Showing posts with label Bill Simmons. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bill Simmons. Show all posts

Sep 30, 2014

Too Big To Fail?

Americans are comfortable with a little bit of corruption.  It almost is like we have grown to accept that it is just going to happen and we just need to deal with it.  We have lived through so many different scandals that we have developed a very cynical nature.  There have been so many movies based on government conspiracies that I would wager most Americans believe that there is always some level of conspiracy going on.  It's just how it is.

There are two instances where Americans will no longer deal silently with corruption.  The first is when it starts to affect our life - especially our wallet.  As long as it is someone else's problem, it isn't a problem.  But when it becomes my problem, then we have a problem.  We had an animal living in the pond behind our house.  Well, we have a lot of animals living out there: turtles, fish, ducks, Canadian geese.  But we had this weird animal out there.  I would see it swimming along from time to time.  It looked like a beaver.  I would see it slithering through and diving under the lily pads.  I found out from some of my outdoorsy friends that it was a nutria - basically a giant river rat.  I liked watching it.  Well, one of my neighbors didn't think it was such a cute animal.  Apparently its activities were infringing on my neighbor's happiness.  The rat would come up into the lady's yard and eat her plants.  It would gnaw on the wooden wall constructed to keep water out of the yard.  And the leftovers from its snacks was clogging up our spillway, causing flooding in that yard.  To me, it wasn't an issue.  My yard has a very steep incline, so flooding is not a problem.  I have a fence around my yard, so the rat wasn't going to come up on my property.  But this lady starting making a stink.  She had a few other homeowners on her side due to garden and flooding damage.  She brought it before the HOA Board (which we both are on) and wanted us to pay to have the eradication done.  On top of it all, she was all weird about the animal being killed - which we all knew would be the outcome.  It was going to cost $800 to clear the pond.  I asked how much it cost for a box of bullets.  She didn't appreciate that suggestion.  Now it became my problem.  I didn't want the HOA to spend hundreds of dollars to pull this animal out.  It wasn't bothering me, personally.  I didn't even realize it was a problem at all.   (Things have a funny way of working themselves out.  The rat got run over by a car a couple of weeks later ... before we paid to clear the pond.  I had nothing to do with it.  Promise.)

This is kind of how we approach corruption in the US.  It isn't my problem.  It isn't hurting me.  Don't rock the boat.  But if it encroaches on my comfort, all heck breaks loose.  Look at the investment banking scandal of a few years ago.  Or the Enron/big business scandal.  Or the subprime mortgage collapse.  Or the automaker fiasco.  Those issues had been bubbling for years.  Was anyone surprised that financial advisors were cheating?  I doubt that.  What year did Wall Street come out?  We had been through all of this before, just with different financial elements.  Instead of junk bonds it was Ponzi schemes.  Was the subprime mortgage problem a shock?  How could it be?  How long could banks hand out mortgages to people who couldn't afford to pay for them before the process collapsed?  We know in the back of our minds that things are not always above board with companies, governments, industries, celebrities.  But we turn a blind eye and convince ourselves things may be different this time.  Until it interferes with our life.

The other instance were corruption gets us riled up is when it become blatant.  This is kind of a corollary of the first instance.  Instead of it interfering with our wallets or our lives, it interferes with our comfort.  It makes us feel embarrassed and awkward.   How could we have let this go on?  It makes us look bad.  We frequently see this with celebrities.  We cut actors, musicians, "reality" stars a lot of slack in our country.  It is like we know that they are going to make questionable choices and we are fine with that, as long as it is kept quiet.  If they want to smoke weed, that's fine.  Just don't do it in a park.  If they want to do lines of coke in the bathroom at the Chateau Marmont, that's fine.  Just don't film it and post it on Twitter.  If they want to run a dog fighting ring, so be it.  Just don't advertise the fights.  When those private foibles become public scandals, we throw our hands up in mock indignation.  "How could they do this?!?"  What we are really asking is "how could they be so blatant in their stupidity?"

If you don't think this is accurate, I want you to think back a few years to the Michael Vick dog-fighting scandal.  Vick was going along as a maddeningly erratic and fragile quarterback when we all started to hear about his involvement in a dog-fighting ring.  There were the usual denials, followed by proof of the existence of the ring.  Vick got arrested, tried, and imprisoned for his role in the whole thing.  During the whole process, we heard about how this is a cultural issue.  In the culture that Vick grew up, dog fighting was an acceptable practice.  Vick didn't know that it was a problem.  But it went public and we all went crazy.  Now, think about this.  In the years since Vick's dog fighting ring went public, how many dog fighting rings have you heard about being broken up by the cops?  With the amount of public outrage over Vick's crimes, you would think dog fighting is completely detestable in our country.  And in the dialogue, we kept hearing about how this was cultural - meaning that there are more of these rings going on right now.  Thinking back to how people wanted Vick banned for life from the NFL and imprisoned for a hundred years, shouldn't we have formed some kind of task force to uncover and shut down these dog fighting rings?  We know they are out there, right?  Why aren't there federal agents played by a young Kevin Costner busting into warehouses and backyards across the country, leading dozens of people into paddy wagons?  It isn't happening because it isn't blatantly in our face any more.  It slinked back into the shadows and we left it alone.  As long as Amanda Bynes isn't hurling phones and bongs out of hotel windows, Charlie Sheen isn't showing up drunk for interviews, Justin Bieber isn't racing his silver rocket car through rush hour traffic, these people can be crazy all they want.  Just don't embarrass us with your crazy.  Don't get your crazy on me.  As long as your favorite NCAA team keeps its player payments, arrests, and false test scores quiet, it is fine.  But if it becomes blatant, the team gets blistered.

All of this has come to mind as I observe the NFL.  The National Football League is a mammoth industry that generates gobs of money.  Its influence is not just felt in cities with teams, although those cities certainly do benefit a great deal.  Its presence on television brings huge ratings and advertising dollars to those channels.  Hundreds of companies are intertwined with the NFL: restaurants (McDonald's), soda companies (Pepsi), shoe companies (Nike), computer companies (Lenovo, Microsoft), pizza companies (Papa John's).  It goes on and on.  The NFL took in $1.07 billion from sponsorships last year.  The last television contract was for $8 billion.  That included CBS paying $275 million for the rights to simulcast Thursday night NFL games along with the NFL Network.  They don't have any exclusive rights.  Think about this - CBS is the number one network on television.  On Thursday night they already had the number one comedy show on television.  But they were willing to juggle their entire schedule for the right to run games that were already being shown on another network.  The NFL is enormous.

The spillover effect of the NFL leaves its mark on college and high school athletics.  As technological, medical, and pharmaceutical breakthroughs find success in the NFL, they work their way down the chain.  The same goes for game planning.  And for coaching techniques.  And for desired athlete qualities.  Yes, some things work their way back up the chain like the Nike and Under Armor uniforms from Oregon and Maryland or the wildcat formation.  But for every one innovation that swims upstream, a hundred flow back down.  As the offensive linemen in the NFL got larger and faster, that desirability moved down through the ranks.  As quarterbacks needed to become more mobile, that quality was harvested from below.  In addition to qualities trickling down, so did behavior.  The NFL players make a lot of high risk, high reward plays.  Defensive backs would launch themselves at wide receivers.  Kick coverage teams fly around with reckless abandon.  Running backs put their heads down and bull forward.  Soon college and then high school players began to play the same way.

Through all of this, doctors were concerned about the overall health of younger football players.  Only 6 percent of high school senior players will play in college.  Only 1.7 percent of college seniors will get drafted by the NFL.  That means 0.08% of high school players will ever make it to the NFL.  Out of every 1,000 high school players, not even one will make it to the NFL.  But that allure keeps players striving and aiming to be that one in a thousand.  So, even though there are numerous health risks, players keep going.  Offensive lineman pack on weight to reach the right size, even though they don't do it the right way and are really just massively obese.  Young teens start weight training before doctors would advise that practice.  These students tear up their knees, ankles, backs and doom themselves to a lifetime of pain.  They sow the seeds of drug addictions by using painkillers at a disturbing rate - in addition to other pills like amphetamines and steroids.

Then there is the risk of concussions.  Actually, it shouldn't even be called a risk anymore.  It has basically crossed the line to an occupational hazard.  The numbers are horrifying.  I've talked about concussions before on this blog and there is a ton of research out there telling the truth about concussion dangers.  Players get into dozens of collisions every game that are equivalent to a car crash.  Some players estimate that they get into two to three plays per game that ring their bells and possibly give them a minor concussion.  More and more players are talking about how they already have memory loss.  Bret Favre, who has only been out of the game for a couple years, said he routinely forgets where he is or why he went there.  Former players are committing suicide at an alarming rate.  There are massive health repercussions from ALS to depression to Alzheimer's.

Now we are facing the specter of domestic violence as well.  Ray Rice punches his fiancee out in an elevator and gets suspended for two games.  The NFL reconsidered its punishment after the country lost its collective mind once the video footage hit the airwaves.  Rice's lawyer has complained this is the NFL equivalent of double jeopardy, being tried for the same crime twice.  They actually have some valid arguments there.  There is just too much evidence that the Baltimore Ravens and the NFL knew the extent of Rice's actions and covered it up.  So because they got busted and went into damage control mode, Rice got his contract terminated and his ability to play in the NFL revoked.  Adrian Peterson, one of the biggest stars in the league, beat his four year old son so savagely that he had a dozen open lacerations on his body.  I won't say he disciplined his son because this goes far beyond discipline.  I have kids and understand the concept of punishment.  I also have seen discipline that crossed the line when I was a child.  Peterson was not just punishing his son; he was taking out his anger and frustration on him.  He obviously was not in control in that moment.  And it makes me wonder how many other times that had happened.

At the same moment all of this was happening, several other players were being charged with domestic violence crimes.  The owner of the Dallas Cowboys was being investigated for sexual impropriety - which was largely brushed off because the statute of limitations had expired.  As I watched the reactions of America, it was like it couldn't decide what to do.  This level of corruption and horrific behavior usually would have triggered our offense mechanisms.  But something stopped that.  It was like the fact that it was football and we all love football halted us from going further.  We got angry about Ray Rice and he was punished.  But it stopped there.  Some people were angry about Peterson, but others defended him because it fell under "corporal punishment" and no one wants to step on that issue.  He was deactivated for one game while the investigation started.  But the Vikings actually reinstated him for the next week before a bunch of people lost their minds and the team reconsidered.  In the midst of all of this, the commissioner understandably came under fire for his gross ineptitude.  He scrambled and danced in his press conference and managed to deflect the anger.

To be completely honest, I am fed up with all of it.  I am angry.  I have loved football as long as I have known about sports.  I have great memories watching football: Sunday afternoons with my dad, Super Bowl parties, UCF games, Jaguar games.  But I have reached a breaking point.  This year, I have watched very little football.  I have opportunities.  Last night I was sitting on the couch watching TV and flipping over to the game never entered my mind.  I shuttered my fantasy football league this year that I had run for over a decade.  This isn't just a busy dad finding other things to do.  This year should be the year I want to see the NFL the most.  My favorite team (the Jaguars) drafted a UCF player (Blake Bortles) who is now their starting quarterback.  I know his mom.  She taught both of my sons in preschool.  I remember him as a middle schooler.  I should be glued to the tv during the season.  But I just can't.

I'm not the only one that feels this way.  My favorite sportswriter is Bill Simmons.  I have read his stuff since he first got signed by ESPN.  I love his writing style and his passion for sports.  But I also love the fact that he is a fan first.  He is irate over all of this.  He has been attacking commissioner Goodell for his role in these scandals.  Finally Simmons snapped on a podcast and went off on the commissioner.  He called him a liar - something that the media almost universally has agreed upon.  The end result?  ESPN suspended Simmons for three full weeks without pay.  What!?!  A media member has been questioning the NFL for weeks and finally says what many fans are thinking.  And he gets suspended?  For three weeks!!!  To recap, Ray Rice was originally suspended for two weeks for punching his fiancee so hard she fell backwards and got knocked unconscious.  Then he dragged her out of the elevator like a sack of flour.  Two weeks.  Stephen A Smith, another ESPN personality who is a complete idiot, got suspended for one week for basically saying not to judge Ray Rice too quickly and that the fiancee "may have had it coming."  One week.  Adrian Peterson was originally suspended for one week for savagely beating his four year old.  The other domestic cases originally had no suspensions.  Mike Tirico, another ESPN turd, has been accused of several instances sexual impropriety with no suspensions.  Jerry Jones, owner of the Cowboys, was accused of sexual impropriety with no suspension.  Bill Simmons, tired of all of this bull, went off and was suspended for three weeks.  Why?  Because ESPN is the biggest partner of the NFL and pays $1.7 billion a year to show Monday Night Football.  The NFL told ESPN to get Simmons under control.  You don't believe that happened?  There is precedent.  Years ago, ESPN ran an original series entitled Playmakers that was supposedly based on the NFL.  There was drug use, rape, racism, homophobia.  The NFL threatened to pull out of their relationship with ESPN if the show wasn't cancelled.  Boom.  The show is gone.

I don't get it.  The NFL makes a giant deal about women's issues in October for breast cancer awareness month.  It is the only time players can wear non-uniform elements, as long as they are pink.  But there are players beating up their girlfriends, fiancees, and wives and the NFL does nothing.  And we, as viewers, seem shocked.  Why?  These guys are hopped up on so many supplements and chemicals.  They are in a culture where rage and lack of control is encouraged on the playing field.  How long did we think it would take before that spilled over into their homes?  Didn't professional wrestling teach us anything?  Look at the number of former wrestlers who have died early, committed suicide, attacked their significant others.  One of the saddest stories was Chris Benoit.  He was considered a good guy.  Then he killed his wife, his son, and himself.  Why?  Depression, concussion damage, steroid damage.  "Well that's an extreme case!"  Really?

December 2012.  Kansas City, Missouri.  Twenty-two year old Kansas City Chief player, Javon Belcher, drives to the Chief's facilities.  He shoots himself in front of the head coach and general manager.  It turns out he had murdered his girlfriend earlier.  His body was exhumed last year and last week we found out that his brain showed evidence of CTE - the damage caused by concussions that causes people to lose their memories and control of themselves.  He was 22.  Look at the erratic behavior exhibited by NFL players.  Donte Stallworth is speeding and strikes and kills a man in Miami.  Ray Lewis (doesn't) stab a man to death in a parking lot.  Plaxico Burress shoots himself in the leg.  Josh Gordon keeps failing drug tests.  Jonathan Martin and Richie Icognito have the most unhealthy and bizarre friendship ever, complete with accusations of bullying and racism.  Jadaveon Clowney gets busted for driving over 100 mph down Interstate 77 twice in a week.  There is a laundry list of this stuff.  How long until this boils over?  How long until the corruption is actually bad enough to make us do something?  It is already blatant.  It is already out of control.  But I guess it hasn't affected us personally enough yet.

In 1991 there was a movie that came out called The Last Boy Scout.  It starred Damon Wayans, Bruce Willis, and Halle Berry.  It wasn't a very good movie.  It took place in the world of professional football with Wayans as a pro player and Willis as a detective or something.  There were tons of scenes that hinted at the excesses in the NFL: drugs, sex, money, ignoring injuries.  But one scene has always stuck with me.  It was one of the opening scenes.  A player was taking back a kickoff and pulled out a gun and started shooting the would-be tacklers until he scored and then shot himself.  It came out that this player was in deep with gambling debts and he felt he had to score to keep his family safe.  I thought that was ridiculous.  What player would shoot other players on the field like that?  Less than 25 years later, would you honestly be that shocked if something like that actually happened?  Chances are, it would be stunning.  But not shocking.  That should show you there is a problem.  If a sport actually has fostered an environment where a murder on the field would not be spin-your-head crazy, that sport is out of control.  My question is if that possible tragedy would even be enough to take down the NFL.

Aug 7, 2012

Olympics 2012 Diary: Inspiration

We have hit that point in the Olympics where things are not as crazy and exciting.  Instead of spending the last two nights glued to NBC's DVR rebroadcast, I have actually been catching up on some shows on our own DVR.  Sure, there are some cool things here an there.  But once swimming, gymnastics, and the signature track events are over, things slow down considerably.  We still have a lot of team based finales coming up (basketball, volleyball - court and beach, soccer, water polo).  My interest definitely wanes, though.

So what would you say has been the most incredible performance in these Olympics?  As far as a career culmination, most people would point to Michael Phelps.  Usain Bolt's mind-blowing 9.62 in the 100 meters was one of the most amazing things I have ever seen.  Mckayla Maroney's vault in the team finals was jaw-dropping - as evidenced by the classic pictures of the judges doing just that.  There were several swimming events that broke records.  Kevin Durant rained three pointers on Argentina like it was a pickup game.  And Jessica Ennis obliterated the field in the heptathlon.  But for me the answer is simple.

Take a minute and look at that picture.  It almost looks Photoshopped.  It looks like someone was erasing the bottom and accidentally removed the guy's legs.  Except it isn't like that at all.  This is Oscar Pistorius, sprinter from South Africa. He was born without tibias in his lower legs, so the doctors amputated his legs when he was eleven months old.  Now, an inspirational story would be that the child learned to walk on artificial limbs and lived a relatively normal life.  That would be an incredible performance.  But, Oscar wasn't content with that and neither was his family.  Instead, he worked really hard and became a sprinter on his artificial Cheetah blades.

Now, his talent for sprinting is indeed great.  He has represented South Africa in the Paralympic Games.  And he has routinely destroyed the competition because he is ridiculously fast.  This would be an incredible performance.  But that wasn't something to be contented with, either.  Oscar is fast enough that his top speeds are comparable to the "able-bodied" athletes in the Olympics.  So he pursued that goal as well.  If someone can qualify for the Olympics and they are following the rules, they should be allowed to compete.

This is where Oscar's story gets strange.  He was banned from the Games because the authorities ruled his limbs gave him a competitive advantage.  To this day, there are people who say he should not be there because he is using attachments to his body to compete.  US track legend, Michael Johnson, is one of the detractors.  Now this is where I take pause in this whole story.

My favorite sports columnist, Bill Simmons, has proposed several times that all sports teams and sports ruling bodies should be forced to hire a "VP of Common Sense."  This would be a non-sports related individual that had to make a final approval on all trades, roster moves, and rule changes.  This would be someone like you and me, someone far enough from the situation to think clearly.  A BS detector, if you will.  There have been many times in the sports world where a decision was made where we, the fans, have said, "Who came up with that?  If I ran my business that way, I would go broke."  This is where the VP of Common Sense comes in.

I wish that there had been a VP of Common Sense when this original ruling came down on Pistorius.  I mean, even the announcers at the Olympics - who are not generally considered insightful by any stretch of the imagination - just can't get over how ludicrous this entire train of thought is.  You know this.  I know this.  It is nonsense.  The man does not have legs.  Everyone else does.  What possible steps could be taken - short of mounting him on jetpacks, rockets, or actual cheetahs - could ever made THAT equal, let alone give him an advantage?  Think about this for just a minute.  HE DOESN'T HAVE FEET.  I'm not being crass here.  I just want that to sink in.  Think about all the things you need feet for in your life.  True, most of us are stuck in a sitting position for most of the day and could manage just fine without feet.  But getting up, walking to find a donut in the break room, standing up to pee, driving.  Things get complicated.  Average, boring, menial things get complicated.  But running at an Olympic speed?  In the words of Gus on Psych, "Son, puh-leeze."

I would have overruled them.  I would have said, "Think about it, jack wagon. How could you possibly justify this stance?"  Even with this setback, Pistorius kept training and challenged their ruling. He got a team of experts to testify in his favor.  I read the summaries of the reports by this team.  They couldn't even agree with each other about why the ruling was wrong - but they all said it was wrong.  One of them said that the artificial legs DID give him an advantage when it came to moving his legs faster because the lack of bones made them lighter, meaning they could go faster.  One of them said that the blades gave him a higher rate of return on the leg muscles effort, but a grossly inferior rate of return from the foot itself pushing onto the track.  Supposedly a human foot will return over 200 percent of the force pushed down in a race.  The blade only returned 90 percent.  The final expert - who has artificial legs with robotic elements - said the other guys were all completely daft and none of what they said was true.  His report was more along the line of what I have said.  "You guys are seriously stupid.  Just think for a second what you are saying."

So Pistorius was cleared to compete.  He was named to the South African team for the 400 meter sprint and the 4x400 relay.  On Saturday, as soon as I woke up, I fired up NBCOlympics.com and watched the replay of his qualifying race.  They ran it in the evening as well, with the commentators.  It was bizarre.  This was really the first that anyone had mentioned Pistorius on the NBC coverage.  They were so busy mooning over Phelps and Lochte and Gabby Douglas.  The track team of Tom Hammon and Ato Boldin are usually very good.  But this time, it was almost like they were condescending.  It was like it was a curiosity.  "He isn't expected to do much, but it means so much he is even here."  Now, the crowd in London didn't quite feel the same.  They gave him such a rousing ovation for just standing there, you would have thought he was British.  You could tell he was extremely moved at the reality of the race finally happening.

The gun went off and so did Pistorius.  The announcers were stunned to see that he wasn't loafing in the back.  Instead, he was up near the front.  In fact, he finished his heat second, behind eventual silver medalist, Luguelin Santos, in a time of 45.44 seconds.  Wrap your mind around that.  I am always amazed at how fast the sprinters in the Olympics can run.  I swear, Usain Bolt is just a blur of limbs as his lopes down the track.  But Oscar Pistorius is not your average sprinter.  He shouldn't be able to run that fast.  The story took off, and NBC finally got a clue.  They ran the pre-Games interview between Mary Carillo and Oscar.  He was on the Today Show.  There was a lot of build-up to his semifinal race.

I was rooting for him to win.  But, he came in eighth.  It wats apparent, though, that no one in the stadium thought that was a loss.  This included his fellow competitors.  In a great picture, the eventual gold medalist, Kirani James of Grenada (who just seems like a really cool guy), came up and wanted to switch name bibs with Pistorius in a show of sportsmanship.  You could tell the other guys were deeply respectful.  Oscar didn't just show up - he raced and competed and held his own.  It was incredible to watch, and my most amazing performance of the Games.

It also got me thinking.  Pistorius has had to do so much work to get where he has gotten.  He has trained himself daily to get into the shape necessary to be a competitor on any stage.  But he also has had to fight in the courts to get the right to compete where he has every right to be - the biggest stage.  He has had to listen to people who have held up his biggest disadvantage and dared to say it gave him an unfair advantage.  In one way they are right.  It isn't the blades that gives him an advantage.  It is the commitment to overcome the hand he was dealt.  It is the lifetime of struggling and fighting and overcoming that no person with full use of their limbs can ever know.  He does have an unfair advantage - but it isn't from science or technology.  He had every excuse to NOT do this.  Most of us wouldn't excuse someone like Ryan Lochte or Missy Franklin for quitting the pursuit of gold.  It is all consuming and exhausting, more than any person should have to go through if they don't want to.  So no one in their right mind would blame Pistorius for quitting at any point in the process.

Most of us are content to let greatness pass us by.  We aren't committed to see it through.  It just becomes too much work.  I have loved the Nike ads narrated by Tom Hardy through these Olympics, reminding us that greatness is not something born into people.  It is discovered and worked toward.  To say it is born diminishes just how great greatness is.  Sure, someone like Michael Phelps or Missy Franklin or Lebron James may have the genetic package to succeed in their selected sports.  But that doesn't guarantee anything.  Just go look on any playground basketball court in New York City and you'll find dozens of players that had the genetic package to make the NBA.  But some combination of events and choices led them away.

I struggle with this.  I know that I have talents - great talents in some areas.  I am not being a braggart by saying that.  I have a lifetime of trophies and accolades and awards to back this up.  To claim that I don't have talent actually minimizes the gifts that God gave me.  But I am so afraid.  I can be so lazy.  So I just don't follow through.  I love writing.  It is something that is not an effort for me.  My life has happened in such a way that I was prepared to be a writer.  The three hardest teachers I ever had were 10th, 11th, and 12th grade English.  They honed my skills.  But everyone thinks they can be a writer.  That is why there are fifty gazillion blogs out there.  And it is easy to not follow through on something that I want to do out of fear that I won't succeed, or that I am fooling myself.  I have wanted to write a book for so long.  This isn't just a dream that I came up with yesterday.  I have a folder on my computer with book ideas - complete with thumbnails, chapters, intros.  One series I thought up has the floor plan for seven entire books.  They are just sitting there.

When I see someone like Oscar Pistorius, the thought that comes is, "So, what's your excuse?"  Trust me, I have many.  And I usually ignore that question.  It is too uncomfortable.  I have dozens of reasons why I don't do something.  People may not like it.  No one will read it.  Maybe I'm not actually that good.  Maybe I'm actually not that funny.  What about money?  How will I print it?  No publisher will ever buy it.  What about time?  With all the other stuff I am doing or need to be doing, how will I have time to write something that isn't guaranteed to even be bought or read or anything?  The voices of doubt are so loud in my head that I can't even move.  It is frustrating.  And I have a feeling that I am not alone in those thoughts.  I want to move past that fear and paralysis to actually DO something.

I have heard people ask, "What would you do if you knew you couldn't fail?"  That isn't a great question, I have realized.  There is never a guarantee we won't fail.  And to only do something if we know we won't fail, well then we don't want to do that thing enough.  Pistorius didn't know he wouldn't fail.  There was no guarantee ever for him. We need to ask, "What is it you want to do, even if you might fail?'  Jumping into something because you believe in it and are committed to it, even if the cards are stacked against you is so much better.  That is when greatness happens.  That is something Olympic athletes have realized.  That is something that Oscar Pistorius lives by.  And that is something I hope I can learn too.

Jun 10, 2012

Sports Frustration

I have been frustrated as a sports fan of late.  In case you are not sure why, let me recap.  First of all, my favorite sport has always been football.  However, I am quickly becoming disgusted with it.  There was the stupid labor disagreement last year, with billionaires and millionaires fighting over who got more of the gigantic pile of money on the table.  Then the Saints - a team that I had somewhat gotten behind in recent years - was shown to be a bunch of cheating cheap shot artists.  And overreaching all of that, there is the concussion fiasco which (in my opinion) has a legitimate shot at ending the existence of the sport for good within a few years.  [Just for fun, you should go read this exchange between Bill Simmons and Malcolm Gladwell, especially page two.  The whole thing is interesting.  But the section about concussion is nauseating.  My favorite part?  The illustration about how the hits kids get in Pop Warner football being the same as having your child sitting in the front seat without a seatbelt and getting in repeated 25 mph accidents.  Go sign them up!]

In addition to this, I have apparently developed a nasty tendency to pick team that fail to live up to their potential.  This is played out in just about every sport with my beloved UCF Knights.  Our football team last year does great, wins its first bowl game, and comes back largely intact.  They start off the year great and then proceed to drop faster into the toilet than ... never mind.  Then there was the basketball team, which raced out to a stunning record - even beating UConn at one point.  They too decided to stink it up, ending up missing the NCAA tournament and getting waxed in the NIT.  Then in baseball, they team was ranked in the Top 10 at one point.  They actually went into the final month of the season with a chance at hosting a regional bracket.  Then after unexplainable losses to mighty Presbyterian and Memphis they starting to list to the side.  Then they went into the final weekend with the chance to take the conference title away from Rice - who had won it for 19 years in a row.  Keep in mind, this series was AT HOME.  Choke.  Then they got into the regional in Miami and promptly won their first two games.  First seed Miami got booted immediately, which meant UCF had to lose two games to Stony Brook - which, as far as I know, is an apartment complex in Tampa.  Now, they had already beaten Stonyfield Farms once in the bracket.  And they lost two in a row by a combined score of 22-11.  Go Knights.

I have tried to get into hockey.  This year I was fervently watching the playoffs.  Thanks to NBC's excellent coverage, I was actually able to see my Nashville Predators for all of their games but one.  They finally vanquished their nemesis, the Detroit Red Wings.  They were one of the hottest teams in the NHL.  They had a top-notch goalie playing out of his mind.  And they were an outside pick to go on a run and make it to the Stanley Cup (like the Kings ultimately did).  So, naturally, they got destroyed by Phoenix and went home early.  My other fringe sport hasn't done well, either, with the US Men's Soccer team missing the Olympics all together.  Combine all that with the fact that I can't stand baseball, only caring enough to keep track of the Rays, and it spells sports disappointment.

Then there's basketball.  For years I have been a Magic fan.  That comes with living most of my adult life in or near Orlando.  Apparently, being a Magic fan means you will never experience sports joy.  You will be teased off an on.  You'll have ridiculous luck with the lottery.  You will see your team grow and strive and blossom.  They will draw you in and get you to care about them.  There will be one superstar and several other good players.  You'll get close, but never close enough.  And then your superstar will jerk you around and toy with your emotions.  He will claim to be loyal and sneak around trying to find ways to leave.  He finally will get so irritating you, as a fan, will find yourself pushing him out of town.  As he lands somewhere else and wins a bunch of titles that should have been yours, you will wonder what just happened.  You will spend the next few years watching an AAU team wearing Magic uniforms.  Then you'll win the lottery again and start the process all over.

I've been pretty ambivalent about basketball for a while.  This year, I literally did not watch a single NCAA tournament game.  I think that hasn't happened since I was a baby.  Somehow one of my brackets won in one of my groups.  How I managed that is beyond me.  I would watch the occasional NBA game, but I didn't follow it much.  I kept up with the Magic soap opera because the local media covered it with the ferocity of the Casey Anthony trial.  [Side Note - what is it with Florida and bizarre trials and news items?  Bush/Gore, Anthony, now Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman and the Miami Zombie.  There must be something in the water.]  I found myself watching the playoffs, though.  I would put my usual kiss of death on a team.  Once I started cheering for them, they would collapse.  Exhibit A: Orlando.  Exhibit B: San Antonio.  Now we are sitting here, waiting for the Finals to start.

As with most sports fans, I will probably watch some of the series.  But I honestly don't have any idea who to root for in this matchup.  Between Oklahoma City and Miami, you have just about everything wrong with professional sports on display.  The natural villain is Miami.  I detest the Heat.  First of all, they are in Miami.  To my sports mind, if a team plays in Miami, New York, LA, or Boston they automatically are the "bad guys."  I can't stand any of the teams from South Florida.  Maybe it is because I have unresolved issues with growing up down there, I don't know.  Miami has geography against it.  The second reason I hate the Heat is because they highlight one of the biggest problems with the NBA - the officiating.  More than in any other sport, the refs in basketball can hijack a game.  The officiating is deplorable in basketball.  There are two sets of standards - one for regular players and one for stars.  Things like travelling, fouls, technicals are called differently depending on the name on the shirt.  It works both ways, though.  Dwight Howard has to get hit with a steel chair before the ref blows the whistle; Kobe Bryant gets blown on and he goes to the line.  I hate it when there are two sets of rules.  It is like Ancient Rome in the NBA.  If you are a player of high status, you can get away with anything.

People will always say that I only say this because I hate the Heat.  No, I say this because it is true.  This has been part of that team's history for years.  When they beat Dallas a few years ago for the title, Danny Ocean wondered how they pulled off that heist.  Once LeBron and Bosh showed up, it only got worse.  The foul discrepancy in the Boston series was ridiculous.  Wade travels on every play.  He and James draw fouls on just about every play they want to - and by draw, I mean they draw up an IOU for the ref for $50 after the game.  It drives me nuts.

The biggest reason I hate the Heat is LeBron James.  I grew up in the day when a player stayed with his team forever.  You liked a player and a team and couldn't separate them.  That hardly happens any more.  Yet, James had the right to go play wherever he wants.  And so did Shaq and so does Dwight Howard.  But in sports there has always been this agreement between the fans and the players.  The players play their hearts out and do their best and are loyal, and we will keep paying the money and heaping on the love.  That has always been the way.  But that isn't good enough now.  These player movements are not about getting a better chance to start or even make more salary.  Shaq took less to play with the Lakers than Orlando.  LeBron took less to take his talents to South Beach.  Howard will make less anywhere else.  It isn't even about titles.  It is about these other cities give them more opportunities - to act, to get endorsements, to build their brand.  That is hard for me as a fan to stomach.  I always felt that the way Miami went about getting James, Bosh, and Wade smelled funny.  There is no way it was on the up and up.  I didn't like the way James left Cleveland.  And I don't like the way he plays.  To me, he isn't a player I can get behind.  I know that there are huge LeBron fans, especially in Florida.  But I am not one of them.  Ordinarily, that would be enough to swing me into Thunder Country.

BUT

Let's not forget how Oklahoma City landed their team.  If Miami is the poster child for how poorly players treat franchises and fan bases, then the Thunder are the poster child for how badly owners do.  Seattle was a franchise with a great history.  They had won the title.  They had been there several other times.  There was a rabid fan base.  This wasn't some city that didn't support the team.  But the owner say an opportunity.  He got the NBA leadership to back his play.  And he bailed on the city right when they team was about to explode.  They had just scored Kevin Durant in the draft and had started to stockpile talent.  There was hope for the future.  And then they were gone.

I remember when the Colts left Baltimore in the middle of the night in Mayflower trucks.  I remember when Baltimore returned the favors and stole the Browns from Cleveland and left them with some pathetic expansion team - and then promptly won a Super Bowl.  Owners go to their home city and say, "I am a billionaire.  But I am not going to build my own stadium (unless they are Jerry Jones).  I want YOU to pay for it.  I want YOU to give me tax breaks and special considerations.  I want YOU to market my team and support it.  I want YOU to put up posters and banners.  I want your citizens to cheer for us.  BUT, if you don't do that, I will take my team and move to some other city who will."  How is that right? Again, going back to that trust between fans and their teams.  I will cheer for you if you will stay here and put out a good product.  There have been times in the not too distant past where the Magic threatened to move if they didn't get their huge new Amway Center.  The Bucs threatened to leave (to Orlando) if Raymond James wasn't built.  The Jaguars still are threatening it.  It happens everywhere.  It just happened with the Minnesota Vikings.  Can you imagine the Vikings playing anywhere else but Minnesota?  But it almost happened.

So the Sonics bailed on their fans.  Well, the players didn't; the owner did.  And now Seattle is looking on at this series, knowing that this should have been their team to support.  The worst part is that the Thunder are such a fun team to like.  They at least present themselves and market themselves in the right way.  As Bill Simmons said in that article I mentioned, they are the Anti-Heat.  Kevin Durant is the Anti-LeBron.  But their ownership is the other side of what is wrong with sports.  Basically, you have all three things that make it hard to love basketball at play in this series.  You have horrible officials who ruin games.  You have players who have no loyalty.  And you have owners who are willing to do anything to earn a few extra dollars.  Sure, I'm old fashioned and expect too much out of sports personalities.  But I'm not the only fan out there who feels this way.  Instead of being the highlight of the season, it makes me not want to watch.  I'm kind of burned out on being frustrated by sports.

Feb 2, 2012

Eight Deadly Words

I've made no secret over the years of my fondness for sportswriter Bill Simmons.  Anyone who can get me to read a 736 page book on basketball - a sport I really don't even care for that much - must be a pretty good writer.  I've been reading just about everything he has written for close to ten years now.  Recently he launched a new website - GRANTLAND.COM - that has a bunch of super-talented writers covering all kinds of sports and cultural topics.  I don't agree with everything they write, nor do I agree with everything Simmons writes.  But I enjoy reading their stuff and it gets you thinking.

The other day, Simmons wrote about the NBA (naturally) and included what he called "the eight deadliest words in sports."  Because that's the way we've always done it.  It really got me thinking about how that phrase in not just deadly in sports, it can be deadly in every area of life.  It kills new ideas, hampers innovation, thwarts progress.  Now, I can relate to what Professor Umbridge says in Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix.  We don't need progress for the sake of progress.  But...  There is a time and a place for staying the main road.  And there is a time to find a new road.

Because that's the way we've always done it.  Isn't that how I got so fat?  Isn't that what nearly killed American car companies?  Isn't that what has (probably) irreparably damaged the newspaper industry and the music industry?  How many businesses have gone under because that phrase seemed to be tacked onto their mission statement?  How many churches are struggling because they won't change to meet their new neighbors or the new culture? I'm not talking about changing the inherent values or heart of something.  But we certainly can look at changing the way things are done.

There are times when we face a situation and there is a logical solution.  It makes sense.  It is just what to do.  Years ago, I asked myself why no one ever used waffles as a bread substitute in breakfast sandwiches.  No one could give me a good answer.  So I tried it and it was glorious.  Waffles, cheese, sausage, eggs.  Amazing stuff.  Thinking myself a genius, I went one further and asked why no one ever used Toaster Strudels as the bread substitute in breakfast sandwiches.  So I tried it.  Blueberry strudels, egg, cheese.  It was one of the most disgusting things I ever ate.  There was a very good reason why no one used glorified Pop Tarts in a breakfast sandwich.  [Years later, some brilliant person would go through this same question process with donuts and a hamburger.  The jury is still out on that one.  All the people who have tried it are dead.]

But there are time when that solution doesn't make the best sense.  But we keep doing it.  Why?  It reminds me of a story I heard in a sermon years ago.  There was a family once that got together for Sunday dinner - a very special tradition.  The youngest son had recently gotten engaged.  This was his new fiance's first big family dinner.  To reach out to her, the mother took the new daughter-in-law-to-be aside and was showing her how to go about crafting the meal.  She explained all about what is included: mashed potatoes, glazed carrots, homemade biscuits, peach salad.  Finally, she got to the centerpiece - the roast.  She took out a magnificent piece of meat out of the fridge and laid it on the counter.  She sprinkled it with salt and spices.  Then she took a huge knife and cut the end off of it and placed it into the roasting pan and slid it into the oven.  The girl was a bit hesitant, but couldn't help herself.  "Why did you cut the end off the roast?"  The mother looked at her quizzically and replied, "I'm not sure.  Probably because that's the way we've always done it."  The other children all explained that they did the same thing.  Their spouses admitted they didn't understand why, but they did the same thing because the mother had told them to.  No one knew why.  Finally the mother said it was because her mom had told her to.  About that time, the grandmother in question arrived with her bowl of peach salad and basket of bread.  The youngest son looked over and asked her, "Why did you tell mom to cut the end off the roast?"  The grandmother thought for a minute.  "I never told her to do that."  The mother responded, "Yes you did.  Every time I watched you make Sunday dinner, you cut the end off the roast."  The grandmother started to laugh.  "I never told you to do that.  You saw me do it and copied me."  The mom was getting a little frustrated.  "Showed me, told me.  Whatever.  Same thing.  I got it from you."  The grandmother nodded, "Yes, you did.  I cut the end of the roast because I didn't have a roasting pan big enough to fit it in."

In that story, there was no good reason to continue that practice.  It had outlived its purpose.  But no one changed it because that's the way we've always done it.  We hear this all the time.  Think about some things in your life that you would answer with that phrase.  Why do you sleep on the side of the bed you do?  Why do you comb your hair the way you do?  Why do you buy a particular brand of food?  Why do you use a particular translation/version of The Bible?  I know that there are practices I have that don't necessarily need to continue.  I used a rigid folder system on my computer I developed over many year using Windows machines.  Now that I am exclusively on Macs, it isn't as important.  But I can't get over it.  [Shoot, the fact that it took me so long to switch computer brands could fall into that as well.]  We separate our clothes into separate colored loads.  That makes sense, except for the fact that we don't have many new clothes that would be bleeding, we wash in cold water to hold colors, we used detergents that hold colors, and there are new items that help catch colors.  I sleep on the right side of the bed.  I have a pattern I use when brushing my teeth.

There are habits that we get into.  Not necessarily a bad thing.  But those habits can become ruts.  And living in a rut can make you stubborn and rigid.  So when a new idea comes along that genuinely is better than ours, we fight it.  We won't acknowledge its legitimacy.  It can't be a better option because that's the way we've always done it.  This isn't about questioning every single believe or teaching.  But I think there is something to be said about questioning the methods.  Why do we vote on Tuesdays?  Why is there an Electoral College?  Why are there only two political parties?  Those made perfect sense back in the day, when transportation was harder and education was limited.  But are those the best systems now?  I don't think questioning that is the same as questioning the validity of the Constitution or freedom itself.  But some people would raise the hair on their backs just the same.

Those eight words are triggered - and often nullified - by just one word.  Why?  It seems like a bit of a cop out.  It really isn't a good answer.  And it is kind of a testimony to the fact that there may not be a good reason.  It is healthy to ask yourself why you are doing certain things from time to time.  That is how innovators and inventors get started. They look at situation and ask why it is that way.  Then they try to find out if there is a better way to do things.  That is where the Fords and Edisons and Jobses and Zuckerbergs get started.  Why?  But instead of replying the eight words, they answer just two.  Why not?

Jesus was like this.  He was approaching a religious establishment that had done things a certain way for hundreds of years.  Back in the day, when The Law was established, it made sense.  But over the centuries, traditions and teachings had added to and colored that Law.  It was barely recognizable.  And, the whole point of The Law was to point to the coming Messiah.  So when Jesus showed up, there was a whole lot of people who could only answer His appearance with because that's the way we've always done it.  The leaders would ask Jesus why he was doing certain things.  And He would more often than not respond back with a variation of "Why aren't you?"  Why was He hanging around with sinners?  Why was He talking to women?  Why was He hanging out with Gentiles?  Why was He wasting time on children?

The religious establishment was so entrenched in their systems that eventually they killed Jesus.  They couldn't take Him upsetting their apple cart (or temple tables).  Their devotion to their rituals blinded them to a new way to do things.  Jesus's teachings were revolutionary only in the fact that they flew in the face of the rules and structures of the time.  But they were always in agreement with the heart of The Law - "Love God, Love Others."  Like Jesus said, "Love God with all your heart, mind, body, spirit.  Love others as yourself."  The whole of The Law distilled into those things.  But the people had gotten so caught up in only walking one mile and not working on the Sabbath.  They were so worried about keeping up with each individual rule they forgot the WHY behind it.  Why were they not working on the Sabbath?  Why were they supposed to give or pray or sacrifice?

Jesus got so angry at this.  One of the times we saw Him get super angry was when they dragged a crippled man before Jesus to see if He would heal Him on the Sabbath - breaking the Law by "working" on a healing."  Jesus got so ticked because they were so committed that to their rules that they didn't even care about this guy.  He was a pawn, a tool.  They weren't brokenhearted at this man's plight.  They weren't happy he got healed.  They weren't amazed at the miracle or demonstration of God's power.  They were angry that Jesus showed them up.  We saw this same battle time and again.  It didn't stop after Jesus returned to Heaven either.  After the Early Church started, the establishment found themselves fighting time and again with members who were asking "why" and weren't satisfied with the answer.

My great fear is that the modern Church is drifting into this same area.  So many churches are so caught up in doing what they've always done that they are completely missing the fact that the world is dying all around them.   The old programs are not reaching the new culture like they used to.  The old way of doing things is not necessarily going to have the same results.  I'm not calling for an abandonment of the core beliefs of the Church.  I'm saying we need to to examine why we are sharing those beliefs the way we are.  Again, we are becoming so attached to our rules and programs that we often are missing the core message of "Love God, Love Others."  The Bible never told us to sing from a hymnal, have Sunday evening services, have AWANA, do Tuesday night visitation, set up a children's choir, go to youth camp, sit in pews, or have a giant building.  None of those things are necessarily bad things.  BUT, WHY are we doing those things?  Is there a good reason?  If so, then keep on going.  If the answer is because that's the way we've always done it, well, that shouldn't cut it.

I think some churches have gone to the opposite extreme.  They've jettisoned everything - even the important things.  That is NOT what I am advocating.  But, we need to start asking ourselves why we insist on certain things.  Why is the offering put where it is in the order of worship?  Why do you have an invitation?  Or, why don't you ever have one?  Why do you only do Communion twice a year?  Why do you sing the first two verses of a hymn and then skip to the last?  Why do you preach on tithing?  Why do you use that particular Sunday School curriculum?  If you ask that, and at the end decide things should stay the way they are, well you are even more steadfast in your stance.  Good for you.  But if you end up with because that's the way we've always done it, then pray and ask God if there is a better way.

Our final goal should be to increase God's Kingdom, lead more people to Him, share the transformative power of God's Good News, help people grow in their walk with Christ.  The rest of that stuff is all trappings.  It is ways to accomplish those goals.  If we end up spending so much time and efforts on the programs, we'll miss the point.  The reason all of this really hit home with me this week is that I am speaking at chapel on Friday at International Community School.  This may be the last time I address the senior class there.  They are very dear to my heart.  When they were freshmen, the school made the questionable choice of letting me teach them Bible.  I was terrified and in over my head.  I thought about all the Bible classes I had taken over the years.  And I knew that they were going to get some very solid teaching from my fellow Bible teacher, Greg Willson, that would make up for any stupidity I imparted.  So, I approached the class with the simple question of "Why" hanging over everything.  Why does it matter if we believe this?  Why is this so important?  Why did this happen the way it did?  I wasn't so concerned about ramming home the exact order of the Israelite kings as I was asking why the desire to have a king was so significant.  The kids had not really been forced to look at the Bible that way.  [I can't take credit for this.  My college Sunday School teacher, Jeff Kipi, did the same thing with us.  It floored me.  And it changed my life.]  We have had a very special connection from that class onward.  I love those guys and gals.  And it is sad and thrilling to see them moving on.  I see amazing potential in that group of students.  They are the kinds of people who can change the world.  That isn't going to happen by them resorting to because that's they way we've always done it.  It is going to happen by them seeking and looking for new and better ways to do things.  So, if one of these kids comes up to you and asks you why, go on the journey with them to figure that out.  It may force you to change some things.  It may even change you.  And it will give you a better answer when someone asks you why.

Sep 7, 2010

What's a Title Worth?

What's your favorite team? Get that team in your head - the one that you are really passionate about. Now, let's assume that, as a fan, you were presented the following scenario. "If your team can guarantee it will win the title next year. BUT, to do so, they will have to suck for AT LEAST the next ten years." Would you do it? Is the joy of the title worth the decade of frustration that will be following? I know Bill Simmons has kind of examined this before on his ESPN site. He argues that if your team wins a title, you are not allowed to complain about anything they do for the next five years. Normally, I think that Simmons is pretty on target with his take on sports. But I disagree with this proposition.

The Florida Marlins have two World Series titles. They were won ten years apart. And in both cases, the team did the same thing. They built a good team through drafts, farm system, trades. Then, the loaded up the team for one year. They snuck into the playoffs as the Wild Card and then raced through the playoffs - winning the World Series. Then, they dismantled the team and were absolutely horrible for several years. Then, due to that, they were able to cheaply restock during that time and repeat the process. It is actually pretty good business for the team. They pay through the nose for salaries for a couple years, get the most they can out of young talent, and then dump everybody before they have to re-sign anyone to more than a rookie deal.

So, as a Marlins fan (are there any of those?) would you be okay with this? Every ten years, you will win a title. But for seven of those other nine years, you will have a losing record. In today's sports economic system, it is pretty obvious that it is impossible to compete every single year and keep a roster intact. The superstars want big pay days, which means that you can't keep the other surrounding players - the unrecognized, but vital, parts of the team. To keep the quarterback, running back, top receiver, a couple defensive stars the team has to sacrifice offensive linemen and tight ends and safety. Next thing you know, the team is going 10-6 and losing in the first round every year. (Eagles, I'm looking in your direction.) Eventually something has to change - so the team gets blown up. As a fan, would you rather be like the Eagles of the NFL - competitive just about every year, going to the playoffs, never winning the big game? Or would you rather be like the Marlins - rarely competitive, winning record three years out of ten, title every ten years, no continuity?

I thought about all of this when I thought about the Tampa Bay Bucs. When I lived in Tampa and really started cheering for the Bucs, the team had a personality. It took after its coach, Tony Dungy. The players seemed nice. They had fun together. They worked hard, played tough, and were always competitive. They turned a loser franchise around and made it a contender. And the fans responded. At one point, they had 40,000 people on a waiting list for season tickets.  But, they were not quite getting over that hump. It was frustrating to the fans - and apparently extremely frustrating to ownership. So they made the decision that has changed that franchise forever. They fired Rich McKay and Tony Dungy and brought in Bruce Allen and Jon Gruden. The very next year the Bucs won the Super Bowl. It looked like they made the right choice. Except....

In retrospect, we can see what we should have known at the time. Gruden won with Dungy's team, except with a couple of tweaks. He was this legendary quarterbacks coach, but ended up getting minimal help from Brad Johnson. They rode Monte Kiffin and the defense to the title. And they probably would have at least gotten to the Super Bowl with Dungy. The team wasn't that much better under Gruden. It went 12-4. If you broke the season into quarters, they were 3-1 in each one. They just hit it right. And the biggest advantage Gruden brought to the team was the fact the Bucs played the Radiers in the Super Bowl. He was able to completely undermine the Raiders since he built their team. That was where the move proved its worth - if they had played another AFC team, Gruden would have been irrelevant to the season.

Dungy went to the Colts and did the same thing as with the Bucs. Very consistent, very competitive, never winning the big one. But, eventually, he did win. And he would have won eventually with the Bucs. They may have even won more than one title - once the first one was in the basket. Instead, the Bucs now had a new approach to football. And Allen/Gruden couldn't stand the constant accusations being levied at them that they had just won with Dungy's team. So they began a systematic rebuilding of the team in their images. How'd that work out?
  • 2002 - Record 12-4 - won Super Bowl
  • 2003 - Record 7-9 - no playoffs
  • 2004 - Record 5-11 - no playoffs
  • 2005 - Record 11-5 - lost in wild card game
  • 2006 - Record 4-12 - no playoffs
  • 2007 - Record 9-7 - lost in wild card game (Gruden/Allen re-signed through 2011)
  • 2008 - Record 9-7 - no playoffs after Bucs lost last four games
  • Gruden/Allen fired
Their record was 57-55. If you remove the carryover year from Dungy, they went 45-51. The team won three division titles in the shaky NFC South. The first was the Super Bowl year. The other two, the team quickly exited the playoffs. So, would you say the experiment was a success? The team won a Super Bowl, so you could argue that it was. But, now the team is a complete wreck. Last year, they were terrible under their new head coach, Raheem Morris - who was still in high school when Brett Favre started in the NFL. And this year doesn't look any better. Neither does next year. The team itself has completely lost its mojo. That huge waiting list is gone.  Now the Bucs are one of the dozen teams that will be forced into home blackouts by the NFL due to poor ticket sales.  They really don't have anyone on the roster that even inspires a level of excitement for the future. They don't have a franchise quarterback. Their receiving corps looks to be the worst in the NFL. Their two premiere players are Cadillac Williams - who appears to be named after the 1980s Caddys that broke down a lot - and Ronde Barber. While Ronde has been a rock for this team, he is winding down his career. And he's older than the head coach.

[Side Note on Barber. Did you know that there are less than 20 players who have recorded over 500 tackles and 20 sacks for their career? I was kind of surprised to hear that. Barber reached that level in 2005. At that point there were only nine players. I found one other one who reached that last year. Some of the others include Seth Joyner, Ray Lewis, Wilbur Marshall, Brian Dawkins, Rodney Harrison, and LeRoy Butler. Most of them are linebackers. A few are safeties. Barber is the only cornerback. So far, he has 1156 tackles and 25 sacks. But he also has 37 interceptions. There are only about a dozen players with 20 sacks and 20 interceptions in their career. I'm not sure what all that means, but Barber has been one heck of a player.]

So, back to the original question... Is one title worth years of ineptitude? I don't know. It is hard for me to answer that because I'm not a great sports fan. I haven't been loyal to one team for my whole life. And the teams I rooted for in my early years (Cowboys, Georgia Bulldogs, Yankees) all won titles. So I don't know what it feels like for a tortured sports fan like a Browns fan or Eagles fan or Lions fan. Would it be worth it for them? I know that the Red Sox 86 year title drought has been nauseatingly documented. And the fans there have all said that the 2006 title was worth it. Even those fans, though, once they got a taste of victory got greedy. They aren't satisfied with losing any more. I can't imagine that Boston fans would tolerate ten years of ineptitude without complaining.

I don't let my life get too wrapped up in sports. I love sports. But I find it hard to root for a corporation. Honestly, I root harder for Apple than I do for any of my professional teams. I have changed allegiances over the years. The teams I used to root for I slowly drifted away from. I didn't like they way they ran their franchise, honestly. I rooted for the Cowboys for years, until I couldn't take Jerry Jones any more. I was tired of them before they ended their string of Super Bowls in the 90s. The Yankees got tossed aside a few years back after the Mitchell Report linked 26 players to steroid use. I figured that was just a culture of cheating at that point. I aligned with the Bucs for a while, when I was living in Tampa and for a few years after that. But eventually the Glazer/Gruden/Allen combo pushed me away. So I am not the best person to ask. I respond to a team's personality and not just their players or the team itself.

Now I root for the Jaguars because I get to go to their games once in a while - and my in-laws live in Jacksonville. It is easy to follow that team, and they seem like a good organization. I started rooting for the Tampa Bay Rays - partly because they are an underdog, partly because of the team personality, partly because them winning sticks it to the Yankees AND Red Sox. The Magic got my allegiance due to location (I've lived in or near Orlando since 1992 - for the most part) and the way the team is run - I like the owner and the personnel. And the Nashville Predators fit into those same molds. Plus I love rooting for underdogs and teams with good personalities. You would have sworn I was a Saints fan last year with how much I cheered for them during the season.

I guess the closest I come to being a rabid sports fan is with my college team - UCF. They are the team I follow the closest and feel strong emotional attachment to. That is because I went to that school. My wife went to that school. We lived near that school for years. I had lots to do with students, faculty, alumni of that school. So it isn't just rooting for a random jersey and logo at that point. So, would a title for UCF be worth it? That is a tough question. Their team has been so frustrating to follow for so many years. They never live up to their talent. Sure, they have won conference titles. They have been to bowl games. But they never really seem to get it all together. They are always too impressed with their opponents. They have an abysmal record against schools from the "power conferences." This has cost them numerous games they should have won. And I've also had to watch as cross-state rival USF started a football program, grew that program, beat ranked teams, got ranked as high as #2 in the BCS poll, and beat our butts four years in a row.

In college, once you win that title - it never goes away. (Well, unless you are USC or play for John Calipari or Bob Huggins.) The constant turnover of players due to graduation means that teams are used to the ebb and flow of success. Even the biggest teams have gone through dry spells when they had bad recruiting or a coaching change. So going through a stretch of suckitude after a title wouldn't be that horrible, I guess. And think about the joy that would come from being able to rub that title as a non-BCS team into all the big guys' faces. I can't imagine the way the first non-BCS team will feel when it finally breaks up the monopoly. (Boise State, TCU - this is your year. Let's find out!) And if you were the team that lost to that non-BCS team? Man, they would be owned forever. "Way to go Ohio State. I understand losing to Florida. But TCU? Seriously?!?" I mean, look at the crap Michigan has taken for getting offed by Appalachian State a couple of years ago.

I guess it would be worth it - being able to gloat over FSU and Miami and UF. Especially UF. Plus, imagine what one title would be worth to a school. That would give them legitimacy when it came to conference affiliation, television money, merchandise, recruiting, scheduling. Plus, even if a college stinks for a decade after a title, they still have some sway. Look at Washington, Georgia Tech, Auburn, and BYU. They still have extra status due to those titles - even though several of those schools have never come close to that level of success again.

Whether or not buying a title would be worth it obviously depends on who you ask.  The owners and players would probably argue that, yes, it was worth it.  A franchise is more valuable with hardware - they can get more allowances from their home city, higher merchandise sales, more lucrative seat licenses.  So the title is worth it to an owner.  To players, their careers are often defined by their ability or inability to win the big game.  Think about guys like Charles Barkley, Karl Malone, Dan Marino, or Dale Murphy.  Their careers cannot be mentioned without the deadly "but they never won a title" attached.  And then there are players whose careers are inflated in importance due to titles (Joe Namath, looking in your general direction).  Plus, you can sucker some dumb team into giving you tons of money if you were a part of a championship team (Larry Brown).  Plus, there isn't a lot of loyalty in sports.  You get your money while you can - on both sides of the labor argument.  Championships equal money.

To the fan, the question is harder.  A rabid, die hard, lunatic fan who lives and dies by the team's success would argue that the title is worth it.  A long suffering fan of a team that is perennially sorry (Browns, Cubs, Lions, Nationals, Clippers) would probably say it is worth it - to get the monkey off their back.  But I would wager they would regret that later.  The title would feel great.  But then to go BACK to the putrid levels of yesteryear - that would be horrible.  Think about Rams fans.  They were the worst team in the NFL - voted worst of the decade.  They had watched the move from L.A. to St Louis.  There was only on Super Bowl appearance where they had backed into the playoffs at 9-7, knocked off the Cowboys, beat the Bucs in the worst NFC Championship game ever, and lost to the juggernaut Steelers in their own backyard (the LA Coliseum).  Then - a miracle.  Kurt Warner, Dick Vermeil, Marshall Faulk, Ike Bruce and the Greatest Show on Turf arrives.  They win a Super Bowl, lose in another.  They are a powerhouse offense for a few years.  Then it all collapses and they are back to the first pick in the draft and yearly ineptitude.  How do those fans feel?  Do they say, "At least we have 2000 and 2002?"  Or do they know how bad it can be, know how good it can be, and realize just how bad it stinks to go back?  Does the winning make the losing worse?  (This could also be applied in an even better way to the Tampa Bay Lightning - league doormats, random title, back to league doormats.  But they don't have any fans.  And no one watches hockey.  So no one cares.)

As a person who has followed the Bucs, I can't stand to see how far they have fallen.  I know that it is possible for Tampa to handle a top tier team.  The city weathered some of the worst teams the NFL ever threw out there.  They love their team - and the responded well to it.  They built it a new gorgeous stadium.  They bought new merchandise when the team changed its look.  And now they are expected to continue to support the team when it has no direction, no prospects, and no apparent drive to do anything about it.  When I went to the U2 concert last October at Raymond James Stadium in Tampa, I looked up at the giant banners of their players hanging from the concourses.  In years past, they were adorned by Ronde Barber, Warren Sapp, Derrick Brooks, Mike Alstott, Warrick Dunn.  You felt pride in seeing those players on a fifty foot poster.  "That's MY team.  Look at that!"  But this time there were banners with Byron Leftwich and Kellen Winslow II and Aqib Talib.  That is just sad.  And in that moment, I can confidently say it was NOT worth it.

Aug 24, 2010

Reading: A Story

I went through a period last year where I didn't read very much.  I think it was during the summer, when I was in the midst of my "What in the Wild Wild World of Sports did I get myself into?" phase.  This was highly unusual for me.  I don't go through many phases of not being interested in reading.  I have always loved books - from when I was a smallish boy.  I got it from my parents.  My dad read voraciously.  One of the most indelible images of my childhood was my dad laying in bed reading books until he fell asleep.  He had hundreds and hundreds of books in his room that he had devoured.  I'm not a big fan of all the stuff he read - but he loved reading.  My mom was similar.  I can distinctly remember her sitting in her chair by the window and front door, reading something and taking notes in it.  She had her own bookshelf down in the living room, stocks with books on theology and other Biblical study books.

I married a reader, too.  Heather tells me about how she used to get in trouble for reading too late in her room.  She reads faster than I do - a great quality for a Med Student.  Her mom has a huge bookcase full of her various interests.  Heather's grandparents always were reading - as are her brothers.  And our kids are following in our footsteps.  Even our little guy, Gabe, now has gotten hooked on books.  Every night, we have to read him Go Dogs Go and Whose Nose and Toes.

All of that is to say that I don't remember a time when I avoided reading.  At some point, though, my older self took back over my big stupid self and I went on a reading tear that was unlike anything that I can remember doing in my past.  I began to notice this.  And, being the enormous wonk that I am, I decided to start tracking my book consumption.  (I'm a nerd.  This is news to you people?!?)  Here's what it looked like when the year was over.

  • In February and March, I read The Watchmen by Alan Moore at 416 pages, Tuck by Stephen Lawhead at 464 pages, and Hooked by McIlhaney & Bush at 178 pages.  Then it came to a screeching halt.
  • I didn't read anything until at least July.  That was when I started reading some books at Heather's parents' house - John Grisham in particular.  I guess it kick started things.  Starting in July, here is what happened.
  • Anger by Gary Chapman - 242 pages
  • The Associate by Grisham - 284 pages
  • Bleachers by Grisham - 192 pages
  • The Street Lawyer by Grisham - 384 pages
  • The Partner by Grisham - 416 pages
  • The Testament by Grisham - 480 pages
  • The Summons by Grisham - 304 pages (I was reading these Grisham books in one and two days - just flying through them.)
  • Samson and the Pirate Monks by Nate Larkin - 224 pages
  • The Lost Symbol by Dan Brown - 528 pages
  • The Jesus You Can't Ignore by John MacArthur - 256 pages
  • The Book of Basketball by Bill Simmons - 736 pages (yeah - like an encyclopedia - took me three weeks to slog through it)
  • Harry Potter Saga (seven books) by JK Rowling - 4324 pages (took three weeks to read all of it)
  • Psych Books: Mind over Magic by William Rabkin - 288 pages (based on the USA series)
The grand total for the year was over 9600 pages.  I know that I probably forgot something here or there, so I'm guessing I actually was up over 10,000 pages.  I don't know what I had read in years past, but I don't know if I ever had touched that total.  Well, this year I swore I would continue the process and keep reading.  So far, after almost eight months, here is where I am this year.
  • The Alchemyst by Michael Scott - 400 pages
  • Crazy Love by Francis Chan - 192 pages
  • Other Small Harry Potter Books by JK Rowling - 216 pages total
  • Another Stupid Psych Book - 284 pages
  • Percy Jackson Series (five books) by Rick Riordan - 1824 pages total
  • Game Change by John Hellemann - 464 pages
  • How to Train Your Dragon 1 & 2 by Cressida Cowell - 480 pages
  • Artemis Fowl Series (six books) by Eion Colfer  - 1700 pages
  • Circle Series (four books) by Ted Dekker - 1551 pages
  • Peter and the Starcatchers by Dave Barry - 451 pages
  • The Rise and Fall of Darth Vader by Ryder Windham - 224 pages
  • Red Pyramid by Rick Riordan - 528 pages
  • The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo  by Stieg Larsson - 644 pages
  • Against Medical Advice by James Patterson - 284 pages
I've already read 9500 pages this year.  And I already have the second Stieg Larsson book waiting.  Plus I've started several other books that are ones I pick up, read a few chapters, and lay back down.  That means that in the last thirteen months, I have read about 18,000 pages!  That's is a lot!  After all of that, here are a few observations that I have come up with - about myself and books in general.
  • Some of you have probably noticed there are not a lot of "Christian" books on that list.  It used to be that all my reading was in the "Christian Living" or "Christian Topics" sections of the bookstore.  In this last explosion of books, I can see nine that would even be sold in a Lifeway Store.  I have tried to figure out what happened with all of that, even talking to my good buddy David Tarkington - pastor at First Baptist Orange Park - to see what he thought.  I think part of it is that I am not in church work now.  So I don't have a desire to read a bunch of books on that, like I used to when I worked for the church.  Second, I often will read books that have something to do with Defender Ministries, but those rarely are "Christian" books.  There aren't a ton of "Christian" books out there that deal with the stuff we work with.  When a good one comes along (like Samson and the Pirate Monks) I read it.
  • Furthermore, I have kind of gotten a little tired of a lot of the "Christian" titles out there - at least the approach that I have begun to see take root in the Christian publishing world.  A lot of books seem like they were generated by a sermon series.  That series is then turned into a book.  I know this happens all the time because big famous Christian authors do it (Stanley, Swindoll, and MacArthur - to name a few).  Also I talked to a pastor before about doing that very thing with his sermons.  The problem is, a lot of times that is enough information to generate about two-thirds of a book.  So you kind of figure out where everything is going and there just seems to be a lot of fluff and repetition to fill up a full sized book.  Then it is just fluffy and repetitive.  Very much repeating and fluff.  See how annoying that is?  I still keep my eyes open for good books in that realm.  But I probably should be in there a bit more.
  • "Young Readers" literature is fun to read.  So far, I have tackled part of all of seven different series that would be classified as "children's books."  Let me be perfectly honest - they are just as well written as John Grisham books and just as challenging.  I found it humorous that he actually put out a book in this genre this year.  It would basically be a normal John Grisham book, but probably with less cursing and adult situations.  They are far better than stuff like the Psych books I wasted my time reading.  They are usually fast paced, interesting, and don't have a lot of the language, violence, and sex that so many books struggle with.  And some of them, like the Harry Potter series, are far better than the vast majority of literature out there.
  • Non-fiction books can be just as exciting as fiction.  I always steered away from non-fiction books.  Maybe it was the bad memories of my college years when I had to read countless volumes of those type of books.  I don't know.  But I also avoided documentary films.  Lately, though, I have found that I have thoroughly enjoyed numerous non-fiction tomes.  The Book of Basketball by Bill Simmons was immensely fascinating - even though it was a beast to work through.  The book Game Change, about the last Presidential election, was even better than most thrillers.  I couldn't put it down.  And I blew the heart-rending Against Medical Advice by James Patterson today.  It was about a boy who battled OCD, Tourettes, and Anxiety Disorder and how his family struggled to find a cure.  Gripping and fast paced.
  • The latest "big reputation" novel I finished was The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo.  It was brilliantly written, very intelligent, and hard to put down.  It also was very hard to stomach.  It dealt with the hunt for a murderer and dealt with issues of rape, abuse, and incest.  There were scenes that made me want to put the book away for good.  The book was just too good to abandon.  The other thing that kept me going was that the author interspersed the story with stats about how common those things are in Sweden (where he is from and the book is set).  It is truly heartbreaking that evil of that sort exists - especially on that scope.  But the book itself was just an amazingly crafted work.
  • One of things that I am learning through all of this reading is how to be a better storyteller.  This is something that I see in myself - the ability and desire to communicate stories about life, God, the world.  I think it is a noble calling that has existed as long as man has.  I love writing, teaching communicating messages through graphic work.  I also want to write books.  I have several started, but need to work harder on them.  Over the last twelve months I basically have been in a crash course with some of the best authors in the business.  JK Rowling, John Grisham, James Patterson, Stieg Larsson, Bill Simmons, Ted Dekker, Dave Barry.  I have seen how they craft stories that enthrall.  And they also can sustain a long term series of books.  I feel I have actually grown as a writer by reading these other writers.  It is almost like I have been in school.  
That all being said, there may be some changes in my blogs.  I have been thinking about the direction I want to take both this blog and the Darth Fatso site.  The other day, I looked into WordPress.  They have a better way of organizing blogs - where I could host both under one roof.  I am still thinking about what all I want to do, but that may be something that happens sooner rather than later.  I, of course, will let you know.  Just keep reading.

May 3, 2010

Drinking Haterade

The other day a brilliant and insightful person posted a statement on Twitter.  "You aren't a real sports fan until you hate someone."  While Bill Simmons has addressed this before, he was not the one who wrote that.  Yeah, okay, I wrote it.  But it was pretty good, right?  Think about it, can you really root for a team without also rooting AGAINST other teams.  And it helps to have a villain as a foil for your hero.  Joker makes Batman a better character.

Sports is one arena where this is so clearly demonstrated.  Players and teams are measured against other players and teams.  Greatness is assigned when one entity is demonstrably better than another.  When there are two teams/players so much better than every other, their greatness is even more amplified.  Larry Bird is considered one of the all-time greats because he excelled against other epic players - Magic, Dr. J, Dominique.  For him to still be so good with such powerful opponents showed how good he really was.  I think that is one reason a player like Allen Iverson is so undervalued - he didn't have any dominent competition.

Also, in sports, there are divisions and conferences that lend themselves to this villains/heroes mindset.  Teams play teams in their division multiple times a year.  They have to beat each other to get to the playoffs.  In baseball, division teams play each other like 21 times each year.  In the NFL, you play your division rival twice - and may only play out of conference teams every few years.  So you learn to hate the other teams in your grouping.  It's one of the few cases where hatred is acceptable - actually encouraged.

I have heard people try to tell me that they like multiple teams within a conference or something like that.  How?!?  I have a friend from college who says she likes the Detroit Red Wings AND Nashville Predators. They are in the same division!  The Red Wings are the reason the Preds had to play the Blackhawks in the playoffs.  How can you like both?  It's not possible. (Sorry Carol)  It is like being a fan of the Eagles AND Giants.  Or the Red Sox AND Yankees.  That is NOT possible.  It's like Jesus said, "Fresh water and salt water cannot come out of the same spring."  [What?!?  He said that.  I'm sure in modern times it would have been, "You can not wear orange and blue AND garnet and gold."]

I bring all of this up because I have documented my recent transition to hockey fan.  I feel that I have done an admirable job adopting the sport.  I actually watch the games several times a week on Versus Channel.  (A channel I had never once watched before.)  I watched part of five of the six Nashville playoff games.  I was severely bummed out over the Preds choking away TWO games in that series - and subsequently the series itself.  They only converted on one power play the whole series, for Molsen's sake!  I feel like I'm doing well.  But this weekend I found myself jumping to a different level of fandom - something that truly gave me credibility.  I turned on Game One of the Chicago/Vancouver series TO ROOT AGAINST THE BLACKHAWKS.  Yes, I have crossed the line from casual observer - who would have found on something different to watch - to fan.  I intentionally watched a game to throw mental barbs at a team I hated.  And I laughed when they got whipped.  I also took great pleasure in watching Detroit lose both games to San Jose.

Don't get me wrong - I have no affection for either Vancouver or San Jose.  I am purely ambivalent to those teams.  But when they drop the puck against Chicago or Detroit - well then I might as well have the Canucks or Sharks as my Twitter wallpaper.  That's the way sports go.  My enemy's enemy is my friend.  It is pretty sad, I guess, but I was actually proud of myself that I have so quickly grown to detest those teams.  It shows true loyalty, as well as some pain from losing.

As a parent, I am still trying to get my kids into watching sports with me.  They are kind of resistent to it.  They would prefer reading books and using their imagination and other bologna.  How are they supposed to become a couch potato if they won't watch sports?  My best hope is Gabe, I think.  But he like soccer - which will be useful this summer with the World Cup.  I keep trying to get them to understand that we are a UCF family.  They kind of have that down.  And they know we all cheer for the Jaguars.  But, it is just as important to teach who they should DISlike.  Like they say, hatred is learned.   If you don't teach your kids which teams and players to root against, they may get distracted by stuff like stats and looks and logos and helmet design.  Next thing you know, they will be cheering for the Colts because "that Manning guy is funny."  If no one teaches them, how will they know?

There are some very natural and well-known love/hate team pairings.  They are the ones I mentioned earlier.  But it is hard to find a team to loathe when you are a fan of one of those mid-level teams like I am.  How do you come up with a villain when your team is the equivalent of superheroes like Namor or
Booster Gold?  I mean, you cheer for Michigan, your body just automatically turns against Ohio State like it was a virus.  But when you root for the Kansas City Royals, it isn't so easy to decide who to hate.  You know, besides the universe, for making you a Royals fan.

To help with this process, allow me to spell out some of my personal affiliations and defiliations (I made that up).  I have mentioned some of this in previous posts, but for the sake of condensing the hatred, here we go.  I think that all sports fans have four emotions when dealing with sports teams.  There is LOVE - that is for their favorite team (or teams, if you believe in sports bigamy).  Next is SYMPATHY.  These are teams you may have flirted with over the years.  Or it could have a good story, players worth rooting for, geographical advantages.  But SYMPATHY teams are never cheered for over LOVE teams.  Then there is AMBIVALENCE.  This the biggest category, comprised of most of a league.  You don't really care what they do - as long as they do two things.  They need to lose to your LOVE/SYMPATHY teams and beat the HATRED teams.  And then there is the HATRED teams.  You never cheer for these teams.  They are loathed.  Fans of these teams have some sort of mental illness, obviously.  If two teams in this category play each other, you root for the team that will cause the most widespread damage to the other HATRED teams by winning.  Or you root for a chasm to open up under the stadium and devour the teams.  The final rule is that you root for all games not involving your LOVE team so that the outcome helps your LOVE team.  If you have a SYMPATHY team playing a HATRED team, but a victory by the HATRED team will put your LOVE into the playoffs and a loss will send them home?  You cheer for that HATRED team with everything you have - and then go cleanse yourself.  That all being said, here's my lineups.

NFL
LOVE:  Jacksonville Jaguars (AFC South)
SYMPATHY: Tampa Bay Bucs, New Orleans Saints
AMBIVALENCE:  Bills, Browns, Bengals, Steelers, Texans, Titans, Chargers, Chiefs, Cowboys, Eagles, Bears, Lions, Vikings, Packers, Falcons, Panthers, Seahawks, Rams, Cardinals.  And the Colts, Jets, and Patriots are awfully close to dropping down a level.
HATRED: Miami Dolphins, SF 49ers, Denver Broncos, Oakland Raiders, Washington Redskins, NY Giants, Baltimore Ravens

NBA
LOVE: Orlando Magic (Southeast Division)
SYMPATHY: Atlanta Hawks (precarious)
AMBIVALENCE: Raptors, Sixers, Nets, Bucks, Bulls, Pacers, Bobcats, Wizards, Nuggets, Jazz, Blazers, Thunder, T'Wolves, Suns, Clippers, Warriors, Kings, Mavs, Spurs, Rockets, Grizzlies, Hornets.  With the Cavs sliding down in the bottom soon, probably.
HATRED:  Boston Celtics, Los Angeles Lakers, New York Knicks, Detroit Pistons, Miami Heat

COLLEGE
LOVE: UCF Knights (Conference USA)
SYMPATHY: Georgia Bulldogs, FSU Seminoles (begrudgingly due to Heather), USF Bulls (drifting down fast). underdogs and cinderellas
AMBIVALENCE: Everyone else
HATRED: Florida Gators, Miami Hurricanes, Notre Dame Irish (The unholy trinity).  Then USC Trojans, Ohio State Buckeyes, Texas Longhorns, Duke Blue Devils

NHL
LOVE: Nashville Predators (Central Division)
SYMPATHY: Pittsburgh Penguins, Buffalo Sabres, Montreal Canadians
AMBIVALENCE: Flyers, Senators, Bruins, Maple Leafs, Capitals, Thrashers, Hurricanes, Lightning, Panthers, Blues, Blue Jackets, Canucks, Avalanche, Flames, Wild, Oilers, Sharks, Coyotes, Kings, Ducks, Stars.  With the Rangers, Islanders, and Devils on the edge of hatred - just due to their location)
HATRED: Detroit Red Wings, Chicago Blackhawks

MLB
LOVE: No one
SYMPATHY: Tampa Bay Rays, NY Yankees, St Louis Cardinals (due to Pujols)
AMBIVALENCE: Blue Jays, Orioles, White Sox, Royals, Tigers, Twins, Indians, Rangers, A's, Mariners, Phillies, Nationals, Pirates, Cubs, Reds, Brewers, Astros, Giants, Diamondbacks, Rockies, Padres
HATRED: Boston Red Sox, Atlanta Braves, LA Dodgers, LA Angels, NY Mets, Florida Marlins

So, there is a handy guide based on my opinions.  I hope it helps you to develop the hatred and loathing that is so necessary to become a true sports fan.  Finding someone to hate will make your sports viewing such a richer experience.  You need your Darth Vader, your Joker, your Red Sox.  Spread the hate.