also have LeBron James, Dwayne Wade, and Chris Bosh. They're tops in the conference too. Whenever one thing tweaks this holy trinity of b-ball players, it makes top news on ESPN. They're the talk of the league, and people are expecting the NBA Championship to come to this town in the near future. But is it because of these three guys, or is it the team as a whole?

Everyone at some point will call a team with this kind of star power and recognition "America's team." Teams such as the Dallas Cowboys and New York Yankees have been given this recognition over the years for having the most legendary players to ever step foot in the sport. Many of the men who have experienced the big show itself have won several titles and have played with other up-and-coming players that would soon join them in the greatness of the Hall of Fame. However, some people who have won these titles and weren't considered the "star" have been overshadowed.

Here's an example of that. Let's go back in time to the 2001 World Series. The country just experienced 9/11 and we were getting our first taste of November baseball. It was the New York Yankees dueling against the Arizona Diamondbacks. Arizona came away with the emotional Game 7 victory, and the leadership of Luis Gonzales, Randy Johnson, and Curt Schilling led them through it. Wait, who were those other guys? Point made. You have the stars and the memorable names, but without them, who are those other guys? I guess you can say this now since they've lived in the cellar on and off since then. I think they've only made two or three playoff appearances since then (and I'm not looking at these stats right now, they're guesses, so sue me).

However, there are several cases where there is a lack of definite star power, but they all work together as a unit and unify the city while winning the sports title. Dare I say we look at the Green Bay Packers?

Sure, people were paying attention to who Aaron Rodgers was because he's the quarterback. Other than that, who did he really have? The bigger linemen on the offense and defense were being lost to injury, and that meant that the other guys had to step up and bring the Lombardi trophy back home to Titletown. Lo and behold, they did just that. Now we all know who James Starks, Jordy Nelson, and Clay Matthews is.

Speaking of Clay Matthews, he did something goofy this past week. Fast forward the video to about 2 minutes and you'll see what went down in Green Bay.

I guess big things like the Super Bowl can make you do other big things in other lands, right?

A topic like this can bring out many opinions and many answers as to what makes a team. I guess you can say that it works in a cycle. Those who win become legends and stars, and the rest have to beat the best to be the best. Everyone will start off small at one point, regardless of how well their college career treated them. To become the star, one must be set apart.
If you want what I think, no man is an island. It takes more than one guy to achieve greatness.

In the case of the Cleveland Cavaliers...they need new management. That's all.

--AZ

AZ's Slant on Sunday - Yao-za!

OH MY LORD, A BASKETBALL ENTRY?? I KNOW, RIGHT?

Let's get a quick rundown of the big guy I'm going to be talking about right now:
(Music Please)

Yao Ming
Age: 30
Height: 7' 6"
Weight: 310 lbs.
Center for Houston Rockets






Okay, we have a Chinese giant on our hands. He's been gifted with height, ergo he was shown the ways of the basketball.
However, as of late, he's been having issues like this... (Yes, I went there)

What does this mean for the future of the gentle giant? It's not good. With as many injuries in such short time, it's going to take down some of his credibility and his overall ability on the court. Let's be honest here, kids, once someone starts getting hurt over time, they can get a little rusty. The bigger they are, the harder they fall, right? Sure, he's 30, but guess what? It's his ankle. Constant wear and tear on something like the ankle or foot can be absolutely pivotal on a player's future.

Come to think of it, it also does a world of hurt on the international involvement in American basketball. Remember that Spanish kid--what's his name? Ricky Rubio? Yeah, him. See, international impact is so thinly spread in this country that I can't even remember his name. He even caught on with my drift and didn't bother signing with the Minnesota Timberwolves last year. Heck, Allen Iverson went to Turkey to play basketball. That's how "uncool" we are, I guess. But honestly, when was the last time the NBA got a really huge international star playing on our soil? I can't even find that. Someone else probably could.

Without doubt, the advertising world sans-Ming for another season is going to lead to...well, more reason to hire another tall guy like Shaq to represent the height required to be considered a big NBA star. Believe me when I say this: when you're unique, you will be used to draw attention. Self-explanatory. I feel like we're back in Buffalo Bill's Wild West Show again or something with the sensational attraction methods, but seriously, that's what guys like Yao and Shaq are mainly used for (honestly, it's not so much Shaq anymore...he's made a bigger name for himself, finally).
Example: Yao + Vern = Obvious.

But I digress in these cases. A hurt man can result in a hurt product, resulting in hurt relations around the country and in foreign audiences. It sucks, but what are you going to do? Accidents happen. I bet Yao will be a good sport about it. He'll still promote and do what he can while off the court.

--AZ

AZ's Slant on Sunday - Texas Toast vs. The San Francisco Treat

Earthquakes vs. Dust Storms

Ahhhnold vs. George W. Bush
Bill & Sue vs. Chuck & Nolan

The Bay vs. The Alamo

CUE STANDOFF

Here we are, folks. This is for all of the marbles. Both of last year's top two contenders went down this year, and the teams that beat them will now meet here. The best teams from the west. What are we going to see?

We're going to see pitching. Lots and lots of pitching. Shoot, one of the owners was a pitcher during his time in the majors. Duels, Texas style? YES. OF COURSE. With guns like Cliff Lee, Tim Lincecum, Barry Zito, C.J. Wilson, Brian Wilson, Neftali Feliz, and many more, we're going to see a lot of strategy and a lot of whiffs as well. In a game of pitching, you need smart hitting, and definitely smart running. It's like Risk. No, more like Battleship. At any rate, we have some big bats to accompany the stellar pitching. Championship series MVP's Cody Ross and Josh Hamilton have shown their strength by hitting home runs off of aces as if they were getting pitches from minor league guys. Aside from these two, small ball has gotten the job done as other players have been sparing with the extra-base hits.

"Curses" have plagued these two teams for a very long time. The Giants has [this is grammatically correct] not won a World Series since 1954--when they were still in New York. The last time they had made it to The Show was in 2002, in which they lost to a team who had never won a World Series before: The Anaheim Angels. Will this be the same case, as the Rangers are new to this stage as well? The Rangers have been defying the odds since their Game 5 win against the Rays in the ALDS. They have made it to the divisional series (and Championship series before 1994) only to lose and never advance for a fight to win a pennant. They finally did that on Friday, and now they'll be looking to scratch their name off of an infamous list that they share with the Mariners and Expos/Nationals.

Wednesday will be the start of an all-out war of two teams that have proven themselves worthy of being named World Champs. Will you be a part of the showdown in the Wild Wild West?

You want my opinion on who will win? I dare not say. Did anyone see who I called to win? I was only right with one bracket. That was it. Okay, fine. Rangers in 6. Now go enjoy your football games.

--AZ

AZ's Slant on Sunday - What Annoys Me as a Sports "Enthusiast"

(Warning to people outside of Philadelphia: I'm going to be using a lot of examples from a Philadelphia fan's perspective, so if you don't "dig that," I'm sorry. It's the only way that I know.)

Yeah, you read that right. I'm going to talk about what annoys me from a sports fan's perspective.
I figured I would take the last of my teenage angst out before midnight and write up a rant on what drives me nuts day in and day out about people that hang on the bandwagon or just refuse to understand. If I sound rebellious and irritating enough to you, then I'm doing my job.
Let's get started.

Ever since I was four years old, I was a Phillies fan. That means I've been a fan since 1994(ish), which was the year of the strike and the year after Mitch Williams gave a great pitch to Joe Carter and ended the World Series hopes for the Phils in '93. Even when they sucked in 1997 and every other year until Charlie Manuel came along, I followed them, and here they are with a playoff dynasty a-la the Braves from the 1990's. But when you come across a dynasty like this, you see some ugly stuff. You start seeing "fans" come out of the woodwork and you go, "Wait, what just happened? Where did they come from?" Once a team enters the playoffs, the fans get on the horse and are all about the team that they have barely followed at all during the year. I highly doubt it's the #1 reason for people to go to a bar and get drunk and be part of a party. Not everyone is like that. Why do people do this? I have no idea, but it annoys the die-hard fans because they've followed the team since game one and know the exact reason why the team is there and who was on the team doing it.

Here are two examples for you as to what annoys me (and other people):
If you asked a female Phillies fan who her favorite player was, you would probably get different answers depending on preference. Personally, I admire Chase Utley. I've liked him since he was brought up from the farm in '03. He has a respectable work ethic and he loves the game and shows it on the field. Then there are some females that say Jayson Werth is their favorite. Why? "Because he's cute." That's not a good enough answer. I am sorry.  Personally, he looks too much like Edge from WWE to suit my tastes. Anyway, it hurts as a fan to hear stuff like that, because you should at least like a player for a better reason than a physical trait. Sure, I like Cliff Lee "because he's cute" too, but he's also a heck of a pitcher and I absolutely love his ethic.

I digress.

It also hurts when you get someone watching a playoff game, and they're screaming at the television when they don't know the rules to the game or don't understand why something happens. That one hurts more than hitting your funny bone on a counter. They get excited when someone gets a base hit but then wonder why bullpen guys get paid so much money to come in for one inning. That, or they get upset when a guy like Ryan Howard strikes out when he gets paid so much money to play for the team.

And I digress a final time.

When you see the real fans, they still wear the jerseys of guys who haven't played for the team in 15 years because it brings luck or the vintage player tee shirts and other assorted things like that. They "hate," but they "hate with feeling" because they'll love the player or coach regardless of how much they just swore at the person in question five minutes ago. They know the players, the plays,
(FUN FACT: My younger brother and I got a picture with Curt Schilling during a photo day when he was with the Phillies in the late '90s. Where the photo is right now escapes me. I'll find it in my basement someday.)

Aside from this, it's cool that a city will show spirit and support for a team that has worked very hard to make it somewhere. However, I just wish it were more consistent in a huge city like the one that I live in. I hate to pick on Philly people, but good God, the love-hate relationship with the Eagles is incredibly painful.

A girl in one of my classes is from Indiana, and she loves the Colts regardless of whether they win or lose a game. Some Eagles fans are nowhere near that sometimes. Two weeks ago against the Redskins, people were totally hating on OB Kevin Kolb because of the type of game that he had. Today after beating the Falcons, people are going to be saying, "Wow, he had a great game! He's good for us!" Well, for now at least, right? (Ha, ha.)

Death to the Bandwagon. ...Or just the state of mind.

I might not know everything about a sport and know every stat about a player, but I try my best to respect the player's work  I also try not to be as biased. C'mon, people. It's a known fact that since I'm from Philly I will be as brutal as a fan as there will ever be, but now that I've branched out into other sporting interests and other teams, I'm "not that kind of fan" anymore. I'm what you would call an enthusiast that works hard to know the sport and to love it and give it some "hugs." I think if we give people more of a chance to understand the sport and give everyone a chance to appreciate it like I do, that would be nice. We wouldn't have so many people out in the dark. Isn't sports a way to bring people together and appreciate one another?? Don't get me wrong, I'm glad people come together to appreciate the sport, but I think we sometimes get together for all of the wrong reasons. I'd love for the bandwagon state of mind to diminish someday, but I don't think that will ever attempt to happen in my lifetime.

I know I'm probably going to be called an "elitist" after saying some of the stuff that I did (then again, I already was last night), but that's just how I feel about these things. It's my opinion. I'm not going to judge you if you're the type of person that I talked about in this entry. That's not my style at all. I just like to expose things and poke fun at them because I'm horrible at being a funny person.

On a lighter note and speaking of funny, here's a funny picture of Jonathan Papelbon fighting a bear Pokemon named Ursaring. I made this a little over six months ago because I was bored in school.

Oh hey, it's almost midnight...

--AZ

AZ's Slant on Sunday - Women in Sports

I'll admit, this is a rather tough topic to talk about, especially since: A - I am a woman; B - It's tough to be "fair and balanced" about this area of conversation (Just like FOX News! ...wait.); and C - I don't want to sound like an overzealous sexist about it. Now do you see why this can be such a great topic to talk about? It's edgy, right?

Now let's get started with AZ's Slant on Sunday! Music for this week, please...

"I am woman, hear me roar!"
Since when did we roar? Last time I checked I don't have a furry mane.
But at any rate, women have been striving to make a mark in the world. Although that Helen Reddy song is a very, VERY poor example of what the movement for women's rights is all about, we as women have many more examples as to how far we've made it. Since this is a blog about sports, I'll be talking about the advancements that have been made in the world of sports. Even though many people can't really tell that anything has happened, they're there for you. Depending on when you were born, you might have experienced or have heard about:

The Battle of the Sexes with Billie Jean King

 

The All American Girls Professional Baseball League from the WWII/Baby Boom Era

 

And maybe, the FIFA Women's World Cup that began in 1991.

These three events, along with many others along the way, have shaped the face of women's sports around the world. However, appreciation from women's sports come in short bursts, it seems. 

For example, the 1999 Women's World Cup started a huge uprising in girls' soccer organizations around the United States, and even began the Women's United Soccer Association (WUSA). However, this was short lived, as the WUSA only existed for three years. However, the 2008 Olympics in Beijing revived the hope of women's professional soccer after a US gold medal win. In 2007, Women's Professional Soccer (WPS) was founded, and began play in 2009. Although there are very few teams in the league, this remains a sport for the preteen girl audience and is very popular among them.

There is another example, albeit a small (very small) one. Because of the popularity of the Women's College World Series and the [now inactive] Olympic sport, the National Pro Fastpitch (NPF) league has seen much better days. Starting in 2004, college graduates and Olympians would duke it out on the softball field. However, this league is incredibly small and only has four teams. Over the past few years or so, many have folded due to money issues (which we'll talk about very shortly). Due to the IOC cutting softball from the 2012 London games, what will be the future of women's softball nationwide?

An exception to this rule may be this: the rise of popularity of NCAA Women's Basketball in the 1990's was a major contributor to one of the most successful women's sports organizations, the Women's National Basketball Association (WNBA). Since 1997, young girls and older fans alike attend games in droves to support their favorite teams. With the latest contract extension in play, we'll be seeing these ladies making their jump shots for many years to come.

Why is there a lack of success in the sports organizations?

The main reason why many of the women's sports organizations either fall or fail to see the light of day is because of promotions and revenue. Men's sports may have been around much longer, but very few have folded due to contracts and loss in revenue (the NHL counts here). Women's sports are considered a small fish in the ocean because of the promotional hardships that come from keeping fans and sponsors. This begins a chain reaction, as lack of sponsors means lack of teams, and lack of teams leads to lack of overall interest of the league itself. Have you ever thought about the salaries of the players in these leagues? Many women have to work second jobs because the money earned from each game isn't enough to live on during the offseason. Sponsorship and team revenue is often abysmal depending on the area and the forms of advertisement, and it usually leads to the (not purposely) overpayment of teams and officials and puts a league in massive debt. The WUSA unfortunately suffered that fate.

A question you have to ask about women's professional sports is: "Do the young girls of this generation really care enough about the leagues?" I was nine when the Women's US National Soccer Team won the Cup, and to me it was a pretty big deal, considering that I played soccer and it was an inspiration for me to maybe one day play at that level. Ten years later, I can't say that I have that same interest, but I'm rather glad that women's soccer is holding it's own and attempting to make a name for themselves. I understand fully that it's hard to market a women's sport to a male audience, but where there's a will, there's a way. Maybe the men from Mars are the real key to our success. Eww. I don't know.

You have to admit--we really did come a long way now, didn't we?

--AZ