It's not too often that I contribute nearly anything at all in regards to baseball discussion, but that's mostly due to the fact that I don't have a clue as to what I'm talking about on the topic. I don't consider myself a baseball fan, but that's not to take away from the sport itself or any fan devoted to America's pastime. I, like a large portion of sports fans, lack the patience for such long games and such a long season. Playoff baseball is a whole different beast; it certainly keeps even the bandwagon fans on the edge of their seats.
But even as a technically "non-fan" of the MLB, the game still provides one of the best atmospheres for attending a game. I personally believe college football tops any atmosphere in all of sports, but it's more of the day-long tailgating and pre-kickoff traditions that really push it in front of the others. Attending a baseball game, though, is just a fantastic experience. Ironically enough, the slow, casual pace of a game is a major positive aspect of being in the crowd. A summer night drinking $9 beers calls for relaxed vibes, which is precisely what a baseball stadium provides.
More than any other sport, baseball stadiums just have an aura to them that makes you want to spend a game at every possible venue. Even the newer stadiums, the non-Fenway/Wrigleys of the world, are a legitimate attraction.
But enough about the intangibles, the thing I love the most about live baseball games is the execution of music. There's nothing worse than the over saturation of sound effects during play of an NBA game. It's awful. College sports have the bands tearing it up with the brass instruments, beating the drums, playing the school's fight song. That's all fine and dandy, but what's tight about MLB stadiums is the personal soundtrack aspect. Songs selected by and tailored to individual players really allows them to reinforce their brand. To assist in creating an identity for each player and his hometown fans.
Which brings me to walk up songs: The ultimate "all eyes on me" moment. I've been trying to contemplate what exactly my walk up song would be, had I not been an atrocious baseball player and made it to the bigs, and it's harder than I thought. So I thought I'd list three, perhaps to switch up between during the everlasting baseball season:
Always a classic, gets the crowd going. However, you can't be some chump with a minimal contract walking up to this. You need to have one of those headlining salaries, letting everyone know how many bands you've got in your multiple mansions.
I'm not entirely sure exactly how long a walk up song plays for before they shut it off, but all I'd need is the intro to this all-time great jam. You'd be the smoothest dude in the league walking up to the plate with this blaring throughout the stadium.
Just an adrenaline rush of an intro. The type of intro that perks your ears up and leads into immediate head bobbing.
What I find to be more intense and personal than walk up songs is a song dedicated to the closer as he makes his way from the bullpen. Only happens once a game, and it's always in the most crucial moment. Now obviously "Major League" crushed this for Charlie Sheen with Wild Thing,
but hands down, no discussion, without a doubt, walking out of the bullpen and tossing a few warmups to Voodoo Child would get a crowd rocking like you've never seen before.
Slowly walking from the bullpen to the mound during the build up of Hendrix shredding would be incredible. Not to mention that closers seem like a bunch of dudes that would be into voodoo practices. Whatever mountain is up to bat across from you, your chopping that sucker down with the edge of your hand. Picturing this really makes me wish I didn't suck so badly at baseball and didn't throw like a toddler playing catch in the yard with his dad.
And while we're on the topic of personal intro songs, I'm sticking by my claim that if I were to ever walk from the tunnel to the UFC octagon, you can bet that I'd stick with a stadium classic/college football tradition in Enter Sandman
So yeah, kind of an odd rant that had very little to do with actual baseball, but still an interesting topic of discussion.
What would your walk up/closer song be?
Thursday, April 13, 2017
Friday, April 7, 2017
Wichita State not-so-shockingly moving to American Athletic Conference
One thousand five hundred and thirty-eight.
That is the number of miles between the Gampel Pavilion in Storrs, Conn. and Charles Koch Arena in Wichita, Kan.
To be totally fair, geography in college athletics is like "wins" or "runs batted in" in baseball - it doesn't matter anymore (according to nerds, anyways). It's not like BC and Miami or Washington State and Arizona or Nebraska and Rutgers are next-door neighbors in their respective conferences.
But what the ACC, Pac-12, B1G and all the other power conferences have is stability. The American Athletic Conference has stability like the National Inquirer has credibility.
Make no mistake about it, despite the absurd traveling distance between UConn and Wichita State, this is a great move for the American - from a basketball perspective.
UConn and Cincinnati - and to a lesser extent, Memphis and Temple - are all legitimate basketball programs. Yes the Huskies were rather horrid this year but any one of those four teams appears on your nonleague slate and you'll at least give a nod of a approval, if not pop your eyes open.
UConn and Cincy will bounce for the ACC or B1G or Big East the first chance they get, no question about it. The next major wave of conference realignment is probably still eight or so years away, when the Big 12's "Grant of Rights" deal expires. In the meantime, the next tier of conferences - the American, the Atlantic 10, the Mountain West, etc. - are the ones to keep an eye on.
Which makes you think...why didn't the A-10 get out ahead of the curve and shoot Wichita State an invite?
The A-10 has taken its share of lumps this decade, but rather than be reduced to a lower-tier conference, it has reloaded quite nicely. Temple, Xavier, Charlotte (and in an abbreviated stay, Butler) are gone, replaced by VCU, Davidson and George Mason. Maybe still a net negative but hardly a death kneel.
There's the whole matter of Wichita not being anywhere close to the Atlantic Ocean but again, geography is irrelevant. You can't exactly skip rocks into the Atlantic from the campus of Saint Louis University.
But wait, Lev, the A-10 would have an odd number of teams! How can you make a schedule with 15 teams?!
The ACC - which just produced the national champion - has 15 teams for basketball.
The A-10 also competed with 13 teams not long ago while waiting for Davidson to arrive.
The A-10 and American have been fairly neck-and-neck in terms of tournament bids received since the American's inception in 2014. The A-10 has earned 15 bids (11 at-large) over the last four seasons, the American has earned 12 (eight at-large).
UConn won the national championship in 2014 and that's clearly a mega counter point. Adding on the Shockers, which have made the tournament six seasons running and are widely expected to be a top-10 team in the preseason next year? The scales they are a-tipping.
If (when) the Big East decides to go to 12 teams for basketball (remember, it's not a football conference anymore), the A-10 will once again have a slew of candidates ripe for the picking. Would Wichita State's inclusion in the A-10 be enough to sway a program like Dayton from leaving for the Big East? Doubtful.
But even then, it could have been a strong preemptive strike to take on the Shockers, who made it abundantly clear they were searching for a new home.
There's also the matter of UMass, which pretty desperately needs a new home for football. Well, just a home period.
With Wichita State in the fold, the American maintains a 12-team football membership (Navy is a football-only member), while it becomes a 12-team league in basketball. Could the island of misfit toys that is the American be interested in adding UMass as a full member - which would no doubt appease UConn a bit?
The "Power 5" are the "Power 5" and the Big East really makes it six in basketball. The American just drained one from the parking lot in an effort to keep up, while the Atlantic-10 may have just clanked one off the rim.
That is the number of miles between the Gampel Pavilion in Storrs, Conn. and Charles Koch Arena in Wichita, Kan.
To be totally fair, geography in college athletics is like "wins" or "runs batted in" in baseball - it doesn't matter anymore (according to nerds, anyways). It's not like BC and Miami or Washington State and Arizona or Nebraska and Rutgers are next-door neighbors in their respective conferences.
But what the ACC, Pac-12, B1G and all the other power conferences have is stability. The American Athletic Conference has stability like the National Inquirer has credibility.
Make no mistake about it, despite the absurd traveling distance between UConn and Wichita State, this is a great move for the American - from a basketball perspective.
UConn and Cincinnati - and to a lesser extent, Memphis and Temple - are all legitimate basketball programs. Yes the Huskies were rather horrid this year but any one of those four teams appears on your nonleague slate and you'll at least give a nod of a approval, if not pop your eyes open.
UConn and Cincy will bounce for the ACC or B1G or Big East the first chance they get, no question about it. The next major wave of conference realignment is probably still eight or so years away, when the Big 12's "Grant of Rights" deal expires. In the meantime, the next tier of conferences - the American, the Atlantic 10, the Mountain West, etc. - are the ones to keep an eye on.
Which makes you think...why didn't the A-10 get out ahead of the curve and shoot Wichita State an invite?
The A-10 has taken its share of lumps this decade, but rather than be reduced to a lower-tier conference, it has reloaded quite nicely. Temple, Xavier, Charlotte (and in an abbreviated stay, Butler) are gone, replaced by VCU, Davidson and George Mason. Maybe still a net negative but hardly a death kneel.
There's the whole matter of Wichita not being anywhere close to the Atlantic Ocean but again, geography is irrelevant. You can't exactly skip rocks into the Atlantic from the campus of Saint Louis University.
But wait, Lev, the A-10 would have an odd number of teams! How can you make a schedule with 15 teams?!
The ACC - which just produced the national champion - has 15 teams for basketball.
The A-10 also competed with 13 teams not long ago while waiting for Davidson to arrive.
The A-10 and American have been fairly neck-and-neck in terms of tournament bids received since the American's inception in 2014. The A-10 has earned 15 bids (11 at-large) over the last four seasons, the American has earned 12 (eight at-large).
UConn won the national championship in 2014 and that's clearly a mega counter point. Adding on the Shockers, which have made the tournament six seasons running and are widely expected to be a top-10 team in the preseason next year? The scales they are a-tipping.
If (when) the Big East decides to go to 12 teams for basketball (remember, it's not a football conference anymore), the A-10 will once again have a slew of candidates ripe for the picking. Would Wichita State's inclusion in the A-10 be enough to sway a program like Dayton from leaving for the Big East? Doubtful.
But even then, it could have been a strong preemptive strike to take on the Shockers, who made it abundantly clear they were searching for a new home.
There's also the matter of UMass, which pretty desperately needs a new home for football. Well, just a home period.
With Wichita State in the fold, the American maintains a 12-team football membership (Navy is a football-only member), while it becomes a 12-team league in basketball. Could the island of misfit toys that is the American be interested in adding UMass as a full member - which would no doubt appease UConn a bit?
The "Power 5" are the "Power 5" and the Big East really makes it six in basketball. The American just drained one from the parking lot in an effort to keep up, while the Atlantic-10 may have just clanked one off the rim.
Wednesday, April 5, 2017
What Makes the Masters So Special?
*Disclaimer: If you are a genuine golf fan, go ahead and enjoy the Masters. If this is the only golf tournament you plan on watching all year, keep reading and let's debate.
With the Masters coverage beginning, I once again am sitting here wondering why in the world people make such a big deal about it. I will admit, I'll be tuning in at various points this weekend to check in on this tournament that I just don't care about. But that's simply due to me being a sheep; I want to be somewhat aware of the action that will be taking over sports chatter for the next four days.
It also should be noted that in no way, shape, or form do I consider myself a golf fan. But that's what really baffles me about the Masters; there are so many people that could not care less about the sport of golf all year, yet the Masters inexplicably gets their juices flowing. Do non-NASCAR fans tune into Daytona (or whatever the most significant race is) annually because of its significance within the "sport?" Not to my knowledge. And don't try and hit me with the "tradition unlike any other" garbage. Just within the sports world the Super Bowl, March Madness, and the Stanley Cup Playoffs are all undoubtedly better traditions in every aspect. Just the fact that it's one of four majors within golf kind of diminishes the ultimate prestige of it.
Many people claim the aesthetic visuals of Augusta truly set the Masters apart from any other golf event. Just Google-image it then or something. There will be thousands, maybe millions, of pictures of this scenic course that you can stare at for however long you'd like. Do you tune into Arizona Cardinals home games simply because they have the nicest turf in the NFL?
And to those of you who claim this tournament simply has a special atmosphere to it:
Atmosphere? At a golf tournament? There is no such thing as differentiated atmosphere in golf, a sport where fans are prohibited from making noise. The atmosphere is consistent: it's quiet, it's boring, and it's repellent for casual fans who are seeking to get into the sport. The atmosphere puts me to sleep, which brings me to another popular argument for casual fans tuning into the Masters:
The old "Nothing better than napping on your couch with the Masters on a Sunday" claim. If there's a movie or show on your TV that puts you to sleep, you categorize it as a terrible production. Yet somehow when it comes to the Masters, that's a major selling point. Anything worth watching should keep you awake and engaged.
And lastly, as the great Happy Gilmore once said, "Gold jacket, green jacket, who gives a shit?" For whatever reason, the champion receiving a green sport coat is an argument for the tournament's greatness. If you really get all hot and bothered about a grown man receiving championship apparel, I've got news for you: it happens in literally every other major sporting championship. In fact, the other champs receive shirts and hats. So, please inform me, what in the world is so special about the Masters for those who don't typically follow golf? Other than these Photoshops I made three years ago and have been recycling ever since:
With the Masters coverage beginning, I once again am sitting here wondering why in the world people make such a big deal about it. I will admit, I'll be tuning in at various points this weekend to check in on this tournament that I just don't care about. But that's simply due to me being a sheep; I want to be somewhat aware of the action that will be taking over sports chatter for the next four days.
It also should be noted that in no way, shape, or form do I consider myself a golf fan. But that's what really baffles me about the Masters; there are so many people that could not care less about the sport of golf all year, yet the Masters inexplicably gets their juices flowing. Do non-NASCAR fans tune into Daytona (or whatever the most significant race is) annually because of its significance within the "sport?" Not to my knowledge. And don't try and hit me with the "tradition unlike any other" garbage. Just within the sports world the Super Bowl, March Madness, and the Stanley Cup Playoffs are all undoubtedly better traditions in every aspect. Just the fact that it's one of four majors within golf kind of diminishes the ultimate prestige of it.
Many people claim the aesthetic visuals of Augusta truly set the Masters apart from any other golf event. Just Google-image it then or something. There will be thousands, maybe millions, of pictures of this scenic course that you can stare at for however long you'd like. Do you tune into Arizona Cardinals home games simply because they have the nicest turf in the NFL?
And to those of you who claim this tournament simply has a special atmosphere to it:
Atmosphere? At a golf tournament? There is no such thing as differentiated atmosphere in golf, a sport where fans are prohibited from making noise. The atmosphere is consistent: it's quiet, it's boring, and it's repellent for casual fans who are seeking to get into the sport. The atmosphere puts me to sleep, which brings me to another popular argument for casual fans tuning into the Masters:
The old "Nothing better than napping on your couch with the Masters on a Sunday" claim. If there's a movie or show on your TV that puts you to sleep, you categorize it as a terrible production. Yet somehow when it comes to the Masters, that's a major selling point. Anything worth watching should keep you awake and engaged.
And lastly, as the great Happy Gilmore once said, "Gold jacket, green jacket, who gives a shit?" For whatever reason, the champion receiving a green sport coat is an argument for the tournament's greatness. If you really get all hot and bothered about a grown man receiving championship apparel, I've got news for you: it happens in literally every other major sporting championship. In fact, the other champs receive shirts and hats. So, please inform me, what in the world is so special about the Masters for those who don't typically follow golf? Other than these Photoshops I made three years ago and have been recycling ever since:
Bruins back in the playoffs
Well what a long, arduous two-year absence it was. By Boston standards that's like 50 years, but the nightmare is over: the Bruins are heading to the Stanley Cup Playoffs.
Amazingly, the black and gold were in danger of having the fifth-longest active drought in the NHL. Which speaks volumes as to just how easy it is to make the playoffs is in that league, and speaks even louder volumes how pathetic it was the Bruins couldn't squeak in, but I digress. The Carolina Hurricanes, Buffalo Sabres, Arizona/Phoenix/Quebec City Coyotes and New Jersey Devils are the only teams with longer droughts than what the Bruins could have faced.
Quite a different world from May 2014, when the B's lost to the Montreal Canadiens in seven games despite having the President's trophy in tow.
Think about it: Donald Trump was over a year away from announcing his candidacy for president,the NFL was roughly eight months away from launching sting operation against the Patriots D'Qwell Jackson was eight months away from intercepting Tom Brady and launching DeflateGate, and San Diego, St. Louis and Oakland still had NFL teams. Oh yeah, I was still in college. Crazy how much has changed.
The 2007-14 Bruins were by no means a dynasty - you kinda sorta need to win more than one championship to be considered as such - but for a seven-year stretch, they were at the very least in the discussion year in, year out on a short list of championship contenders.
Call this a resurgence, call it a rebirth, call it what you will...but is this a new era, or merely the continuation of a stalled run? I'm by no means here to say the B's are going to win the Stanley Cup, but think of how much of a championship pedigree remains here from the 2011 team: Chara, Bergeron, Marchand, Krejci as key players, plus Adam McQuaid as well as Tuukka Rask, who was Timmy Thomas' backup back then.
If you're the Washington Capitals, the core of whom has never been beyond the second round with Alex Ovechkin...do you really want to see the Bruins, seemingly playing with house money, in round one?
Back in the spring of 2008, when the initial run of success began for the B's, they were the No. 8 seed in the east. Montreal won the first round series then, too, in seven games, but it just felt great to have playoff hockey back in Boston after wandering through the abyss for a few years.
In every subsequent playoff run, the Bruins were favorites at the very least in the first round, if not beyond.
Nearly 10 years later, a few of the same players remain, back in the underdog role. Unlike then, however, some of these guys know how to win. Or at the very least win a few playoff rounds.
No matter what happens, there's a bare minimum four nights of appointment viewing coming up. And playoff beards.
Amazingly, the black and gold were in danger of having the fifth-longest active drought in the NHL. Which speaks volumes as to just how easy it is to make the playoffs is in that league, and speaks even louder volumes how pathetic it was the Bruins couldn't squeak in, but I digress. The Carolina Hurricanes, Buffalo Sabres, Arizona/Phoenix/Quebec City Coyotes and New Jersey Devils are the only teams with longer droughts than what the Bruins could have faced.
Quite a different world from May 2014, when the B's lost to the Montreal Canadiens in seven games despite having the President's trophy in tow.
Think about it: Donald Trump was over a year away from announcing his candidacy for president,
The 2007-14 Bruins were by no means a dynasty - you kinda sorta need to win more than one championship to be considered as such - but for a seven-year stretch, they were at the very least in the discussion year in, year out on a short list of championship contenders.
Call this a resurgence, call it a rebirth, call it what you will...but is this a new era, or merely the continuation of a stalled run? I'm by no means here to say the B's are going to win the Stanley Cup, but think of how much of a championship pedigree remains here from the 2011 team: Chara, Bergeron, Marchand, Krejci as key players, plus Adam McQuaid as well as Tuukka Rask, who was Timmy Thomas' backup back then.
If you're the Washington Capitals, the core of whom has never been beyond the second round with Alex Ovechkin...do you really want to see the Bruins, seemingly playing with house money, in round one?
Back in the spring of 2008, when the initial run of success began for the B's, they were the No. 8 seed in the east. Montreal won the first round series then, too, in seven games, but it just felt great to have playoff hockey back in Boston after wandering through the abyss for a few years.
In every subsequent playoff run, the Bruins were favorites at the very least in the first round, if not beyond.
Nearly 10 years later, a few of the same players remain, back in the underdog role. Unlike then, however, some of these guys know how to win. Or at the very least win a few playoff rounds.
No matter what happens, there's a bare minimum four nights of appointment viewing coming up. And playoff beards.
 |
| A sample playoff beard, circa 2011 through two rounds of play. Photo evidence of later rounds is unavailable. |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)