http://blogcritics.org/ A sinister cabal of superior bloggers on music, books, film, popular culture, politics, and technology - updated continuously. en Copyright 2005-2007 by the authors Tue, 30 Jan 2007 17:41:44 EST http://backend.userland.com/rss Blogcritics.org custom software http://blogcritics.org/ Phillip WinnSunday, August 26, 2007, marks the switch of all Blogcritics.org article feeds from full-content to short-content. This is the result of several converging factors, and is unfortunately a permanent decision (as permanent as any decision can be on the web, that is). We are aware of all of the reasons that this is a Bad Idea, and we are aware that some of you will be quite upset about having to click on something to read the free content, and we're sorry. Unfortunately, despite great effort, full-content feeds are not currently economically viable. Two other factors are involved: full-content feeds have resulted in an unprecedented level of content theft, with BC content appearing on many websites, usually spam sites, without attribution or permission. This duplicate content causes a cascading set of problems, not the least of which is that search engines generally aren't favorable to duplicate content, and don't always guess correctly. Finally, our RSS advertising partner is strongly in favor of short-content feeds. We hope that you'll continue to subscribe to BC via RSS, and when an article grabs your eye, it's only a click away, still free on the BC website. Thank you for your understanding. Administration0@blogcritics.org Sun, 26 Aug 2007 12:00:00 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2007/01/30/174144.php Zach BakerWhen I found out Barbaro died, my reaction was pretty insubstantial. It’s not that I don’t feel bad for the horse, or that I don’t feel bad for the people who owned or cared about the horse. But with everything there is to be concerned about in the world, I find the death of a horse to be a somewhat minor tragedy.So imagine my surprise when Charles Gibson reported at the top of last evening’s broadcast of World News Tonight about the death of Barbaro. I can only imagine what Peter Jennings would have thought. Maybe he’d have read it first. But I just can’t see Jennings reading the story, then going to a correspondent at the Pentagon for a report about the war. So let me get this straight. America is engaged in two wars where people are dying every day. And the first story, on a world news program, is the death of a horse? It’s not that I don’t like animals. I’ll admit to crying when my dogs died. But I don’t ever remember so much significance placed on the death of an animal. Barbaro may have inspired people; he may have made people happy. In that sense, I understand the sadness. But I couldn’t help but laugh when I read the Associated Press story by Dan Gelston, in which David Switzer (executive director of the Kentucky Thoroughbred Association) remarked, apparently with a straight face, that “this horse was a hero.” I have always been cautious of using the term “hero” in sports. Of course, my main fear was in using it to describe players like John Elway or Derek Jeter, as it would equate them with soldiers, police, and firefighters. But by using “hero” and “horse” in the same sentence, Switzer has practically ruined the term. And what exactly did Barbaro do to earn “hero” status?” I’ll admit that animals can be heroes, but most of them have to do something heroic. If a dog saves a child from a burning house, the dog is a hero.I have never owned a horse, so maybe that’s the reason for me not understanding the significance of this story. To me, a horse is a horse. I’m sure people who own horses understand, and people who saw Barbaro win the Kentucky Derby live understand.But I don’t. Sports58925@blogcritics.org Tue, 30 Jan 2007 17:41:44 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2007/01/13/135247.php Zach Baker“It was 20 years ago today, Sgt. Pepper taught the band to play” – The BeatlesThursday marked the 20th anniversary one of the most memorable games in American sports history. The national media called it "The Drive." I call it "The day I realized what being a Cleveland sports fan meant."The problem with anniversaries is that they are reminders, but little more than that. Often connections are lost, or not clear to us. But in this case, I can see how that game altered history. It moved jobs, changed paths, made a superstar, and crushed a dream.As I write this, I wonder if the previous sentence is a bit too dramatic. As I read it over a second time, I am certain of that.But when John Elway marched the Denver Broncos 98 yards for a tying touchdown on Jan. 11, 1987, it set in motion a chain of events that no one could have foreseen. The Broncos beat the Browns that day, 23-20, on an overtime field goal by Broncos kicker Rich Karlis. As I cried to my father after the game (I was 6), he assured me there was next year, and a number of years to come.But looking back now, I have decided that Jan. 11, 1987 was the Browns’ best chance at a Super Bowl, and subsequently a championship, since thir last title in 1964 The Browns had good teams after that, and more heartbreaking losses. The next season, Earnest Byner’s fumble became football lore. But that was in Denver. The 1987 contest was in Cleveland, and the Browns led by seven with less than six minutes left in the game. The Broncos had the ball on their own 2 yard line.It was Cleveland’s best chance.Of course, John Elway ruined it with a 15-play drive that concluded when he found a sliding Mark Jackson over the middle in the end zone. Elway’s legend was born, while the Browns were left in Cleveland, wondering what went wrong.I mentioned all the dramatic stuff earlier. The reason for all of that was it’s my belief that had Elway not completed his comeback, Marty Schottenheimer would not have been fired after the 1988 season for not being able to get to the Super Bowl.He would not have been replaced by Bud Carson, who would not have been replaced by Jim Shofner, who would not have been replaced by Bill Belichick.Belichick would not have been able to release quarterback Bernie Kosar, which would not have turned a large number of fans against the team in 1993.Browns’ owner Art Modell would have been viewed as a saint for his success, not as an inept owner, and thus never would have felt the need to move to Baltimore in 1996, which would not have meant three years without a team in Cleveland, the expansion era, and a franchise which has had only winning season since its 1999 rebirth.I’ll admit, there’s some simplification there, but even if every issue in the sorted history of the Browns was discussed, I can still see myself coming to this conclusion:The Browns would have never left if The Drive hadn’t happened.What is gone is gone, and lord knows there are worse things in the world than losing a football team for three years (Baltimore lost theirs for over a decade). It’s not my desire to delve into the frustrating history of Cleveland sports with this column. But "The Drive" does have one other effect, one that will likely be an issue as early as Sunday.As much as The Drive has haunted the Browns, it has also haunted Marty Schottenheimer. Schottenheimer has won exactly 200 games regular season as an NFL coach in his career, but has never won a conference championship game. There is talk in San Diego that Schottenheimer -- despite a 14-2 regular season -- will be let go if he can’t get to Miami.The criticism about Schottenheimer’s ability to succeed in the playoffs began 20 years ago, in Cleveland. It began with "The Drive."Marty can silence his critics Sunday, and next week. All he needs is a pair of wins. Reach the Super Bowl, and the criticism ought to vanish – or at least subside.It’s my hope that Schottenheimer gets what he deserves -– a championship. He has watched a nemesis (John Elway) and a protégé (Bill Cowher) overcome their “can’t win the big one” labels. Even the owner who fired him experienced a championship after decades of doubt about his abilities.If anyone deserves a title, it’s Marty. He deserved one 20 years ago, but didn’t get it.This might be his last chance. I hope the Chargers bring Marty what he has certainly earned. Sports58171@blogcritics.org Sat, 13 Jan 2007 13:52:47 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2007/01/04/093154.php Zach BakerWe are taught, from an early age, to distrust politicians. The same goes for infomercial pitchmen, lawyers, and used car salesmen.Of course, not all politicians, pitchmen, lawyers, and salesmen are deceitful. It's a stereotype, to be sure. But somewhere along the way, I wish my mother had pulled me aside in my youth and told me: "Son, beware of football coaches."Football coaches lie. They say they aren't going anywhere, and then jet off. When I was in college at Bowling Green in 2002, Urban Meyer, then the school's football coach, publicly said he wouldn't leave after two short, successful years. Weeks after, he was flying to Utah to coach.This is not to single out Meyer. Butch Davis denied he was going from the University of Miami -- which he had rebuilt into a title contender -- to the Cleveland Browns in 2001. He even signed a contact extension with the Hurricanes. But soon, he was standing at a podium in Cleveland, sentencing himself to the Browns head coaching position.Four years after Davis, Miami has been jilted again. Only this time, it wasn't the college.The Dolphins had to know they were getting an interesting character when they hired Nick Saban away from the LSU. After all, it was Saban who told the media he wasn't leaving LSU. Then he bolted to the NFL.A look at his coaching career shows two things: he's pretty good at what he does, and he doesn't stay anywhere too long. He was at Toledo one year, Michigan State, and LSU five years each, and was with the Miami Dolphins two years.When his named surfaced for the Alabama gig, the coach denied he was leaving south Florida, even appearing to scold reporters for even asking the question.I'm not really offended by any of this. What I do wonder though, is if potential Alabama players, when meeting with Saban in the near future, will ask him a question. After being talked to about the dedication and loyalty in the program at Alabama, a player should stop the coach and ask him if he can promise he'll be there when the player leaves.But it probably doesn't matter. No answer from Saban, or most coaches, can be taken at face value. Sports57779@blogcritics.org Thu, 4 Jan 2007 09:31:54 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/12/08/023958.php Zach BakerThere are issues that surround Barry Bonds and will follow him for the rest of his career, and beyond.But of all the questions that have hounded him over the years, the biggest one might have to be asked this week, after Bonds signs a one-year deal with the Giants: Who on earth thought it was a good idea to give Barry Bonds $16 million?For the sake of argument, I'll forgo the legal issues surrounding Bonds at the moment, and even pretend (as if it were possible) that the issues do not exist.Sure, Giants' management sees a guy that has hit 734 homers in his career, and who has been the primary drawing card for the team since he arrived in 1993.I'm sorry, but all I see is a 42-year-old guy who turns 43 in July. I see a guy who has hit only 31 homers in the last two seasons, missing more than 170 games over that span.Bonds is also someone who would benefit greatly from only having to swing the bat. By signing in the National League, the 20-year veteran will have to pick up a glove nearly every game he starts.Those who are in favor of the signing can point to two things: First, Bonds is 22 homers away from breaking Henry Aaron's all-time mark, a moment which will result in a number of sellouts and revenue.The second reason is Bonds' proven track record as a draw. The Giants drew more than 3 million fans in 2006, and since the Giants managed just 76 wins last season, you'd have to figure it was his allure that brought them in.But assuming that all those things remain consistent in 2007, can the salary still be justified? In over 20 seasons in the Major Leagues, the slugger has appeared in one World Series. The Giants have missed the postseason in each of the last three years -- all with Bonds' off the field issues hovering over the franchise. Does the signing really help the Giants contend? Given Bonds problems getting along with some teammates, isn't it possible the signing does just the opposite?What I really don't understand about the $16 million deal is that no other teams appeared to show much interest, much like the last time Bonds was on the free agent market. So why did the Giants give him so much? In 1993, as a free agent, Barry Bonds reached an agreement with the Giants that was for six years and $43 million. He was 28 then, coming off a season in which he batted .311, hit 34 homers and stole 39 bases. Then, it was worth a bit more than $6 million. Now, at 42, Bonds convinced the Giants he's worth nearly three times that.Money sure doesn't buy you what it used to. What it is, is anyone's guess. Sports56843@blogcritics.org Fri, 8 Dec 2006 02:39:58 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/11/19/041242.php Zach BakerIt was billed as the Game of the Century.I'm not sure if it was the greatest game I have ever seen (or even the greatest Ohio State-Michigan game I have ever seen), but it was very good. But as great as the game was, it leaves a complicated aftermath.The Buckeyes have punched their ticket for Arizona. Now the question will be who takes them on.Some will say, after Ohio State's 42-39 win over Michigan Saturday, that there should be a rematch for the national title. I'm not in that line of thinking, but the closeness of the Wolverines' loss will certainly make it interesting over the next few weeks.I don't favor a rematch for a few reasons. OSU coach Jim Tressel said earlier this week that a team should win its conference in order to play for the national title. This was a very gutsy statement to make, in the days before the big game, but I think the coach has a point.Ohio State is considered by almost everyone to be the best team in the country. Saturday was Michigan's shot to knock it off. Though it was a valiant effort, the Wolverines came up short. Even if Michigan were to play Ohio State and beat it, that still wouldn't really prove anything. Ohio State plays Michigan twice. The two teams split. Which is the champion? Michigan. I'm not saying the system is fair, but we don't know how USC, Florida, or Arkansas would do against the Buckeyes. We do know how Michigan did.If two of those teams finish the season with one loss, they have as much right to the championship game as any team. And those two teams could claim conference titles, something Michigan does not have.Notre Dame could also finish with one loss, but in that case, I can't see how anyone (not even me) could justify putting the Irish in the title game, after what Michigan did to them.Of course, if January comes and Michigan is the only one-loss team left, they should face the Bucks again. Which pretty much makes the whole thing moot.And isn't that the point? Sports55984@blogcritics.org Sun, 19 Nov 2006 04:12:42 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/09/27/173644.php Zach BakerWith one man's pain comes another's opportunity.Those of us in Northwest Ohio have been wondering if Buccaneers quarterback and University of Toledo product Bruce Gradkowski would ever get a shot at starting.The way Chris Simms played the first two weeks, it appeared just a matter of time before Gradkowski got a shot, and especially since the Bucs' only other option was Tim Rattay. Well, it happened, but not the way we wanted -- or expected.Simms has dealt with criticism since his days at Texas, when he was pitted in a quarterback controversy with Major Applewhite.Some thought his career in college had more to do with his name (his father, former NFL quarterback Phil Simms), than with his abilities.Those doubts continued into his NFL career. Hall of fame quarterback Steve Young, now a commentator for ESPN, questioned Simms' toughness last season.Well, I think we can put those concerns away forever.Any man who plays a football game, leaves because of injury, then returns to lead a comeback in the fourth quarter, is tough.But to have your spleen removed and need a blood transfusion afterwards? That's John Wayne crazy.I can write about it lightly now, but hearing about it Sunday night, it was scary. Simms is only 26, and is just in the beginning of not only his career, but his life. While some have downplayed the seriousness of his injuries, it's hard to make a blood transfusion not sound important.Sometimes I wonder about football analysts questioning a player's toughness, mental or physical. It seems to me just to make it to the NFL requires dedication and a high tolerance for pain. Simms finally proved people wrong, but at what cost?And it's into this situation Gradkowski walks. He threw for over 2,400 yards for the Rockets last season, but I doubt the national media was even aware of him. It's what happens when you're taken in the sixth round. Like Simms, he will no doubt have his critics. Listed at 6-2, he doesn't have the size of many of his peers. He won't be able to be as daring as he was with Toledo, or even in the preseason, when he had to fight for a roster spot.If a Mid-American Conference fan wanted to oversimplify things, they could do so by asking if Gradkowski is the next Chad Pennington or Josh Harris.Harris is out of the league. He had a few opportunities after starring at Bowling Green, but was never given a chance to start. Pennington, the former Marshall quarterback, has proven himself as a very good quarterback.Gradkowski already has an opportunity Harris was never allowed. That's all those of us in this region can ask for. Sports53517@blogcritics.org Wed, 27 Sep 2006 17:36:44 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/09/13/132412.php Zach BakerFor the last several days, I have been trying to think of a way to frame 9-11 remembrances in a sports context.But it does not really work.It's hard for me to accept that players getting on a field are in any way as brave as a soldier, a firefighter, or police officer.There is no reason to believe sports are that important in the discussion of the 9-11 attacks. Yes, sports were canceled for a week afterwards, a decision that I think was the best for all involved.When sports came back, it was put in proper perspective. It has been said sports, whether it be the New York Yankees in the World Series, or the Giants playing on Sunday, provided a chance for America to get back to normal after the horrible tragedy.Five years later, I wonder if the perspective still exists.I was not a sportswriter in 2001, so I never wrote an article before 9-11. When writing sports, I always try to avoid words like "battle," "war" or "tragedy." America is fighting two wars, and is losing brave men and women every day. I think that, for the most part, other sports writers and broadcasters do the same.In that sense, September 11 changed sports. Most of us try to keep things in perspective. But sometimes, that perspective is lost. I do think sometimes we put too much stock in athletics. I wonder, when I see fans celebrating wildly in a stadium, why we are what we are.Will we see mass celebrations if (or hopefully, when) Osama Bin Laden is captured? I don't know, and I don't pose the question to be critical. When the terrorist is brought down, there probably shouldn't be wild celebrations. It wouldn't fit or be right in the face of what the man has wrought.But in a world where we hear more about Terrell Owens then the war on some days, it does make me wonder.What have I learned since September 11, 2001?I have learned athletes (with the exception of the Tillman brothers and others who are serving or have served) are not heroes. Heroics are performed many places in this country. A gridiron and baseball diamond are no such places.I have learned that what I do for a living is rather trivial. While I spend my days typing out clever ledes on my computer, some of my peers are just trying to stay safe while covering the violence in other parts of the world.And I have learned I should be thankful to the troops, the firefighters, and the police officers that allow me to continue doing what I love. Without their sacrifices, my life would not be possible.Thanks to them. We all owe you a lot. Sports52833@blogcritics.org Wed, 13 Sep 2006 13:24:12 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/08/31/103847.php Zach BakerThere was a time, not too long ago, when I liked the Boston Red Sox.They were never a favorite team of mine, but I had a certain amount of sympathy for them. Though I never completely understood why Boston fans complained so much (Celtics or Patriots, anyone?), I could appreciate the heartache they had been through.Bill Buckner was a great player, not a punchline. Roger Clemens will always be remembered as a Red Sox ace.Boston deserved better. Then came 2004. That season changed everything.Boston not only ended their fabled “Curse,” but it did so in grand fashion. Down three games to none to baseball’s version of the Prince of Darkness, Boston somehow rallied in the American League Championship Series, and beat the Yankees.Beating the Cardinals in the World Series was really an afterthought to the rest of the country. I felt good for Boston.For about 10 seconds.Then came documentaries interviewing Denis Leary (who I think is great) and Michael Chiklis (who once suggested Grady Little threw the 2003 ALCS to the Yankees).Then came a romantic comedy starring Drew Barrymore and Jimmy Fallon. Then came endless talk on sports shows about the “Yanks” and the “Sawx.”Then David Ortiz stopped being known as David Ortiz, instead, being called “Big Papi” by every broadcaster. Unless he plans on becoming a pro wrestler, I don’t think he needs that prominent a nickname.Then Ben Affleck started being shown on TV at games.I hate the Red Sox. They used to be the long-suffering rivals of the Yankees, the team you pulled for. But after 2004, the team has gone through an almost Animal Farm-like transformation.For the last two seasons, it has been hard to tell the two teams apart.Like the Yankees of the last 30 years, the Red Sox have had soap opera. Between general manager Theo Epstein’s job status, Manny Ramirez’s weirdness, and Johnny Damon’s ship-jumping, it doesn’t stop.The Yankees spend more money on players than any other team ($194 million). The Red Sox spend the second-most, at $120 million. The Red Sox total is $17 million more than the third team on the list, the Angels.You’d think last season, when both the Yankees and Red Sox were dumped in the first round of the playoffs, would give pause to the hype. Instead, it’s worse. Every time the two teams play, it’s as if the rest of the baseball coverage takes a holiday.Is it fair to blame the Red Sox for this?Probably not. But their fall from the top of the standings over the past few weeks has left me somewhat less than sympathetic.What will ESPN talk about if Boston has no chance of playing the Yankees for the American League Championship?Oh wait, I know the answer. It will talk about how Boston won’t play New York for the AL championship.Can’t wait. Sports52277@blogcritics.org Thu, 31 Aug 2006 10:38:47 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/08/05/015857.php Zach BakerSometimes life is good and you don’t realize it. But I was blessed this week, and I finally figured out that yes, my life is pretty good. Thank-you cards to the NFL Network and Time Warner Cable are in the mail.Being on vacation and away from work, there just wasn’t much for me to get upset about in the past week. I was staying at a house that had Adelphia Cable, and therefore had the NFL Network, which I love.Earlier this week, that all changed when Time Warner took over Adelphia. The result was the NFL Network was no longer available. That’s because Time Warner has not carried the NFL Network, and has yet to reach a deal to do so.In the past, this would have been a minor annoyance. But this year, the NFL Network is not only showing every preseason game, but broadcasting eight regular season games as well. I spend a lot of my off time at this house, and I want to see the games.Having already sent out emails requesting Time Warner pick up the station, I did what all good bloggers do: I blogged about it. Perhaps I was expecting the 15 readers of my site to show Time Warner the error of its ways.Regardless, as I was checking the Internet to see if the millionaires at Time Warner and the millionaires at the NFL had worked out a deal to make enough millions together, I had a thought: This is pretty ridiculous.The NFL Network is running commercials on the radio encouraging viewers to complain to the cable company. In response, Time Warner has started a website for viewers to complain to the NFL.Lord knows what the eventual result will be. But we do know the immediate result: Millionaires are not only satisfied to be bitching themselves. They want everyone not as fortunate to bitch for them. In the end I suspect both sides will win, reaching a deal that will compensate the NFL and the cable network.But I also think the fans and subscribers will lose. Either they won’t see what they want on TV. Or they will, but have to pay more for it.Still, there is an overwhelming positive. If getting a TV network on my cable package is one of the great gripes in life, things must be pretty good.Thank you Time Warner. Thank you NFL Network. Your pettiness has shown this fan just how blessed he really is. Sports51190@blogcritics.org Sat, 5 Aug 2006 01:58:57 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/07/21/183927.php Zach BakerBaseball seems to love a great story. When Cal Ripken broke Lou Gehrig’s cosecutive-games record in 1995, it was touted as a wonderful moment, one that would bring the fans back after the 1994 strike. In 1998, Sammy Sosa and Mark McGwire were celebrated as titans, power-hitting supermen who saved baseball with their clout. Of course, time has made baseball’s salvation seem as plastic as a Cher body part.In truth, I was brought back a month after the strike.Ken Burns’ PBS film Baseball got a great deal of hype, but I was still bitter about the greed of the players and owners, so I avoided it. My father watched the first part of it. Then he called me up from the basement.“If you really are a baseball fan, you have to watch this,” he said. So I watched. And it was not actor Billy Crystal, historian Doris Kearns-Goodwin, or writer Robert Creamer (all interviewees) who brought me back to loving baseball.It was former Negro League star Buck O’Neil.O’Neil’s joyous stories about Satchel Paige, and his thoughts about how baseball will always come back, were moving. He had plenty to be bitter about (dealing with racism in the game), but if he was, he hid it well. If this man can still love baseball, I thought, so can I. The grandson of a slave was interviewed as much as the others, but he stole the show.O’Neil is now known as a goodwill ambassador for the sport, but in fact, he is much more than that. According to the 2006 ESPN Baseball Encyclopedia, O’Neil was “a slick fielding first baseman who hit for high averages.”But he’s not a Hall of Famer, although he should be.O’Neil was good enough to play from 1938-1955, missing two years while serving in the Navy in the Second World War. He was also the first black scout, signing Ernie Banks and Lou Brock for the Cubs.Earlier this week, O’Neil became the oldest professional player ever when he took two at-bats in the Northern League All-Star game.A 94-year-old all-star is a nice thing. A 94-year-old Hall of Famer would be better. It'd be a great story. Sports50635@blogcritics.org Fri, 21 Jul 2006 18:39:27 EDT