LIN-AMENT. LIN FIRST HARVARD GRAD TO PLAY FOR NY KNICKS SINCE 1953-54

Jeremy Lin doing his thing for Hahvahd Hoops 2006-2010

Jeremy Lin is only the 3d player from Harvard to play in the NBA.

He was a terrific player not only at Harvard, but in the Ivies.  He established a line of records unmatched in Ivy League history, and along the way, the Harvard basketball team, which had never amounted to a bucket of warm spit until Lin and Coach Amaker arrived, found its way to the Ivy League title and the NCAA tournament.

My sons and I watched these guys, led by Lin, play a ferocious contest in the Palestra against their arch-rivals Penn in 2010, which was a double overtime contest, and as Harvard finally won, largely due to the intensity and refusal to lose of Lin, who kept penetrating, dishing off, shooting jumpers, and doing whatever it took to win, it seemed like a passing of the guard.

The Daily Pennsylvanian made pun of Lin's name back in 2009 at Penn, showing once again Philly was three years ahead of NYC media.

So it’s no secret why Lin is the 2d best player on the knicks in win shares per 48 minutes at .187 after Tyson Chandler’s .248; or why his PER approaching 25 leads the team.  Lin plays defense, doesn’t turnover the ball, and is efficient both on offense and defense.  Also, he hustles.  In the Ivy League, he led across a large number of categories, including points, steals, rebounds, assists, assist to turnover ration, etc. and established benchmarks for a guard across many such categories–in fact, all time records for a guard to have such all-around abilities.

What we saw, watching him two years ago, was a guy who refused to lose.  He could penetrate and score; penetrate and dish out to the three line; penetrate and dish to the man beside him after drawing the double-team;  penetrate and dish to the open man; had amazing peripheral vision; could drop the three or the jumper if left unattended; always could run the ball and locate the open man on the run; could play defense; could steal the ball; could rebound and start the break the other way; in short, he was a complete player.

And Lin never stopped to breath.  He was always in continuous motion.  Harvard had a lot of talented players, but they looked kind of confused unless Lin got them the ball and he was coordinating the offense.  He was, in short, a terrific and talented point guard who had game.

A lot of Penn players have played in the NBA, but not so much Harvard.  Hockey has always been the winter sport at Harvard, along with playing the stock market and inventing new financial instruments the SEC can’t regulate.

Three players including Lin played in the NBA:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/friv/colleges.cgi?college=harvard#stats::none

first was

Saul Mariaschin

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/m/mariasa01.html

who was a 5 foot 11 inch player on the 1947-48 Boston Celtics.  The Celtics were in a predecessor league to the NBA, but who cares?

Here were Saul Mariaschin’s teammates on the Boston Celtics of 1947-48:

riebe, spector, sadowski, garfinkel with Saul Mariaschin Harvard Grad on 1948 Boston Celtics

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/BOS/1948.html

Here’s another of his teammates from that legendary Celts team:

CHUCK CONNORS.  Yes, the guy who later played the RIFLEMAN on TV.  Lucas McCain himself.  And a 6’5″ grad of Seton Hall, which in 1947-48 would have made him a giant player.  And he was a CELTIC.  You can look it up.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/c/connoch01.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Connors

Chuck Connors was a Celtic and played with Harvard Grad Saul Mariaschin in 1947-48

Chuck Connors also played baseball for the Brooklyn Dodgers!

And he was a TV Star!

Chuck Connors as Lucas McCain the Rifleman

Chuck Connors was a Boston Celtic and and Brooklyn Dodger

The second player that went to Harvard and played in the NBA was

Ed Smith

Edward Bernard Smith (Ed)

Ed Smith was a New York Knick in 1953-54.  On that Knicks team, Ed played with Vince “Moose” Boryla, Nate “Sweetwater” Clifton, Al McGuire and Dick McGuire, and the famous Ernie Vandeweghe, and others well-noted.

That 1953-54 Knicks team finished 1st in the Eastern Division, going 44-28 under the helm of the legendary Joe Lapchick.  And they played in the old Madison Square Garden, which many hold in as high esteem as the old Boston Garden.

Nate "Nat" "Sweetwater" Clifton of the 1953-54 NY Knicks played with Harvard's Ed Smith

and here’s ernie vandewege v bob cousy:

Bob Cousy and Ernie Vandeweghe Reaching For Ball

Of course, Ernie has some bloodlines. Kiki Vanderweghe was a great NBA player, and now his granddaughter is a professional tennis player:

CoCo Vandeweghe professional tennis player and granddaugher of Ernie Vandeweghe who played on the NY Knicks with Ed Smith in 1953-54. Ed was the last Harvard alum to play for the NY Knicks, nearly fifty years ago

IF I HAD A HAMELS….UNICORNS AND ABSTRACT HOME RUNS UNIVERSALLY INSTANTIATED BY INSTANT REPLAY DO IN COLE HAMELS AND THE PHILLIES – BUT DO THEY VIOLATE THE PLAIN LETTER OF THE HOME RUN RULE?

Last night we witnessed the triumph of existentialism, or should I say, Instantiation, in modern baseball, because the alleged two run home run hit by Alex Rodriguez NEVER ACTUALLY OCCURRED.

To understand this, first we must review the Home Run Rule in modern baseball, which was first defined in 1885, and was subsequently amended in 1892, 1914, 1920, 1926, 1931, 1950 and 1955.

The key concept of the home run rule is most plainly expressed in the 1892 rule which has not been changed very much since 1892:

A FAIR BATTED BALL THAT GOES OVER THE FENCE SHALL ENTITLE THE BATTER TO A HOME RUN…

The key concepts here are that

1) the ball has to be fair; and
2) the ball has to go “over the fence.”

The 1892 rule adds that “A distinctive line is to be marked on the fence showing the required point.” Meaning, if the ball goes over the fence above the line, it goes “over the fence.”

However, and this is the key point, the ball still has to go OVER the fence, not just ABOVE the line.

Last nite’s alleged home run by Alex Rodriquez, as a careful examination of the Rules of Baseball in this blog will demonstrate, was not a home run, but a Ground Rule Double.

It was a Ground Rule Double, because the ball never went OVER the Fence, as require plainly by the Rules of Baseball, but merely hit an object, which was in the field of play, above the line, but still in the field of play.

As to whether the ball would have, could have, or should have gone over the fence, but for the object, which was a TV camera, that is an interesting philosophical debate (which is the same as conceiving of unicorns, trolls, a planet without war and the tooth fairy), but the result is still the same: the home run remains an abstraction, something INSTANTIATED and given EXISTENCE only in the collective minds of the umpires.

You see the replay plainly on Fox TV. At no time did the ball go OVER the Fence. Moreover, the camera was jutting a good five to ten feet into the field. Even if the camera wasn’t there, the downward arc of the ball meant that the ball might have gone over the fence, or it might have continued its downward slope and hit the fence at a point BELOW the line of the fence.

Now, as a careful examination of the rules will show, similar disputes such as balls getting caught in the wiring of the ivy fences at Wrigley have always been rules as ground rule doubles. At no time have such balls ever been rules home runs, not in World Series and never on instant replay, because there has never been instant replay in the World Series or at any time in baseball.

I’m certainly pleased to see that baseball, not content with attempting to stop the Phillies from winning the World Series last year by calling a rain delay halt for the first time in World Series History when Cole Hamels was pitching a brilliant game in game five, this year, for the first time in World Series history called a fake home rum and foiled Cole Hamels again from winning.

Up to the point of the fake homer call, Hamels was pitching a no-hitter. It was obvious that Hamels was furious with the call. And rightly so. The call was utter and total BS, and proves that Bud Selig and Organized Baseball are determined to see that the Yankees win the World Series at all costs. The Umpiring crew rules so quickly that they must have been told by Selig how to rule. They didn’t have time to deliberate.

This is reminiscent of 1950, when the Yankees used their connections with the US Government to have Curt Simmons, a blazing lefthander with Sandy Koufax stuff, a twenty game winner, on the Phillies, get his draft notice in mid-September 1950, two weeks before the World Series was coming up with the Yanks. At the time, the Phils had Robin Roberts, now in the Hall of Fame, and Curt Simmons, a blazing lefthander, on their staff. The two pitchers had combined for more than fifty wins. The two pitchers could each have won two games in the series and blown out the Yanks, much like Curt Schilling and Randy Johnson won the 2001 Series for Arizona back a few years. But with Curt Simmons in the Army, the Phillies barely won the Pennant, and were eradicated by the Yanks in four games.

The Yankees always need to cheat to win.

Ok, so here are the Home Run Rules:

1885 – A fair batted ball that goes over the fence at a distance less than 210 feet from home base shall entitle the batsmen to two bases. A distinctive line shall be marked on the fence at this point.

My comment: At this point, a ball “over the fence” is not a homer at all, it’s a ground rule double. Weird.

1892 – A fair batted ball that goes over the fence shall entitle the batter to a home run; except that should it go over the fence at a distance less than 235 feeet from home base, the batter is entitled to only two bases. A distinctive line is to be marked on the fence showing the required point.

My comment: This is essentially the modern rule. The ball has to go “over” the “fence” to be a home run. And it has to go “over” the “distinctive line” of the “fence”. Not above, but over.

I think we all understand the difference between going near, above and around a line painted on a fence, and going over a fence. It’s the difference between a hurdler stumbling on the hurdle, and a hurdler clearing the hurdle entirely.

Rodriquez’ ball last nite, in Game 3 of the 2009 World Series, is not a home run under the Home Run Rule. It did not go “over the fence” or over the “distinctive line”, because in three dimensional space, it hit the camera before it crossed the plane of the line, and was knocked back into the field. Therefore, it never went over the line, never went over the wall, and never went over the fence.

Consequently, it was not a home run under the 1892 rule.

Are there any changes in the rules SINCE 1892 that could make it a home run? The answer is no, but let’s go through them all and see.

Note that this is not a “judgment call” by the umpires. The ball has to go “over the fence” and be a “fair ball” to be a home run. End of story. An umpire or group of umpires cannot make a ball that might have been or should have been a home run except that it hit something, into a home run by philosophical instantiation, or abstractive analysis.

In short, there are no unicorns, trolls or other imaginary beings just because we think there are; and there are no imaginary home runs. C.f. Occam’s razor—we don’t create a multiplicity of abstract universal beings just because we name them, think of them or create them in our minds. If we create now a class of abstract home runs, home runs that might have been, should have been and so forth, we now introduce into baseball a series of abstract balls, strikes, stolen bases, catches, hits and so forth and soon there will be entire parallel universes of baseball realities creeping into games, abstract realities which have nothing to do with what’s going on down at the field level, or, more pertinently, in the empirical world or in the rulebook. Everything will come down to what the umpires say and we’ll have a courtroom, not a ballgame.

1914 – Should an errant thrown ball remain in the meshes of a wire screen protecting the spectators, the runner or runners shall be entitled to two bases. The umpire in awarding such bases shall be governed by the position of the runner or runners at the time the throw is made.

My comment – this is the first indication that hitting a camera should be a ground rule double. Here the rule says if an errant thrown ball gets caught in wire screen mesh, the runner gets two bases and two bases only. It doesn’t matter if the ball is over the fence in fair ground, it’s still only two bases.

1920 – Home Run/Game-Ending – If a batsman, in the last half of the final inning of any game, hits a home run over the fence or into a stand, all runners on the bases at the time, as well as the batsman, shall be entitled to score, and in such event all bases must be touched in order, and the final score of the game shall be the total number of runs made.

My comment – this is the famous “walk off homer” rule change. Prior to 1920, if someone hit a walk off homer with one, two or three men on that won the game, the only runs that counted were the ones that won the game, e.g. if the score were 9-8 the road team, and you hit a grand slam, you got two runs, the score ended 10-9 home team, and you were credited with either a single or a double, usually a single. Not a grand slam. But under the walk-off rule, the score ended 12-9, the batter got credit for a homer, a grand slam and 4 RBI.

Note again that the rule says “over the fence” and “into the stand”. Rodriquez’ alleged homer last night meets neither of these key tests.

1926 – A fair batted ball that goes over the fence or into a stand shall entitle the batsman to a home run, unless it should pass out of the ground or into a stand at a distance less than 250 feet from the home base, in which case the batsman shall be entitled to two bases only. In either event the batsman must touch the bases in regular order. The point at which a fence or stand is less than 250 feet from the home base shall be plainly indicated by a white or black sign or mark for the umpire’s guidance.

My comment – again, the rule says “over the fence” or “into a stand” in order for a ball to be a home run. This changes the 1892 rule by making the minimum fence distance 250 feet for a home run instead of 235 feet in order not to have “cheap” home runs, although even 250 feet would be a pretty short distance. Of course, Yankee Stadium had a 297 foot right field porch for years for their left handed sluggers, another example of the Yankees “cheating”, and then they would have an all-lefthanded staff to keep the other team from stacking up lefties against them, c.f. Lefty Gomez, Whitey Ford, Andy Pettite, Ron Guidry and so forth. This unfair advantage has been wiped out with the new Yankee Stadium, although allegedly there remains a slightly easier job of hitting to right field.

1931 – Batter/Awarded Bases – A fair hit ball that bounds into a stand or over a fence shall be a two-base hit. Note: There is no reference to distance in this rule and any fair hit ball bounding over the fence or into the stand is a two-base hit.

My comment: This is the modern ground-rule double rule. It hasn’t changed at all. Most importantly, READ what it says. “A FAIR HIT BALL THAT BOUNDS INTO A STAND OR OVER A FENCE SHALL BE A TWO-BASE HIT.” That means that if the ball bounces off a camera and then over the fence, it’s a two base hit. If the ball bounces off a fan and over the fence, it’s a two base hit. If it bounces off the top of the Astrodome, and back into the field of play, as happened to Mike Schmidt in 1974, it’s a two base hit; but if it went off the top of the Astrodome and then over the fence, it would be a ground rule double according to the rule.

According to the plain language of the ground rule double rule of 1931, the ball A Rod hit last nite in game 3 of the World Series was a double. Not subject to review, not subject to judgment call. A ground rule double. It went off a camera and bounded over the fence and then back into the field. It was in play. It’s a ground rule double in that case.

In 1950 the rulebook was entirely recodified and rewritten, refined and clarified:

1950: Batter/Awarded Bases: Each runner including the batter-runner may, without liability of being put out, advance to home base, scoring a run, if a fair ball goes over the field fence in flight and he touch [sic] all bases legally; of if a fair ball which, in the umpire’s judgment, would have cleared the field fence in flight, is deflected by the act of a defensive player in throwing his glove, cap or any article of his apparel, the runner shall be awarded a home run.

My comment – to be a home run, the ball must go over the fence “in flight”. The only case where an umpire may exercise judgment and rule on whether a ball “would have cleared the field fence in flight” is solely and exclusively the case of when the ball is “deflected by the act of a defensive player in throwing his glove, cap or any article of his apparel”. This is the one and only situation where an umpire may exercise abstract judgment and award a hypothetical or abstract home run under the rules of baseball; where a fielder attempts to block the ball by throwing his glove, cap or article of his clothing at the ball.

This was not the case with A Rod’s home run last night. Jayson Werth did not throw his cap, his glove or any article of his clothing at the ball last night. Consequently, the ball would have had to clear the fence “in flight” to be a home run. Since the ball never cleared the fence “in flight”, it was not a home run under the 1950 rule, as amended.

More 1950 changes:

The batter becomes a baserunner when a fair ball, after touching the ground, bounds into the stands or passes through or under a fence or through or under shrubbery or vines on the field, in which case the batter and the baserunners shall be entitled to advance two bases.

The batter becomes a baserunner when any fair ball which, either before or striking the ground, passes through or under a fence or through or under a scoreboard or through or any opening in the fence or scoreboard or through or under shrubbery or vines on the fence, in which case the batter and the baserunners shall be entitled to two bases.
The batter becomes a baserunner when any bounding fair ball is deflected by the fielder into the stands or over or under a fence on fair or foul ground, in which case the batter and all baserunners shall be entitled to advance two bases.

The batter becomes a baserunner when any fair fly ball is defelected by the fielder into the stands or over the fence into foul territory, in which case the batter shall be entitled to advance to second base; but if deflected into the stands or over the fence in fair territory, the batter shall be entitled to a home run.

My comment – the first three rules make clear that deflections by the fielder and interference with the ball by objects on the field, such as vines, fences and shrubbery, are always ground rule doubles. The only case where a ball is NOT a ground rule double is when there is a deflection by the fielder, and for this to be a home run, there are four requirements;
1) a fair fly ball in fair territory;
2) deflected by a fielder;
3) into the stands; or
4) over the fence.

Note that even if argued analogically to last nites hit by A Rod, the 1950 rule does him no good. First, the camera deflected the ball back into the field. Second, the deflection was by a camera, not by a fielder. Third, the deflection was not “into the stands.” Fourth, the deflection was not “over the fence.”

Consequently, it’s really, really, really crystal clear that what we have is a ground rule double, under the remaining provisions of the 1950 and 1932 ground rule double rules. A Rod and the Yankees were only entitled to a ground rule double last nite in game 3 of the World Series.

1955 Rule Change

The 1955 rule change is very, very minor, it just provides that if a hitter hits a homer and has an accident while running the bases and time is called, he can have a runner come in and pinch run for him and run out the homer run and score it. It has no effect whatsoever on the discussion at hand.

Ok, through 1995, that’s all the rule changes I have from the source J. Thorn, P. Palmer, M. Gershman, D. Pietruskza, Total Baseball V: The Official Encyclopaedia of Major League Baseball (Viking NY 1997), c.f. D. Bingham & T. Heitz, “Rules and Scoring,” at pp. 2376-2432.

Now let’s hit the Net.

The rules as they exist through 1955 continue to exist and are codified in Official Rules of Baseball at Rule 6.09, exactly as they were enacted in 1950, see for yourself:

6.09 The batter becomes a runner when—
(a) He hits a fair ball;
(b) The third strike called by the umpire is not caught, providing (1) first base is unoccupied, or (2) first base is occupied with two out;
Rule 6.09(b) Comment: A batter who does not realize his situation on a third strike not caught, and who is not in the process of running to first base, shall be declared out once he leaves the dirt circle surrounding home plate.
(c) A fair ball, after having passed a fielder other than the pitcher, or after having been touched by a fielder, including the pitcher, shall touch an umpire or runner on fair territory;
(d) A fair ball passes over a fence or into the stands at a distance from home base of 250 feet or more. Such hit entitles the batter to a home run when he shall have touched all bases legally. A fair fly ball that passes out of the playing field at a point less than 250 feet from home base shall entitle the batter to advance to second base only;
(e) A fair ball, after touching the ground, bounds into the stands, or passes through, over or under a fence, or through or under a scoreboard, or through or under shrubbery, or vines on the fence, in which case the batter and the runners shall be entitled to advance two bases;
(f) Any fair ball which, either before or after touching the ground, passes through or under a fence, or through or under a scoreboard, or through any opening in the fence or scoreboard, or through or under shrubbery, or vines on the fence, or which sticks in a fence or scoreboard, in which case the batter and the runners shall be entitled to two bases;
(g) Any bounding fair ball is deflected by the fielder into the stands, or over or under a fence on fair or foul territory, in which case the batter and all runners shall be entitled to advance two bases;
(h) Any fair fly ball is deflected by the fielder into the stands, or over the fence into foul territory, in which case the batter shall be entitled to advance to second base; but if deflected into the stands or over the fence in fair territory, the batter shall be entitled to a home run. However, should such a fair fly be deflected at a point less than 250 feet from home plate, the batter shall be entitled to two bases only.

http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/downloads/y2008/official_rules/06_the_batter.pdf

the deflection by the fielder rule is also exactly the same as adopted in 1950 and has not been changed, and is codified in Rule 7.05(a);

7.05 Each runner including the batter-runner may, without liability to be put out, advance—
(a) To home base, scoring a run, if a fair ball goes out of the playing field in flight and he touched all bases legally; or if a fair ball which, in the umpire’s judgment, would have gone out of the playing field in flight, is deflected by the act of a fielder in throwing his glove, cap, or any article of his apparel;

http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/downloads/y2008/official_rules/07_the_runner.pdf

See? It’s exactly the same. The only way an upire can judge if the fair ball would have left the stadium and gone out of the playing field in flight, is if it was deflected by the act of a fielder under Rule 7.05(a).

The umpire can’t make a judgment call under any other of the rules of baseball.

All the rules of baseball, incidentally, are on line and available for you all to read for yourselves at;

http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/official_info/official_rules/foreword.jsp

see also these websites:

http://www.baseball-almanac.com/rulemenu.shtml

http://www.rulesofbaseball.com/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baseball_rules

There IS however, a rule which pertains to interference by media, and that is rule 3.15, which I hereby quote now:

3.15 No person shall be allowed on the playing field during a game except players and coaches in uniform, managers, news photographers authorized by the home team, umpires, officers of the law in uniform and watchmen or other employees of the home club. In case of unintentional interference with play by any person herein authorized to be on the playing field (except members of the offensive team participating in the game, or a coach in the coach’s box, or an umpire) the ball is alive and in play. If the interference is intentional, the ball shall be dead at the moment of the interference and the umpire shall impose such penalties as in his opinion will nullify the act of interference.

http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/downloads/y2008/official_rules/03_game_preliminaries.pdf

NOTE WHAT RULE 3.15 SAYS ABOUT INTERFERENCE WITH A BALL BY NEWSPHOTOGRAPHERS WHO ARE AUTHORIZED TO BE ON THE FIELD OF PLAY: In case of unintentional interference with play by any person herein authorized to be on the playing field (except members of the offensive team participating in the game, or a coach in the coach’s box, or an umpire) the ball is alive and in play.

Since A-Rod’s ball was UNINTENTIONALLY INTERFERED WITH BY A PRESS CAMERA, RULE 3.15 COMES INTO PLAY EXPRESSLY AND THE BALL IS IN PLAY. It’s not a case of fan interference where the umpires are allowed to make a judgment call to nullify the fan interference and create a home run abstractly.

To the contrary, the rule is clear and express- “the ball is in play” says the rule. Since the ball did not go over the fence or into the stands or over the fence in flight, but back to the field, and since Werth relayed it back, the Yankees runners were stuck at 2d and 3d.

There was no interference, and if there were a ground rule here, it was at best a ground rule double. See discussion above, supra.

NOTE THAT THIS IS AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT SITUATION THAN IF A FAN HAD INTERFERED WITH THE BALL.

The Umps and all of major league baseball got the rules wrong last night.

The ball was alive and in play last night and/or was a ground rule double, under the ground rule double rules and also under official Rule 3.15.

The Umps had no interference discretion under rules 3.15 or 3.16 because NO FAN touched the ball—instead, an authorized member of the press touched the ball.

The camera was an authorized photographer.

Consequently, the ball was in play.

Note the difference if a spectator had touched the ball:

3.16 When there is spectator interference with any thrown or batted ball, the ball shall be dead at the moment of interference and the umpire shall impose such penalties as in his opinion will nullify the act of interference.
APPROVED RULING: If spectator interference clearly prevents a fielder from catching a fly ball, the umpire shall declare the batter out.

Rule 3.16 Comment: There is a difference between a ball which has been thrown or batted into the stands, touching a spectator thereby being out of play even though it rebounds onto the field and a spectator going onto the field or reaching over, under or through a barrier and touching a ball in play or touching or otherwise interfering with a player. In the latter case it is clearly intentional and shall be dealt with as intentional interference as in Rule 3.15. Batter and runners shall be placed where in the umpire’s judgment they would have been had the interference not occurred.
No interference shall be allowed when a fielder reaches over a fence, railing, rope or into a stand to catch a ball. He does so at his own risk. However, should a spectator reach out on the playing field side of such fence, railing or rope, and plainly prevent the fielder from catching the ball, then the batsman should be called out for the spectator’s interference.
Example: Runner on third base, one out and a batter hits a fly ball deep to the outfield (fair or foul). Spectator clearly interferes with the outfielder attempting to catch the fly ball. Umpire calls the batter out for spectator interference. Ball is dead at the time of the call. Umpire decides that because of the distance the ball was hit, the runner on third base would have scored after the catch if the fielder had caught the ball which was interfered with, therefore, the runner is permitted to score. This might not be the case if such fly ball was interfered with a short distance from home plate.

http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/downloads/y2008/official_rules/03_game_preliminaries.pdf

The ground rules for ground rule doubles are exactly the same as the 1950 and 1932 rules discussed above, and are codified at the official rules of baseball 7.05;

7.05 Each runner including the batter-runner may, without liability to be put out, advance—
(a) To home base, scoring a run, if a fair ball goes out of the playing field in flight and he touched all bases legally; or if a fair ball which, in the umpire’s judgment, would have gone out of the playing field in flight, is deflected by the act of a fielder in throwing his glove, cap, or any article of his apparel;
(b) Three bases, if a fielder deliberately touches a fair ball with his cap, mask or any part of his uniform detached from its proper place on his person. The ball is in play and the batter may advance to home base at his peril;
(c) Three bases, if a fielder deliberately throws his glove at and touches a fair ball. The ball is in play and the batter may advance to home base at his peril.
(d) Two bases, if a fielder deliberately touches a thrown ball with his cap, mask or any part of his uniform detached from its proper place on his person. The ball is in play;
(e) Two bases, if a fielder deliberately throws his glove at and touches a thrown ball. The ball is in play;
Rule 7.05(b) through 7.05(e) Comment: In applying (b-c-d-e) the umpire must rule that the thrown glove or detached cap or mask has touched the ball. There is no penalty if the ball is not touched.
Under (c-e) this penalty shall not be invoked against a fielder whose glove is carried off his hand by the force of a batted or thrown ball, or when his glove flies off his hand as he makes an obvious effort to make a legitimate catch.

(f) Two bases, if a fair ball bounces or is deflected into the stands outside the first or third base foul lines; or if it goes through or under a field fence, or through or under a scoreboard, or through or under shrubbery or vines on the fence; or if it sticks in such fence, scoreboard, shrubbery or vines;
(g) Two bases when, with no spectators on the playing field, a thrown ball goes into the stands, or into a bench (whether or not the ball rebounds into the field), or over or under or through a field fence, or on a slanting part of the screen above the backstop, or remains in the meshes of a wire screen protecting spectators. The ball is dead. When such wild throw is the first play by an infielder, the umpire, in awarding such bases, shall be governed by the position of the runners at the time the ball was pitched; in all other cases the umpire shall be governed by the position of the runners at the time the wild throw was made;
APPROVED RULING: If all runners, including the batter-runner, have advanced at least one base when an infielder makes a wild throw on the first play after the pitch, the award shall be governed by the position of the runners when the wild throw was made.
Rule 7.05(g) Comment: In certain circumstances it is impossible to award a runner two bases. Example: Runner on first. Batter hits fly to short right. Runner holds up between first and second and batter comes around first and pulls up behind him. Ball falls safely. Outfielder, in throwing to first, throws ball into stand.
APPROVED RULING: Since no runner, when the ball is dead, may advance beyond the base to which he is entitled, the runner originally on first base goes to third base and the batter is held at second base.
The term “when the wild throw was made” means when the throw actually left the player’s hand and not when the thrown ball hit the ground, passes a receiving fielder or goes out of play into the stands.
The position of the batter-runner at the time the wild throw left the thrower’s hand is the key in deciding the award of bases. If the batter-runner has not reached first base, the award is two bases at the time the pitch was made for all runners. The decision as to whether the batter-runner has reached first base before the throw is a judgment call.
If an unusual play arises where a first throw by an infielder goes into stands or dugout but the batter did not become a runner (such as catcher throwing ball into stands in attempt to get runner from third trying to score on passed ball or wild pitch) award of two bases shall be from the position of the runners at the time of the throw. (For the purpose of Rule 7.05 (g) a catcher is considered an infielder.)
PLAY. Runner on first base, batter hits a ball to the shortstop, who throws to second base too late to get runner at second, and second baseman throws toward first base after batter has crossed first base. Ruling—Runner at second scores. (On this play, only if batter-runner is past first base when throw is made is he awarded third base.)
(h) One base, if a ball, pitched to the batter, or thrown by the pitcher from his position on the pitcher’s plate to a base to catch a runner, goes into a stand or a bench, or over or through a field fence or backstop. The ball is dead;

APPROVED RULING: When a wild pitch or passed ball goes through or by the catcher, or deflects off the catcher, and goes directly into the dugout, stands, above the break, or any area where the ball is dead, the awarding of bases shall be one base. One base shall also be awarded if the pitcher while in contact with the rubber, throws to a base, and the throw goes directly into the stands or into any area where the ball is dead.
If, however, the pitched or thrown ball goes through or by the catcher or through the fielder, and remains on the playing field, and is subsequently kicked or deflected into the dugout, stands or other area where the ball is dead, the awarding of bases shall be two bases from position of runners at the time of the pitch or throw.
(i) One base, if the batter becomes a runner on Ball Four or Strike Three, when the pitch passes the catcher and lodges in the umpire’s mask or paraphernalia.
If the batter becomes a runner on a wild pitch which entitles the runners to advance one base, the batter-runner shall be entitled to first base only.

Rule 7.05(i) Comment: The fact a runner is awarded a base or bases without liability to be put out does not relieve him of the responsibility to touch the base he is awarded and all intervening bases. For example: batter hits a ground ball which an infielder throws into the stands but the batter-runner missed first base. He may be called out on appeal for missing first base after the ball is put in play even though he was “awarded” second base.
If a runner is forced to return to a base after a catch, he must retouch his original base even though, because of some ground rule or other rule, he is awarded additional bases. He may retouch while the ball is dead and the award is then made from his original base.
(j) One base, if a fielder deliberately touches a pitched ball with his cap, mask or any part of his uniform detached from its proper place on his person. The ball is in play, and the award is made from the position of the runner at the time the ball was touched

http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/downloads/y2008/official_rules/07_the_runner.pdf

as you can plainly see, nothing has changed in the ground rules at all.

Consequently, A-Rod’s hit was either a ground rule double under rule 7.05, or it was a ball in play since it hit a media camera which was authorized to be in the field of play under rule 3.15. What it was not was a home run under either rule 6.09(d) or rule 7.05(a) or any other rule of baseball.

I’ve looked exhaustively and so have my sabrmetric friends, and there isn’t a rule in the book supporting what happened last night.

What happened also violates the laws of logic and violates the laws of physics. It violates the laws of logic, because the home run was created by an act of particular instantiation—abstract thought created a thing from a concept—what we in philosophy call a “unicorn”—which would make my old professor of logic at Harvard turn over twice—and violates Occam’s razor—that you don’t create needless entities through nominalism.

Instead, empiricism and realism dictate that a home run is a home run when we SEE and WITNESS that the ball goes over the fence—not that we imagine or suppose that it MIGHT have gone over the fence.

The problem with the umpires’ supposition last night is that it is what we call in philosophy a “modal” proposition, an “if….then” statement, that is conditional.

“If the camera were not there, then the ball would have flown over the fence.”

This can readily be recognized as a categorical statement of conditional form—namely, if there were no camera “x”, the trajectory of flight of the ball would have been different in form “y”.

The problem, as anyone knows, is that without an actual observation of same, there are a plethora of possible universes of possible “y’s”.

All we know is that the ball may or might have gone over the wall—or it may or might have bounced below the line and back onto the field. All we have is a possibility that it might have gone over the wall.

All conditionals are like this.

Moreover, accepting conditionals as true introduces a host of problems.

The medieval philosophers didn’t like conditionals, and neither should we.

It’s true that rule 9.03c states that

Each umpire has authority to rule on any point not specifically covered in these rules.

http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/downloads/y2008/official_rules/09_the_umpire.pdf

however, in this case, the A-Rod double IS covered specifically by the baseball rules. There is no room for discretion or authority to rule.

Here’s what actually occurred before game 3 of the World Series according to the umpiring crew:

Indeed, umpire crew chief Gerry Davis said that his crew explored every inch of Citizens Bank Park prior to Game 3, spending time reviewing areas unique to the park. The right-field camera was one of the aspects they discussed.
“We tour the field during the series whenever we go to a new ballpark, and discuss specific ground rules and potential trouble areas just like that,” Davis said. “Because we cannot control what the cameraman does with the camera, one of the specific ground rules is when the ball hits the camera, [it's a] home run.”

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20091031&content_id=7586236&vkey=news_mlb

So, the umpiring crew themselves MADE UP THEIR OWN GROUND RULE that the camera, if it was hit, would be a home run.

That would be fine, except that it’s in direct violation of Baseball Rule 3.15, as cited above, supra, that a media photographic camera, if a ball strikes it, the ball is in play and NOT a home run.

The Umpires don’t have discretion to make a ground rule about that.

The statement made by Umpire Davis is totally and completely WRONG. The rules cover the situation of when a ball strikes a camera held by a camera man.

Let’s see the rule again:

3.15 No person shall be allowed on the playing field during a game except players and coaches in uniform, managers, news photographers authorized by the home team, umpires, officers of the law in uniform and watchmen or other employees of the home club. In case of unintentional interference with play by any person herein authorized to be on the playing field (except members of the offensive team participating in the game, or a coach in the coach’s box, or an umpire) the ball is alive and in play. If the interference is intentional, the ball shall be dead at the moment of the interference and the umpire shall impose such penalties as in his opinion will nullify the act of interference.

http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/downloads/y2008/official_rules/03_game_preliminaries.pdf

Ok, then, cameramen, news photographers who unintentionally interfere with the ball, and the interference is unintentionall, the “ball is alive and in play.”

It’s not up to Davis and his crew to make up a ground rule there. It’s up to Davis and his crew to follow Rule 3.15. Rule 3.15 trumps Article 9 and the umpire discretion rules.

Now let’s discuss the instant replay rule.

Here’s the story on the instant replay rule adopted in September of 2008:

5. Instant replay
Main article: Instant replay
In November 2007, the general managers of Major League Baseball voted in favor of implementing instant replay reviews on boundary home run calls. [19] The proposal limited the use of instant replay to determining whether a boundary home run call is:
• A fair (home run) or foul ball
• A live ball (ball hit fence and rebounded onto the field), ground rule double (ball hit fence before leaving the field), or home run (ball hit some object beyond the fence while in flight)
• Spectator interference or home run (spectator touched ball after it broke the plane of the fence).
On August 28, 2008, instant replay review became available in MLB for reviewing calls in accordance with the above proposal. It was first utilized on September 3, 2008 in a game between the New York Yankees and the Tampa Bay Rays at Tropicana Field. [20] Alex Rodriguez of the Yankees hit what appeared to be a home run, but the ball hit a catwalk behind the foul pole. It was at first called a home run, until Tampa Bay manager Joe Maddon argued the call, and the umpires decided to review the play. After 2 minutes and 15 seconds, the umpires came back and ruled it a home run.
About two weeks later, on September 19, also at Tropicana Field, a boundary call was overturned for the first time. In this case, Carlos Peña of the Rays was given a ground rule double in a game against the Minnesota Twins after an umpire believed a fan reached into the field of play to catch a fly ball in right field. The umpires reviewed the play, determined the fan did not reach over the fence, and reversed the call, awarding Peña a home run.
Aside from the two aforementioned reviews at Tampa Bay, replay was used four more times in the 2008 MLB regular season: twice at Houston, once at Seattle, and once at San Francisco. The San Francisco incident is perhaps the most unusual. Bengie Molina, the Giants’ Catcher, hit what was first called a double. Molina then was replaced in the game by a pinch-runner before the umpires re-evaluated the call and ruled it a home run. In this instance though, Molina was not allowed to return to the game to complete the run, as he had already been replaced. Molina was credited with the home run, and two RBIs, but not for the run scored which went to the pinch-runner instead.
On October 31, 2009, in the fourth inning of Game 3 of the World Series, Alex Rodriguez hit a long fly ball that appeared to hit a camera protruding over the wall and into the field of play in deep left field. The ball ricocheted off the camera and re-entered the field, initially ruled a double. However, after the umpires consulted with each other after watching the instant replay, the hit was ruled a home run, marking the first time an instant replay home run was hit in a playoff game. [21]
Source:

http://wapedia.mobi/en/Home_run?t=3.

Citing to

• ESPN – GMs vote 25-5 to use replay to aid home run decisions – MLB
• http://mlb.mlb.com/news/gameday_recap.jsp?ymd=20080903&content_id=3412731&vkey=recap&fext=.jsp&c_id=nyy
• http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20091031&content_id=7586236&vkey=news_mlb

Now, let’s parse all this.

What instant replay boils down to is this.

A lawyer sits in Bud Selig’s offices in NYC and HE reviews the play and decides how it should be called.

The head of the umpiring crew calls NYC and asks the lawyer how the play should be ruled.

Then they decide.

Uh, what’s wrong with this picture if the NEW YORK YANKEES are one of the teams in the playoffs?

Let’s see, a NEW YORK LAWYER making the call? Against a PHILLY team?

Oh right, that would be really fair, impartial and just.

Incidentally, let’s review the rule again:

The proposal limited the use of instant replay to determining whether a boundary home run call is:
• A fair (home run) or foul ball
• A live ball (ball hit fence and rebounded onto the field), ground rule double (ball hit fence before leaving the field), or home run (ball hit some object beyond the fence while in flight)
• Spectator interference or home run (spectator touched ball after it broke the plane of the fence).
Id, supra.

Note that the ball has to hit an object BEYOND the fence while in flight.

Not in front of the fence, but BEYOND the fence.

This is completely consistent with Rules 6.09 and 7.05(a) which define a home run as one hit “over the fence in flight”.

The camera, in this case, was jutting out over the fence by a good five to ten feet.

So it was not beyond the fence, but on the field of play.

Second, because it was on the field of play, it was therefore a photographic interference under Rule 3.15, and should have been considered an unintentional interference, and a live ball in play under Rule 3.15.

Third, if not a live ball in play, then the ground rule double rule of 7.05 (b) et seq. comes into play.

What’s wrong with this picture?

THERE WAS NEVER ANY JURISDICTION FOR HOME RUN REVIEW UNDER THE HOME RUN INSTANT REPLAY RULE BECAUSE THE BALL HIT BY A ROD NEVER WENT OVER THE FENCE IN FLIGHT OR BEYOND THE FENCE.

Let’s review the criteria for instant replay;

1) is it fair or foul? Well, it was a fair ball. No need for instant replay.
2) Is it a live ball that hit the fence and bounced back to the field? No. No need for instant replay.

Was it a live ball that hit some object beyond the fence while in flight?

No. It never went beyond the fence. So no instant replay was required.

Well, it hit the camera==part of which was behind the fence, but the part of the camera the ball hit was NOT beyond the fence.

This is not a semantic issue, but a real rules issue, because if you start saying that balls that don’t go over the fence in flight are home runs, just because the umpires make up ground rules before the game to make them eligible for instant review, doesn’t make it so.

I think the key here is to parse the fact that the umpiring crew made a mistake before the game establishing false ground rules, by making a camera that jutted INTO the field, a candidate for HOME RUN instant replay.

That wasn’t their call to make.

Under the instant replay rule, the camera has to be entirely beyond the fence for them to make that decision, end of story.

Remember, the rule is to decide the boundary issue of when a ball has hit an object BEYOND the fence–not an object within the ballfield.

The Umps exceeded their rulemaking authority. Also, see #3, below, because there’s actually a different rule that applies to cameras that are in the field of play and not beyond the field of play, in which case the ball is either a ground rule double or in play. In either case the result is the same; arod at 2d, texeira at 3d.

3) There was not spectator interference, but rather, photographer interference under rule 3.15, which made it a live ball under the rules, and on the field of play.

Consequently, there was no jurisdiction for an instant reply. Rather, the umpires AGGREGATED and SEIZED inappropriately the jurisdiction for home run instant replay because they forgot their own rule book and the rules of baseball.

They got the call all wrong.

It’s an insult to our collective intelligence and our common sense to say that a ball that fell short of the wall, and never went over the wall, is a “fair ball” that “went over the fence in flight” or that after instant replay, was shown to have struct an object “beyond the fence” in flight. None of these things occured on arod’s hit.

And messed up a 25 year old kids’ no hitter in the processs.

Did they purposefully do it?

Did the NY Offices of baseball reverse the call to obstruct the Phillies from repeating?

I don’t know—go ask the Atlanta Braves. No one in Bud Selig’s office was happy when they went up 2-0 on the Yankees in 1996 either.

The Commissioner’s office basically wants LA or NY to win the series because that’s good for TV ratings.

They like to ignore Philly and Atlanta even though we’re much more rabid about baseball than New Yorkers, most of whom are too poor to afford to go to a game, whereas in Philly or Atlanta, it’s mostly the middle class who attend.

And if we have to cheat and violate the rules to make the Yankees winners, what the hay?

Just remember Curt Simmons’ draft notice, and Bud Selig’s ridiculous rain delay call in last year’s Game Five in Philly.

Definitely be sure there’s bias against the Phillies in NYC.

And of course, let’s not forget they used a single New York Lawyer as the judging panel for instant replay of a World Series play involving….

The New York Yankees.

Like that’s really fair.

This is the Second World Series in a row where Bud Selig has personally messed around with our ace, Cole Hamels, in a World Series game.

First was Game Five in World Series 2008, in which Cole Hamels was shutting the door down on Tampa Bay. Selig allowed the game to proceed in the rain, then let Tampa Bay score a cheap run in rain soaked conditions against Hamels, a cheap run in conditions not fit to play in, and then Selig announced the game would be suspended—a first in Series history—which infuriated not only the Phillies, but Hamels, who had pitched well enough to win. Last year the story line was supposed to be tampa bay to win, cindarella, last place to world champions. New york didn’t want philly winning.

Conspiracy theorists, you are right if you think Selig hates Hamels.

And now this year, Selig sends Davis and an experienced umpiring crew out, and they set up illegal ground rules, and use the first chance they get, to award a two run instant replay home run—an existential, instantiated home run—an abstraction if you will, because nothing ever left the park or ever went over the fence in flight—for the sole purpose of screwing up Cole Hamels’ game in game 3, the pivotal game of the 2009 world series.

I need not point out how furious Hamels must have been with all this BS; for the second year in a row, he’s been messed with, not by the opposing lineup, but by lawyers and umpires and the commissioners’ office. They just won’t let him do his job.

I understand why he might have hung a few curves the next inning to Swisher and Damon.

What I don’t understand is why the Phillies don’t aggressively move

1) for Bud Selig’s immediate ouster as Commissioner of Baseball; and
2) an immediate amendment of the baseball instant replay rule requiring that the review of plays always be done in a neutral city by an impartial panel of three arbitrators, not lawyers, with one chosen by each team and the third chosen by the other two.
3) And the umpiring crew and ground rules be reviewed two weeks in advance of the World Series by the front office of each team, and by the teams attorneys, to be sure there are no conflicts with the Rules of Baseball.

Even my 80 year old mother in law, who just had eye surgery, who watched the game last night, and used to be a Brooklyn Dodger fan from Brooklyn, saw the play last night and she knew that the A-Rod hit wasn’t a home run.

“it didn’t go out of the park” she said. “how could it be a home run?”

Exactly. To be a home run, under rule 7.05(a), and in the common sense of every fan, a home run must go over the fence in flight.

And to be a home run for instant replay purposes, it has to go over the fence in flight and THEN hit some object.

Not hit some object which inteferes with the ball from going over the fence in flight. That’s a ground rule double or a ball live in play, as we have seen from our discussion, at length, of the rules.

The difference last night was two runs.

But the difference, from our perspective, is the lawlessness of the Bud Selig regime.

A regime which bars Pete Rose from the Hall of Fame, but tolerates steroid use by the likes of A-Rod and David Ortiz, and turns a blind eye to the income inequalities between teams like the Yankees and the Twins that keep baseball from truly being competitive.

A regime which makes arbitrary and capricious decisions each and every year about rain delays, rain suspensions, instant replay home runs in the World Series, and which plays games of law and fate which affect a man’s life and career in the case of Cole Hamels, who is a truly great pitcher along the lines of a Steve Carlton.

In fact, if you study Hamels stats, you will see that his 2009 is to his 2008, as Carlton’s 1973 was to Carlton’s Cy Young 1972.

I expect Cole Hamels to have a very bright future.

And he will not take much more of this abuse from Bud Selig and his cronies.

And neither should we philly fans.

And New York Yankee fans, you are cheating to win.

And to think I actually shed tears for you guys on 9/11.

And by the way, your NY Giants got rolled by the Eagles. At least the NFL runs a fair league. Thank you Pete Rozelle Paul Tagliabue and your successors.

Guess those memories of Joe Namath are starting to fade, eh?

–art kyriazis, philly
home of the world champion phillies, 2008 world champions
2008, 2009 National League pennant champs

MAN GAVE NAME TO ALL THE ANIMALS IN THE BEGINNING; AN EDITORIAL AND PHILOSOPHICAL DISQUISITION ON MICHAEL VICK AND THE METAPHYSICAL ONTOLOGICAL RELIGIOUS AND LEGAL BASIS OF ANIMAL RIGHTS; IS THERE ANY BASIS FOR ANIMALS TO HAVE RIGHTS COMPARED TO HUMANS?

The Philadelphia Eagles this past week signed former Atlanta Falcons QB Michael Vick, which instantly generated a lot of media controversy.

Because here at the Sophist we like to examine both points of view, lets’s parse for a moment some of the assumptions underlying whether Michael Vick has actually done anything controversial.

I. You aint nothing but a Hound Dog

In the beginning, people think it was Elvis who sang “you aint nothin but a hound dog”, but that isn’t right at all. It was african american blues woman BIG MAMA THORNTON who first sang “you aint nothing but a hound dog” and what she meant by that was something far different than what elvis meant, and it had a lot to do with accusing her man of infidelity.

frankly, that is probably a more serious matter than what michael vick was actually charged with.

Big Mama Thornton later re-recorded “hound dog” on a record she cut live in prison (michael vick not in attendance) and let me say, every track on there is hot, hot, hot.

here’s a live version on youtube with the legendary bluesman buddy guy;

hot hot hot! the guitar licks by buddy guy, the drumming by his band, and the singing by big mama thornton are totally awesome. what a clip! 11 out of 10! this is a legendary blues clip. wow!

now that’s the blues!!!!

they should have the big mama thornton/buddy guy version of this tune play on the jumbotron video at the linc every time michael vick takes the field. eventually it would be his signature song!

big mama thornton was a big influence on Janis Joplin and a great many other singers, especially as Big Mama Thornton was the first to sing “Summertime” and “Ball and Chain” pretty frequently, songs that later became associated with Janis.

In fact, if you really look at Big Mama Thornton, the fact is that white artists stole or misappropriated all of her fine work–Elvis took Hound Dog, the Stones and other bands took Little Red Rooster, Janis took Ball and Chain and Summertime, and so on, and rarely did the white artists mention Big Mama Thornton or pay her the correct royalties or give her the proper dues.

and yet, if you compare Big Mama Thornton to the white artists, it’s clear as a bell who’s better. janis joplin is good, but Big Mama Thornton is amazing. Elvis is good, but Big Mama Thornton is better. and so forth.

here’s Big Mama Thornton doing “Ball and Chain” with Lighting Hopkins, just an amazing version of this tune, a real blues classic, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GSNavkeDg54

If you’ve never heard of Big Mama Thornton, go and download her songs right now on youtube and music sites.

here’s her doing “Little Red Rooster” live at Newport with BB King and Muddy Waters. Pretty awesome. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ycw4uaXPRU&feature=related

here’s wikipedia account of big mama thornton’s version of hounddog, but you really have to listen to the song to get it:

at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hound_Dog_%28song%29

Big Mama Thornton version

The blues singer Big Mama Thornton’s biggest hit was Jerry Leiber and Mike Stoller’s “Hound Dog,” which she recorded in 1952. Thornton’s “Hound Dog” was the first record Leiber and Stoller produced themselves. They took over the session because their work had sometimes been misrepresented, and on this one they knew how they wanted the drums to sound; Johnny Otis was supposed to produce it, but they wanted him on drums. [5] Otis received a writing credit on all 6 of the 1953 pressings. This 1953 Peacock Records release (#1612) was number one on the Billboard rhythm and blues charts for seven weeks. [6]

Thornton gave this account of how the original was created to Ralph Gleason. “They were just a couple of kids, and they had this song written on the back of a paper bag.” She added a few interjections of her own, played around with the rhythm (some of the choruses have thirteen rather than twelve bars), and had the band bark and howl like hound dogs at the end of the song. In fact, she interacts constantly in a call and response fashion during a one minute long guitar “solo” by Pete Lewis . Her vocals include lines such as: “Aw, listen to that ole hound dog howl.. OOOOoooow”, “Now wag your tail”, Aw, get it, get it, get it”.

Thornton’s delivery has flexible phrasing making use of micro-inflections and syncopations. Over a steady backbeat, she starts out singing each line as one long upbeat. When the words change from “You ain’t nothin’ but a HOUND Dog”, she begins to shift the downbeat around: You TOLD me you was high-class / but I can SEE through that, You ain’t NOTHIN’ but a hound dog. Each has a focal accent which is never repeated..[7]

The other musicians on this recording are Devonia Williams (piano), Albert Winston (bass), and Leard Bell (drums), and are listed as “Kansas City Bill & Orchestra”.[8] Habanera and Habanera-mambo variations can be found in this recording.[9]

II. I Wanna Be Your Dog

in 1969, James Newell Osterberg, Jr., aka Iggy Pop, and the Stooges recorded one of the all time classic rock tunes with “I Wanna Be Your Dog”. It’s been on so many commercials and movie tracks that it would be redundant to re-spell it out here, but suffice it to say that most critics believe this song to be the first genuine song of the punk/new wave movement.

here’s a youtube live performance of iggy pop doing the tune from 1979, and it’s pretty good;

for a really hot 2006 version of the tune on you tube see this link;

this performance is from brussels, 2006 and the band is hot, the audience is so into it, they’re singing every line along with iggy pop. this song is really great. if you can get it on rockband, or learn it on your electric guitar, it’s a winner winner chicken dinner, three chord wonder variety. it’s so elemental that it actually generates energy.

once you watch it, you really get the idea. this song, as well, has little or nothing to do with dogs, but rather about something else far more dark and mysterious.

if you’re still not sure, read wonderland avenue by the late danny sugarman about iggy pop and you’ll get the fuller picture. iggy and the stooges, and iggy solo, one of the greatest rock acts of our time. also, from the great state of michigan, which has brought us Grand Funk, Bob Seger, Kid Rock, the MC5 and other awesome rock acts.

one more version, live in serbia 2004, also good, but not as good as the other two;

enjoy.

the original track from 1969 without video is here;

stripped down like this, it doesn’t sound the same–but as a live track it has had a lot of power over the years. but it still packs power as a studo track. this stooges album is considered a classic.
i find it interesting that europe and especially eastern europe still listen to rock and roll, while american kids waste away on rap, pop and lord knows what. it sort of suggests that their youth are a bit more in tune with normality than ours…and europeans also like classical music as well much more than our people do. they’re far more likely to do a rock/classical/jazz split than americans, who will much more likely do a country/rap/pop split. I’m far more in the jazz/classical/rock camp, so i suppose i’m with the europeans.

III. BLACK DOG BY LED ZEPPELIN

“hey hey mama said the way you move….
GONNA MAKE YOU SWEAT
GONNA MAKE YOU GROOVE….”

“didn’t take too long, till i found out, what people mean, by down and out”

an immortal rock tune, “black dog” by led zeppelin is on their immortal led zeppelin IV, the one with “stairway to heaven,” in fact, on the LP version, it opened the side which famously ended with “stairway to heaven”. this was the subject of a famous discussion in the movie “FAST TIMES AT RIDGEMONT HIGH” (1982), what the perfect record to seduce a woman to is, and the answer of course is, LED ZEPPELIN IV, SIDE ONE, beginning with BLACK DOG and ending with STAIRWAY TO HEAVEN.

For obvious reasons, BLACK DOG would make a great tune to play when michael vick is on the field. especially with a rocking led zepp video. even if it’s true that jimmy page sold his soul to the devil….

VIDEO ONE

plays the song with all the lyrics, pretty cool.

live 1973:

this is what 70s arena rock was all about. just about every guy back in the 1970s tried to have the robert plant look for a while. inevitably, it still comes around. chicks dig long hair.

i can’t get over Jimmy Page’s outfit in this clip.

john bonham in this clip is the actual model for the four guys in This is Spinal Tap (1984). Eleven, one louder.

this is one of the classic songs of the 1970s. it’s really a blues tune speeded up to arena rock sound, but it’s still blues rock, and played very well. it’s a great tune. well worth reviving as an eagles fight song for michael vick.

IV. BLACK EYED DOG – NICK DRAKE

this is an obscure one–not even well known by nick drake standards, and not one of nick drake’s best tunes, but still out there.

here’s a link to it;

it’s really more of an outtake than a finished tune, it doesn’t have any of the joe boyd orchestration that characterizes the best tracks off Bryter Later, nor is it as melodic as the best stuff off of Five Leaves Left or Pink Moon, which are the three official and only Nick Drake releases to come out while he was recording. It is in fact, an outtake included in “Time of No Reply,” which is an album of outtakes and alternate takes released posthumously, and which was included in the Fruit Tree compilation.

While this is an interesting “dog” track, i don’t think it’s a good song for a football crowd. I do recommend it to everyone though as a good example of a demo of a song by a brilliant songwriter; and being that it’s an obscure Nick Drake song, an excellent choice for a cover by your band seeking a record deal.

Speaking of Nick Drake, his producer JOE BOYD is one of the most intriguing figures in music history. A harvard grad and producer of most of the top bands of the 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s and up to the present day, JOE BOYD is one of the key figures of music history, as well as the custodian of the NICK DRAKE legacy.

here’s his wikipedia bio, which only scratches the surface of this remarkable man’s career;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Boyd

makes for interesting reading, with great linkouts.

V. WALKING THE DOG BY RUFUS THOMAS 1965

this is an alltime classic, and you can dance to it.

This video linkout is vintage 60s live video feed, A++. with the stax/volt band behind him.

the blues brothers live with rufus thomas walking the dog:

this is from 1988, but amazingly, it’s the same band as from 1965! check it out…you’ll see what i mean….First Blues Brothers Band reunion tour Live in Pistoia (Italy) 1988 Steve Cropper-Guitar Donald Dunn-Bass Matt Murphy-Guitar Booker T Jones-Keyboards Anton Fig-Drums Lou Marini-Sax Alan Rubin-Trump. same guys playing on the 1965 vid for the most part.

VI HONORABLE MENTION

ME AND YOU AND A DOG NAMED BOO – Lobo
BULLDOG – Ventures
HOUND DOG MAN – Fabian
SNOOPY AND THE RED BARON – Royal Guardsmen
ANYTHING BY SNOOP DOOG
DIAMOND DOGS david bowie

Black Dog lyrics:

Hey, hey, mama, said the way you move
Gonna make you sweat, gonna make you groove.
Oh, oh, child, way you shake that thing
Gonna make you burn, gonna make you sting.
Hey, hey, baby, when you walk that way
Watch your honey drip, cant keep away.

*ah yeah, ah yeah, ah, ah, ah., ah yeah, ah yeah, ah, ah, ah.

I gotta roll, cant stand still,
Got a flame in my heart, cant get my fill,
Eyes that shine burning red,
Dreams of you all thru my head.
Ah ah ah ah ah ah ah ah ah ah ah ah ah.

Hey, baby, oh, baby, pretty baby,
Tell me what you do me now.
(repeat)

Didnt take too long fore I found out
What people mean my down and out.
Spent my money, took my car,
Started tellin her friends she wants to be a star.
I dont know but I been told
A big legged woman aint got no soul.

* chorus

All I ask for when I pray,
Steady rollin woman gonna come my way.
Need a woman gonna hold my hand
And tell me no lies, make me a happy man.

VII. Editorial and disquisition on Michael Vick

First of all, according to the Bible and the major religions, God gave Man dominion over the earth and all its living creatures. That pretty much means that man has substantial rights to do what he will with bears, dogs and cats, especially dogs that have been bred for, and exist because of, dogfighting. In short, the metaphysical existence of dogfighting breeds, and hence any of their metaphysical and ethical rights, are dependent upon, and exist by virtue of, their participation in and breeding for, dogfighting.

within of course, the law.

The same arguments of course apply to poodles, thoroughbred horses, cattle and many other animals which man has bred for man’s own needs and enjoyment. 99% of the rats which exist in laboratories today were bred and brought into metaphysical existence, in a word, instantiated, for the simple purpose of being experimented upon in a laboratory. Their rights and ethical/juridical existences are sub-dependent upon their instantive and metaphysical existence as being created to be lab rats.

In short, about 90% of all dogs, cats, cattle and other animals bred and brought into existence by man exist in a sort of BRAVE NEW WORLD existence, where they are actually genetically bred to serve a purpose, like the alphas, betas, and so forth of Aldous Huxley’s famous work.

As such, I can’t get morally excited or revolted about the fact that Michael Vick or his friends engaged in dogfighting with dogs bred to do dogfighting. After all, it’s what the dogs were bred to do, and in China, people eat dogs.

still, there are technical legal violations, but morally, i can equate it to ray lewis killing a man, or michael tyson raping a girl, or kobe bryant raping a girl, or oj simpson killing two people at once. or even to dante stallworth killing someone while driving drunk.

the life and dignity of a person has to be more valuable than the life and dignity of an animal. if that’s not true, our ethical and legal and moral systems are skewed.

In America, we have something like 100 million dogs and cats, and by all reasonably rational accounts, they are better fed and better cared for in terms of food, medical care and housing, than the bottom 100 million of our own population.

Animals have a powerful lobby; the poor do not. Mistreatment of animals usually draws a powerful response and a jail sentence; mistreatment of the poor usually draws a yawn. If a single dog or cat is hurt, the police cannot wait to find the rascal; but five hundred to a thousand poor African American victims of homicide die in our cities each year without any of those cases being solved.

There are no dogs or cats, to my knowledge, that have to sell their bodies for sexual pleasure in order to eat or obtain drugs or housing; yet we have tens if not hundreds of thousands of young women of all colors, races and cultures prostituting themselves on the streets of our cities in order to feed their drug habits, keep themselves fed, clothed and sheltered. The police and authorities don’t care about these women, but the animal lobbies care plenty about those dogs and cats.

Every year in the NFL, NBA and other leagues, you hear of players having illegitimate children, beating their wives, girlfriends, abusing their spouses, girlfriends, and in many cases, being accused of rape, most notably in the case of Kobe Bryant.

Let’s compare Kobe Bryant for a moment to Michael Vick. Kobe Bryant raped a woman (allegedly) in a Colorado hotel room. Michael Vick’s friends ran a dog fighting ring.

Yet, who went to jail and was prosecuted? Michael Vick or Kobe Bryant. I don’t have to tell you the answer. It was Michael Vick.

And you know the reason—because dogs are treated better in this country than women, and especially women who are the victims of abuse, rape and violence against women.

Dogs have a lobby, dogs provoke popular outrage, and dogs get police protection.

But abused women get nothing, except perhaps “she lied” or “her testimony is questionable” or “she’s of questionable moral character”.

In philosophical academic and legal circles today, there is a growing and popular movement centering on “animal rights”—the notion that animals are sentient beings entitled to the full panoply of civil and social rights that humans enjoy. There’s really well-read people at Ivy League universities making those arguments, which probably proves that they’re bs deconstruction communist arguments intended to undermine capitalism (e.g. if we give all animals rights, the capitalist superstructure will collapse of its own weight).

in fact, i even hear rumors from dc that a major figure appointed to the obama administration faces problems being confirmed–because he once wrote an article critical of animal rights.

the republican party is attempting to stop his nomination by claiming the man in question is a dog hater.

never mind that the guy is on his third wife and never sees his kids–those aren’t issues at all. what’s important is how he treats his dogs, not how he treats his wives.

are you kidding me? how have we gone in this country to judging a man by how he treats his pets, rather than by whether he can stay in a marriage or not?

Notwithstanding the commonsense fact that these are collectively the most ridiculous theories ever conceived by professors in the history of academia, this animal rights movement is actually gaining a lot of steam, which goes to show that any stupid gropundless theory can gain traction, as was the case for year with marxism.

Then again, a great many European lawyers in the 15th, 16th and 17th centuries made a terrific living specializing in criminal defense of women accused of witchcraft. Pretty much everyone in Europe in that time was unanimous in the believe that around 25% of all women were witches or possessed by demons. That belief even crawled over, famously, to Salem Massachusetts for a while in the 1690s (see “The Crucible”).

Meanwhile, the womans’ rights movement to pass an Equal Rights Amendment and to obtain relief from violence against women continues to go nowhere. Maybe people still think many women are witches still, while cats and dogs can’t be possessed by evil spirits. (in fact, the New Testament flatly states that Jesus cast out an evil spirit from a human into an animal, more than once, I believe, so this is not true).

In fact, soon gay lesbian transgendered persons, along with cats and dogs, may all soon enjoy more constitutional and legal protections than women. Ted Olson, Esq., a prominent conservative republican attorney, is working with others to overturn the defense of marriage act signed into law by president bill clinton in 1996. they want federal courts to overturn the prop 8 process and issue a federal constitutional ruling.

so much for democracy, i suppose.

I’m not opposed to these other groups enjoying protections, but shouldn’t we fully address the equality of women before the law before we tackle the issues of other groups? Isn’t this fair and just? Obama has been strangely silent on women’s rights after being nominated over Hilary despite having fewer votes and fewer large states won than Hilary (he won due to technicalities in the apportionment formulas in the Democratic party which favored the small states; under the 1988 and prior rules, Hilary would have been the clear winner of the nomination).

though he did say he wanted to overturn the defense of marriage act. he didn’t say anything about enacting the ERA or helping battered women, though. i supposed by the end of the day, african americans, gays, transgendered and lesbians will have more rights than women, along with dogs and cats.

Women are the mother of us all (and I only mention this because August 15th is the saint day of the Holy Virgin Mary in the Greek Orthodox Church) and therefore deserve our saintly attentions as well as our full legal constitutional and law enforcement protections, before we bestow a drop of attention on dogs or cats, or other allegedly disadvantaged groups, especially groups that don’t have to raise kids or shop for groceries or both work and change diapers and also take care of a husband and a kid or three.

Animals were used by the pagan Roman Empire to eat the Christians in the arenas during the many persecutions of Christians before St. Constantine made Christianity the state religion @ 330 A.D. and moved the capital of the Roman Empire from Rome to Constantinople (where it remains to the present day). maybe its just for us to get back a little at animals for eating us.

Hercules had to slay a lion to prove he was a god. Samson had to kill a lion to prove he was the strongest of men. Killing animals in both greek myth and the bible was tantamount to sainthood and deification. In ancient times, you killed animals and sacrificed them to the gods, if you were an ancient greek, or to GOD, if you were in ancient Israel. How many sheep, goats, rams, etc. were sacrificed in the Old Testament to God? About a zillion, by my count.

Animals, in GOD’s view, were pretty much expendable. They didn’t have rights. Not only didn’t they have rights, but they were the COMMUNION of the ancient service. In the ancient service, there wasn’t just wine and a wafer (or wine and bread as we do it in the eastern Byzantine rite); no, what you got was a dead animal, which you put on the altar, and you BURNED IT FOR GOD along with prayers and incantations.

Imagine trying to do that today in modern America. They’d try and put you in jail for five years. Just for obeying the will of God.

I would argue that the juridical, moral and ethical status of animals has not changed in 12,000 years. We’ve killed more HUMANS in the 20th century than in all prior centuries; and there are more humans and animals alive in the 20th and 21st century than ever before; consequently, it stands to reason that while we might aspire to more ethical protections for humans, animals do not deserve any additional or heightened ethical protections.

Even assuming the status quo, animals, specifically dogs, are routinely mistreated everywhere in the United States. Not twenty minutes from Harvard University, my alma mater, there was a stop on the boston t called “Wonderland”, where they ran dog races back in the 1970s, and where I believe they continue to do so. Not horses, although horse racing is just as barbaric (how many horses have we seen break a leg and then be “sacrificed”), greyhound dogs are bred to run, chasing a mechanical rabbit along the inside of the track to exhaustion. These dogs, once they are done racing, do not make for good pets, and must often be put to sleep once they are done, unless they can be put to stud. Their lives are pretty awful; kept in bad kennels, fed poorly and kept poorly.

The conditions at Wonderland over the last thirty years, and Wonderland is a Massachussets sanctioned facility, would make the treatment of animals at the Michael Vick home seem wonderful.

I won’t even get into all the nutty dog and cat owners who have twenty or thirty cats or dogs. Or celebrity or politician dog or pet owners, who have four or five “rescue animals”, but don’t have the time to take care of them and hand them off to the maid or butler. I’m sure those dogs and cats are having a wonderful time full of love and attention.

In California, a lot of people don’t have kids but keep dogs and cats. In this wacky state, people are a little pathological about their pets, because they do the Freudian slip thing and sublimate, switching their displaced normal maternal/paternal instincts to the dog/cat pet from the child they were intended by biology and nature to have, so they actually commit the (1) sin and (2) error, of giving a humanity to their dog/cat pet(s).

It’s important to note that in God’s eyes, your dog or cat is NOT the same as your son or daughter. The bible commands you to GO FORTH AND MULTIPLY. It doesn’t say anything about being a shepherd and tending flock, except to describe lots of shepherds tending flocks. A person with pets is just a shepherd tending their flock.

Unless of course your pet happens to be the LAMB OF GOD, agnus dei.

But that’s a story for another day.

bottom line, i can’t get too worked up over michael vicks alleged acts of animal cruelty. while a little weird, they’re not exactly directed at people, and that’s the bottom line.

ART KYRIAZIS philly south jersey
home of the world champion phillies
posted august 22 2009

TINA FEY v. AMY POEHLER ON PHILLY v. BOSTON BEFORE THE SUPER BOWL EAGLES V. PATRIOTS FEBRUARY 2005 SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE

Paris Hilton Saturday Night Live Show Transcript 2-5-05

Download .zip file

TINA FEY v. AMY POEHLER ON PHILLY v. BOSTON BEFORE THE SUPER BOWL EAGLES V. PATRIOTS FEBRUARY 2005 SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE

FEY: A man identified as an NYU professor was detained at LaGuardia Airport Thursday after human remains were found in his luggage. However, he was let go when he told authorities the body parts were ‘teaching tools.’ Said the professor, ‘….teach that bitch to cheat on me.’

POEHLER: The Canadian government formally introduced a bill to legalize same-sex marriage. At which point the bill insisted on being called William.

FEY: As we mentioned earlier, this Sunday is Superbowl XXXIX, between the Philadelphia Eagles of my hometown and the New England Patriots…

POEHLER: …of my hometown…Burlington, New England.

FEY: So, we thought it would be fun to have a little hometown fans Point/Counterpoint. Amy has elected to go first.

POEHLER: Thank you, Tina. [In Boston accent] If you think your Eagles are any match for our top notch New England Patriots, you’re a moron.

FEY: [In Philadelphia accent] Okay, don’t even start, alright. Cause everyone knows New England people are a bunch of losers, you’se went down there losers, and you’re goin’ home losers.

POEHLER: Give me a break. We’re unstoppable. It’s our year – first they Red Sox, now the Superbowl. Okay, you can go cry in a pile of Philly Cheese stakes, and watch that gay movie they named after your city.

FEY: Okay, rebuttal. First of all, your whole city smells like baked bean farts. Second of all, how do you’se even have time go to the Superbowl? Aren’t ya too busy getting molested by priests and cryin’ about it?

POEHLER: Good point. Point well taken. But, uh, let me just say this. Your mother’s a whore and your father holds the money.

FEY: You dirt bag!

[end of transcript]

FROM AN ACTUAL SNL SHOW 2005 BEFORE THE EAGLES PLAYED IN THE SUPER BOWL AGAINST THE PATRIOTS.

TINA FEY IS AN EAGLES FAN!!!!

Art Kyriazis/Philly South Jersey
Home of the World Champion Phillies

Reflections on President Obama, Ernie Davis and Donovan McNabb January 20, 2009

Like many others, I am excited about the prospects of a new administration, and the special significance of the United States having its first African-American President. To paraphrase President Obama, we are not the red states of America, we are not the blue states of America, we are not the white states of America, we are not the black states of America, we are the United States of America. President Obama is a trailblazer and you have to like that about him.

It’s a bit of a breath of fresh air after sixteen years of what appeared to me to be four consecutive terms of arrogant, self-centered, mildly brain-damaged, somewhat lazy and self-indulgent baby boomers Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, who each, both in their own awful ways, demonstrated all of the very worst traits of the baby boom generation—Clinton in his philandering and uncontrollable appetites for food, sex and manic tirades which left his security details emotionally exhausted and upset about guarding him—and Bush in his stubborn intransigent refusal to change policies, his disappearances from public view for months on end, the rumors about his drinking which would resurface from time to time, his incredible oedipal complexes regarding his father and mother, his religious conversions from Episcopalian to born again to long rumored conversion to crypto-catholicism after long meetings with the two Popes.

I say, a pox on both their houses. The last good to excellent Presidents we have had, clearly, were Ronald Reagan and George Bush, Sr., whose three terms ended in 1993, and culminated in the downfall of the iron curtain, and the downfall of the Russian bear, the Russian communist government which had been in place since 1917, and the liberation of hundreds of millions of people from communism, including all of the enslaved millions of Eastern Europe. to my mind, this was the greatest accomplishment of the twentieth century, on a part with the defeat of Imperial Germany in WWI and the defeat of Hitler in WWII. Bush I and Reagan deserve our admiration and our respect for this great achievement. One might also throw in there the liberation of Kuwait and the defeat of the Russians in Afghanistan as well as the defeat of the communists and the Sandinistas in Nicaragua on their watch as well.

In my view, while both the Clinton and Bush II adminisrations had mixed successes, neither President could directly claim them as Presidential successes. Clinton could not claim credit for either the legislation he passed or the great economy he engendered—those were the work of the Republican Senate and House, and of his excellent Treasury Secretaries Rubin and Summers. Bush could not claim credit for the victories in the war on terror or in Afghanistan or Iraq—those were the result of VP Cheyney and the neo-con think tank, and General Petraeus. While Bush greenlighted those projects, he wasn’t the leader on them. And the economy tanked badly under Bush, as did many other domestic programs, such as EPA and FEMA. Clinton’s entire second term was marred by the Lewinsky scandal and his own impeachment, while the first two years of his first term were marred by endless scandals and the downfall of his own party in the mid-term elections of 1994, along with the destruction of his mandate for health care reform and the defeat of his reform agenda during 1993-1994. Likewise, Bush II got little or nothing done in his second term, and his approval ratings were poor, suffering as they did from the attrition of a long ground war in Asia (very LBJ like) and meandering domestic policies which culminated in economic disaster.

In short, both Presidents suffered from attention deficit disorder, self-centered personality issues, arrogance, unwillingness to listen to criticism and poor comprehension of the big picture. In short, they both betrayed the worst aspects of the baby boom generational personality. Frankly, their personalities were quite similar, in many respect, even though their policies and politics may have been different.

I leave this to the scholars and authors, but eventually, some briliant psycho historian will put this all together in a compelling thesis or book or article, comparting Bush II to Clinton, and resolving the many strands of the Baby Boom Complex. Whatever the issues, I’m glad that we can finally sweep these guys past us and under the rug.

I preferred older leaders, guys like Reagan, who organized the Screen Actors Guild in the 1930s and 1940s, or Bush I, who flew fifty or more combat missions in World War II. Those guys were real leaders who stood up for real principles and worked hard all their lives. They didn’t have time to worry about themselves because they were always worried about others.

This brings us to President Obama, a fellow that seems to fit the mold of our older civil servants, a fellow that is more interested in others than he is in himself. And you have to like that. Like Reagan, he was a sports buff when younger, and like Bush I, he gave a great deal of time when younger to public service and civil service projects at cost and expense to himself. I cannot recall too many former editors of the Harvard Law Review who spent ten years or more pacing the streets of the South Chitown ghettoes getting to know the old ladies and young men and getting them organized and out to vote. Most of those Harvard Law Review editor types go straight to NYC or DC and pick up the big bucks, especially back in the go-go 90s.

There’s something nice in the way those old grandmothers from Chicago talk about the President that you have to like. A fella that’s willing to eat a meal at someone’s modest home in the south side of Chicago is a regular guy.

Also, and this one goes out to my good friend Scott Pritikin of Chicago, you have to love the fact that President Obama is a Chicago White Sox fan, and doesn’t care for the Cubs or the Red Sox. He’s not one of those yuppies or baby boomers who instantly root for the Cubs or Red Sox because they think they’re supposed to, or because it’s the elitist thing to do.

Rooting for the White Sox is a sign of being a down to earth, South Side Chicago, Blues Guy. A guy who likes reality, not cash, who likes to play hoops, not tennis or polo. The man is real. Really real. Everything peripheral about him seems just right. He’s no baby boomer–he’s a solid citizen. He’d rather spend the day eating pie with your grandmother than fooling around with some intern. That’s way righteous. And we all know he’s a religious fellow, and a righteous fellow, and a fine speaker.

But what I’m saying is, it all seems to come from some wellspring of personal integrity and decency.

In President Obama, we finally have someone who appears, on the surface at least, to be a serious, detail-oriented, intelligent man who will devote himself 24/7 to the job of being CEO and CFO of the United States of America, the most difficult and demanding job in the world. His cabinet picks and transition team work to date has been outstanding, and he has picked excellent people. Speaking in a nonpartisan fashion, I have been impressed with his willingness to appoint people from all points of view and from all sides of the aisle to his administration, including notably Defense Secretary Gates from Bush’s administration. There does not appear to be a pronounced liberal policy bias—instead, there is a bias towards getting the jobs done right in each and every sector of government. This is a blissfully good sign of proper management skills.

Plus, the new President shoots a mean left hook and he was a great athlete in high school. Hey, he even works out with the leading scorers of college basketball. To be nearly fifty and be able to work out with college kids, that’s saying something.

His hobbies are not self-indulgent, weird or twisted. He likes to shoot hoop in his spare time at the gym. This is the kind of guy I can actually relate too. He’s not some weird, self-centered, twisted baby-boomer in search of the meaning of life either by having an affair with a white house intern or by sitting down and chatting endlessly with the Pope. This President knows himself, is comfortable with his values and sense of self, and is just about business and getting the work done. He’s a down to earth regular guy, from what I can see.

You have no idea how refreshing that is to see in a President. I wish him well, and I hope they build a basketball gym at the White House, and invite kids from the neighborhood to come and have shootarounds Mondays and Thursdays with the Prez.

Part II – Donovan McNabb and Ernie Davis

Now, onto discussing Ernie Davis and Donovan McNabb.

Last night, I finally had the chance to watch a movie that explores in detail the racial problems of the old America in detail, while also telling the story of a sports legend. I refer here to “The Express—The Ernie Davis Story” which tells the story of “The Elmira Express,” Ernie Davis, the first African-American football player ever to win the Heisman Trophy. Davis followed Jim Brown to Syracuse University and wore Jim Brown’s #44 from 1959-62, and led Syracuse to an undefeated untied season, a #1 ranking, a national championship and a Cotton Bowl victory over #2 Texas in the 1959-60 football season. His accomplishments were unbelievable.

One of President Obama’s great heroes, the late President Kennedy, admired Ernie Davis greatly. President Kennedy was also a former athlete, and played football at Harvard. He truly admired Ernie Davis for his accomplishments on the football field, and he went out of his way to praise Davis for his Heisman Award, and in the film is shown to have met Davis in person to congratulate him.

And yet Ernie Davis, who was drafted by the Cleveland Browns and would have played in the same backfield as Jim Brown (what a backfield that would have been) never played a down in the NFL. He was stuck down in the prime of life by leukemia, and died in 1963 at age 23. President Kennedy himself sent a memorial message.

This film is a great deal about the bravery and pioneering efforts not only of Davis against discrimination and bigotry, but also of Syracuse University, and their trailblazing efforts to recruit and develop African-American talent at the highest levels of national championship football. We seen in this film an unbroken chain from Jim Brown to Ernie Davis to Floyd Little, and we all know what kind of running backs Jim Brown and Floyd Little were in the NFL for the Cleveland Browns and the Denver Broncos—great ones.

This got me to thinking a great deal about the traditions of football at Syracuse, and about another great football player who is having an incredible NFL career, who also is African-American and went to Syracuse, and here I am speaking of Donovan McNabb.

Does anyone seriously doubt that Donovan McNabb went to Syracuse because he was chasing the ghosts of Jim Brown, Ernie Davis and Floyd Little? Donovan McNabb, even though he jokes and smiles, is I believe, serious about advancing the cause of greatness on the football field for African-American players. Don’t let the Chunky Soup ads fool you. Terrell Owens may be a clown, but Donovan McNabb is a thinking man’s football player, and serious about the advancement of African-Americans.

At this point, we must start asking ourselves, is Donovan McNabb the greatest African-American quarterback of all time ever to play in the NFL to date? The unequivocal answer is yes, absolutely and positively, yes. No other African-American quarterback has been to five conference championship games within an eight year span as has Donovan McNabb, including the Super Bowl. Other African-American quarterbacks have put up gaudier numbers—and here I think of Warren Moon principally—and Steve McNair was great for a long time with Houston/Tennessee and also reached the Super Bowl—but McNabb has been greater for longer and been a consistent winner for a longer period of time than any of them.

In point of fact, McNabb’s accomplishments in the NFL are very similar to those of Obama in politics. At this point in his career, anything that McNabb accomplishes, from here on out, is pioneering unchartered ground for an African-American quarterback in the NFL. McNabb of Syracuse has redefined the level of quarterback play for African-Americans in the NFL, like Jim Brown of Syracuse before him redefined the level of running back play for African-Americans in the NFL. McNabb would certainly belong in the Hall of Fame for this accomplishment alone, but beyond that, he has matched the record of Steve Young in the 1990s for appearing in five conference championship games in one decade. And no one doubts that Steve Young, Jerry Rice and George Seifert all belong in the Hall of Fame.

And I remind you all, that in none of those seasons (except perhaps the one with Terrell Owens) did McNabb ever have a receiver as gifted as Jerry Rice. Imagine if McNabb had Jerry Rice and Steve Young had to throw to Todd Pinkston or Greg Lewis for eight years. Does anyone doubt that McNabb and Rice would have gone to five super bowls while Young would have been lucky to get to one NFC conference final had those two guys had each others’ receiving corps?

This past season has defined the greatness of McNabb in so many ways. A lost season was redeemed. Impossible playoff games were won. Even in the final NFC championship game, when all seemed lost, McNabb gave a heroic, Olympian effort to win the game during the second half, and played the most beautiful, perfect quarter of football that anyone has ever seen from a quarterback in an NFC title game in decades.

That McNabb and the Eagles lost the game is irrelevant. For most of the second half, McNabb was the greatest, most dominant player I have ever witnessed on a football field. He took over the game the way only great players do, players like Jim Brown, like Joe Namath, like Roger Staubach, like Troy Aikman, like Terry Bradshaw, like Franco Harris.

And, like Ernie Davis. McNabb’s greatness was there for all to see.

I doubt seriously that we shall see his kind again.

To those who say McNabb is a good and not a great QB, you are wrong. McNabb is a great QB. It is Kurt Warner who is a good and not a great QB. Two or three great seasons, interrupted by sitting on the bench for years in NYC or playing in the arena league in other years, does not a HOF career make.

This is super bowl year 43. Next year will be Super Bowl #44. That’s Jim Brown’s Number and Ernie Davis’ Number. For some reason, I think Donovan McNabb might have extra special incentive to want to win Super Bowl #44. It would be very special indeed if he could win Super Bowl #44 in 2010. It would be homage to Jim Brown, to Ernie Davis, to Floyd Little, to Syracuse, to a whole of players who have gone before…

and it would certainly stick it to Rush Limbaugh and TO for making those horrible racists comments about McNabb a few years back…

I think the Eagles have a fine chance of coming back to the playoffs next year, and perhaps going all the way. And even if it’s 80-1, as I’ve argued elsewhere, there are worse bets in the marketplace than putting a dollar on andy reid.

–Art Kyriazis Philly/South Jersey
Home of the World Champion Phillies
Happy New Year 2009

Cards Edge Eagles 32-25 in NFC Championship Game in Upset Stunner

The Arizona Cardinals, one of the worst franchises in recent NFL memory, shocked me and perhaps the entire world yesterday, by upsetting the battle-tested and road-tested NFC East worthy Philadelphia Eagles 32-25 in the NFC Championship Game yesterday. I simply cannot believe that the Cardinals managed to win this game, even though it was a trap game in many respects–a road game after two tough road games, a revenge game for the Cards, and a warm weather game for a warm weather team, as well as an emotional let down game for the Eagles coming off a big win against the Giants. Nonetheless, the Eagles should have won this game, for many reasons. The Eagles nonetheless had a terrific season, and for me the high points of the season will still be crushing the Giants last week at the Meadowlands, as well as Donovan McNabb’s incredible double fake roll out and 80 yard throw to DeSean Jackson to take the lead in the NFC Championship Game in the 4th Quarter on a 62-yard bomb that was magnificent in execution and brilliantly thrown. It was everything and more that we as fans could ever have hoped for from our Eagles.

Nonetheless, the Eagles, as well as they played, came up short. I see three main factors.

Factor one – The NFL’s System for Assigning Home Games is Faulty When it Comes to Back-End Division Chapions with Poor Records and Easy Schedules vs. Wild Cards with Better Records and Harder Schedules

First thing, this game had no business being played in Arizona. Arizona was 9-7 in the regular season, the Eagles were 9-6-1. The Eagles had the better regular season record. Second, the Eagles trouced the Cards 48-20 in the only game between the two clubs. Third, the Eagles were 4-0 against the NFC West. Fourth, the Cards were 0-4 against the NFC East. The NFL’s official explanation for the seeding was that the Cardinals, as NFC West Division champs, were official the 4th seed in the playoffs, while the Eagles were the sixth seed as the wild-card.

However, it seems to me, that once you get to a head to head match-up between two teams where one team clearly has a better record, a stronger schedule and has beaten the other team head to head as well as beaten the common opponent, you have to throw out the brackets and assign the home game based on record and head to head competition.

The proper thing to do here would have been to break brackets and give the Eagles the home game. After all, Arizona did not really earn their home game in any sense of the word. Nor did they earn their bye week with a weak 9-7 record. While I give Arizona credit for beating Carolina on the road last week, there is simply no way that Arizona as NFC West Division champs deserved a home game with a weak 9-7 record.

The NFL playoff rules need to be amended such that division winners should only get home games if 1) they are division winners and 2) of the remaining two teams playing, the division winner has the better record of the remaining two teams playing, taking strength of schedule into account.

i know this is a loser’s beef, but a fair one. If this game had been played in Philly, the Eagles could have played more their style of ball.

Factor Two – David Akers cost the Eagles lots and lots of Points

David Akers came up small in the biggest game of the year. With the score 7-3 in the first half, Akers shanked a 45-yard field goal attempt badly to the right. Akers had the shanks all game long–he shanked a kickoff, an extra point, and the 45 yard FG attempt to the right during the game–all to the detriment of the Eagles.

If Akers makes that FG, the Eagles are at 7-6, one point down, and they kick off and pin the Cards deep. Instead, the Cards took over at about their own 30, and immediately they did the flea-flicker play to Larry Fitzgerald that went for 70 yards and a TD, making it 14-6. That’s a ten point swing right there.

So that sequence cost the Eagles ten points, maximum, three points minimum, and Akers was kicking in a dome, remember.

Next, Akers missed an extra point in the second half, costing the team another point, and forcing them to go for two on another TD, which the team didn’t make, costing them another two points, which in essence cost them three points. If Akers makes the first extra point, they kick another, so really it’s two points.

So Akers cost the team another two points in the second half.

As I see it, Akers cost the team six points, and possibly ten. So on account of Akers, and only Akers, the final score could have been 32-30 Cards, or better yet, 30-25 Eagles, which is what I think the score would have been if Akers had simply done his job.

Moreover, if Akers kicks the field goal in the first half and kicks his two extra points in the second half, and even assuming that the Cards score 32 points, the score is only 32-30 with three minutes to go, and the Eagles are on the 47 of Phoenix needing only about 20 yards to kick a game winning FG, instead of needing to go 47 yards to get a TD. As I see it, that changes the whole complexion of the game.

David Akers needs either to be replaced, or supplemented by a long-distance kicker. He no longer has the range or distance from past 40 yards.

Akers, and Akers alone, arguably cost the Eagles this football game.

Factor Three – The Eagles came out Flat in the First Half

The Eagles were thoroughly out played in the first half of the NFC Championship game, and obviously came out very flat. Most surprisingly the defense played badly and allowed 24 points, probably the most number of points allowed by the Eagles in a half in many a week.

The Eagles offense actually did not play so badly in the first half. While they didn’t score TDs, they played well enough to get in position for three FG’s, but Akers missed one, so they should have had 9 points, and arguably one of the Card’s TDs came about because of the FG miss, so the score could have been 17-9 at half.

However, to the Eagles everlasting credit, and quite unlike the Tampa Bay and Carolina NFC Championship Games, where they basically lay down and gave up, the Eagles mounted a ferocious comeback in the third quarter and second half of this game to come all the way back and actually take the lead, 25-24, in the fourth quarter, and make this and exciting and truly great NFC championship game.

During that third/fourth quarter stretch, the Eagles scored three straight TDs, stopped the Cards on every offensive possesion and stifled them defensively, and looked every bit like the Eagles of the last two weeks. I had given the Eagles up for dead after the first half, personally. I was surprised to see their comeback. It was the comeback of a great team with great character and a great will to win.

This years Eagles were nothing like the Eagles of other years. They were a great team that had a great will to win, even until the end.

Even Arizona’s final drive (and I suspect the home team was shaving time off the clock, incidentally), which consumed 7 minutes and went for a game winning TD and two point conversion, did not mask the greatness of the Eagles defense, which resisted them every step of the way, and pushed them to 3d and 4th down repeatedly, and nearly made a big goal line stand to force them to a Field Goal.

And McNabb made a great run at a final two minute drive to win the game and just came up a couple of passes short.

The final stats show that the Eagles actually outplayed the Cards–McNabb threw for many more yards, and was a terrific passer on the day. McNabb’s second half was far better than the Card’s Kurt Warner’s first half.

Edgerrin James, though, did have a great day, and was a big factor in the Cards’ final drive.

This game was quite reminiscent of the Rams-Eagles game of 2001 where Warner and McCutcheon came back to beat the Eagles in the second half. that was a great game, too.

People will say that this tarnishes McNabb’s and/or Reid’s legacy. No, no, no.

The Eagles are truly a great team. Five NFC Title games in eight years, and a terrific performance in this last one, an exciting performance, and nearly a win against all odds.

Only the 1990s San Francisco 49ers appeared in five NFC championship games in one decade, and I would remind everyone that that team, also, made it to just one Super Bowl appearance in those five games under coach George Seifert, were 1-4 in NFC championship games, and thought they won the Super Bowl they appeared in, their record of accomplishments in the 1990s is not dissimilar from the Eagles. Also, the Niners were up against a powerful Dallas Cowboys team piloted by Troy Aikman in those years. The Eagles have faced similarly talented teams within their own conference.

The Eagles have been playing with house money the whole way through. They nearly made it to another super bowl in a year that no one expected anything of them.

Now, they are in a position to sign a kicker and a running back (LaDainian Tomlinson?) and make another run next year at the title.

The dynasty continues. Another great year of pro football comes to a close in philly.

Oh, and by the way, GO STEELERS! (hey, we love PA teams).

–art kyriazis philly/south jersey
home of the world champion phillies
Happy New Year 2009

Eagles at Cardinals – Rematch of the 1947 and 1948 NFL Title Games

The NFL, FOX and other major media claim that the Arizona Cardinals have never hosted an NFC Conference Championship Game. Technically, that is correct, because the NFC and AFC only came into existence after the AFL-NFL merger in 1970, but the NFL existed and had playoffs and championships and divisional playoff games for forty years or more before that date.

Before they were the Arizona Cardinals, they were the St. Louis Cardinals, and before they were the St. Louis Cardinals, they were the Chicago Cardinals.

And in 1947, 61 years ago, on December 28, 1947, the Chicago Cardinals hosted the Philadelphia Eagles for the NFL Championhip. The box score of that game can be found at http://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/194712280crd.htm. The Cardinals beat the Eagles 28-21. The Cardinals boasted Charlie Trippi at halfback and Ray Mallouf at QB.

That was a great Eagles team. It boasted Steve Van Buren, a 1000 yard rusher; Tommy Thompson at QB; Pete Pihos at end; Allie Sherman and Bill Mackrides at backup QB; and Bosh Pritchard at the other running back. It came back to win the NFL title in 1948 and 1949.

On December 19, 1948, the Eagles hosted the Chicago Cardinals in a rematch of the previous years title game, only this time at Philadelphia, and the Eagles defeated the Cardinals for the NFL title 7-0.

The Cardinals after 1948 never made the playoffs again while they were in Chicago. In 1960, they departed to St. Louis. In 1964, they had a 9-3 season, but finished second and missed the playoffs. But in 1974-75, they did finally make the playoffs again after a 26 year drought, under Don “Air” Coryell as their coach, with Jim Hart at QB and Terry Metcalf in the backfield and the outstanding Jackie Smith at tight end. Although they lost their opening round playoff games both years to the Vikings and Rams, those were two outstanding Cardinals playoff teams. Unfortunately, that was it for that team. The St. Louis Cards got in again in 1982, a strike year, but again lost the opening round playoff game.

In 1988 the Cards moved to Phoenix. In 1998, the Cards with Jake “the Snake” Plummer at QB went 9-7, made the wild card, and beat Troy Aikman and the Cowboys on the road in the wild card round, 20-7. Even though they lost to the Vikings in the Divisional Round, that would have to be counted as a very succesful season for the Cards. Unfortunately, it wasn’t repeated, and Plummer would soon make his way to Denver. It would take until this year for the Cards to again make the playoffs.

In 1925, the Chicago Cardinals won the NFL Championship, although this is disputed by some, since the Pottsville, PA Maroons had nearly the same record and defeated the Cardinals 21-7 in head to head play. There is a long ongoing controversy as to whether the Maroons or the Cardinals were the 1925 NFL Champions and I can’t get into the details of that here, except to say that both claim the championship, and the NFL record books apparently give it to Chicago’s Cardinals.

Suffice it to say that the Cardinals won at least one undisputed NFL championship on the field, and it was in December, 1947 against the Philadelphia Eagles. The same two teams played each other the next year and in December 1948, the Eagles beat the Cardinals for the NFL championship.

So actually, there’s a little bit of history between these two clubs, although you have to dust it all off to find it. And this coming weekend’s game is in fact a rematch of the 1947 and 1948 NFL championship games. It’s old school. These are two ancient franchises locking horns for the right to go to the Super Bowl. Even though the game is in Phoenix, which didn’t have an NFL franchise in 1947 or 1948, the history of the game is clearly there nonetheless. These two teams have both been in the NFL a long, long time and they have some history of losing to go along with their winning records.

Throw in the fact that Kurt Warner faced the Eagles as a St. Louis Ram in the NFC Championship Game not so long ago (2001) and the fact that Arizona was humbled and schooled 48-20 on Thanksgiving day by the Eagles, and you definitely have some rivalry issues on both sides for these clubs.

The Eagles, to justify their entire existence as a truly great team of the decade, must make it to the Super Bowl, and indeed, must win the Super Bowl.

The Cards, and Kurt Warner in particular, need to win to save face from the humiliation of thanksgiving day, though to lose in a close game would be enough.

On the whole, the synergies are such that I like the Eagles to win in a close, hard fought game.

The Eagles have the better defense, and on the whole, the better offense as well.

Warner is a very immobile QB,and will be a good target for the Eagles defensive blitz packages.

McNabb is healthy, can run his way out of trouble, and the Eagles have had success running the ball as well as passing.

I look for an Eagles win, though in many respects it’s a trap game on the road.

–art kyriazis philly/south jersey
home of the world champion phillies
happy new year 2009

Eagles Defeat Giants at Meadowlands 23-11, Reach NFC Championship Finals

The Philadelphia Eagles continue to shock the world. Yesterday they did what no one thought was possible—they marched into the Meadowlands and defeated the defending Super Bowl New York Giants in a divisional playoff round game 23-11. The game was close, hard-hitting and was up for grabs as late as the fourth quarter. The two teams went into the halftime with Philly up 10-8 after McNabb engineered a two-minute drive for a field goal by Akers. The two teams traded field goals in the third quarter and Philly was up 13-11 when the Eagles finally put together a touchdown drive to go ahead 20-11. Then the Giants stalled out at fourth and inches and the Eagles made a big defensive stop. The Eagles went three and out but the Giants again got to their own forty and got to fourth and around two and went for it again—and the Eagles stopped them again. This time the Eagles offense converted a long pass play to DeSean Jackson and while they didn’t make the TD, they converted another Akers FG to go up 23-11 with a little over four minutes to play in the fourth quarter. This pretty much iced it. Manning on his next series threw a pick and Philly again wasted clock with another offensive possession.

The Eagles won by controlling the second half with defense, by running the football about as often as they passed, and by controlling the line of scrimmage on both offense and defense. After a while, with the Giants defense out there so long, you could see the Giants defense getting tired, as great and awesome as they are. The Eagles had a 2-1 edge in time of possession in the second half. They simply dominated the Giants in the second half.

This was a terrific win for the Eagles, one of the finest wins in the playoffs in the Andy Reid era, perhaps the finest. A win over an NFC East rival on the road in the opponents stadium as a wild card having played the week before is a tall order, but Andy Reid dialed up a good game plan and won with it. Again, the keys to the game were a sound McNabb, a healthy Westbrook, a great DeSean Jackson and an awesome Eagles defense.

We should stop for a moment and appreciate what Andy Reid has now accomplished—five NFC Championship round appearances in eight years. The chance of doing this randomly in anyone year is the chance of making the playoffs (six out of 16) or .375 (37.5%) times the chance of winning at least one more playoff games (.5 or 50%) which aggregates to .1875 or 18.75% in any single season randomly. Leaving out the combinatorics of doing it five out of eight seasons (56 ways), assuming you had to do this five straight seasons would be .1875 times itself five times would would be .00023 or .023% chance of this happening randomly. That’s 23 chances in 10,000 seasons. The odds improve a bit when you stretch it over eight seasons, but still, it’s an impressive accomplishment. Andy Reid is clearly staking his claim for the Hall of Fame among NFL Coaches.

Of course, I’ve already gone out on that limb and said the Eagles would go to the Super Bowl this year. That prediction is looking better after Arizona knocked Carolina out of the playoffs. The Eagles knocked the stuffing out of Arizona on Thanksgiving day. Not that Arizona will lay down and die at home during the NFC championship game. Kurt Warner is an experienced quarterback who has won the Super Bowl, and who has defeated the Eagles in the NFC Championship round with St. Louis back in 2001, though he had Marshall Faulk back then to do it with and a pretty good defense. But he does have a renewed Edgerrin James, who has been enjoying a renaissance in the playoffs, and the Cardinals running game has been respectable enough to give their passing game some respectability. Moreover, the Eagles may have a letdown after their emotional win over the Giants. They may underestimate the Cardinals.

A historical note: The Eagles last met the Cardinals in a playoff game in 1947, for the NFL title. The Chicago Cardinals defeated the Philadelphia Eagles for the NFL title in that game. The Eagles came back to win the NFL title in 1948 and 1949. It’s taken 61 years, but this is the Eagles time for revenge and payback. Besides, what kind of crazy person would leave a great town like Chicago for St. Louis or Arizona?

The keys to this upcoming game are that Warner is a stationary QB vulnerable to the blitz; and the Cardinals weak defense. Also the Eagles good secondary has to maintain coverage on the fleet-footed Arizona receivers. The Eagles must maintain the same kind of game plan that resulted in a blowout from Thanksgiving while making adjustments in light of Arizona’s last two big wins.

I believe the Eagles will win at Arizona, though it will not be a blowout as before. I also think that the Steelers will finally knock Baltimore out of the playoffs, though Baltimore is playing very, very well. And we will finally have an all-PA Super Bowl of Steelers v. Eagles in Tampa, where there are a lot of ex-PA people living as snowbirds.

–Art Kyriazis Philly/South Jersey
Home of the World Champion Phillies
Happy New Year 2009

The Horrible BCS

Florida defeated Oklahoma 24-14 in the BCS National Championship Game last week to win the BCS National Championship for this past 2008-2009 season. The game was pretty even for three quarters, but in the fourth quarter, Tim Tebow and the Gators pretty much took control of the game as did the Gators’ defense. I’m certainly happy for Florida and for the good people of Gator Country.

Which reminds me of a funny story. I was interviewing for some positions early in my career in the Jacksonville, Florida region. This was a while back. I was I had flown in from the North that very morning. I was pretty young and naïve. Everywhere I went, I noticed that everyone had a certain lapel pin on. Finally, my third or fourth interview through, I asked, pretty stupidly, what is that pin y’all have on?

“Why son, THIS HEAH IS A GATAH PIN. WE HEAH ARE ALL GATAHS!!!”
In other words, they all were wearing Florida Gator pins. I knew right then and there, I was toast. There was no way they were hiring a Northerner in that or any other related office. Just to complete the story, I ran into some friends of friends some years later in LA who were Gator alums, and they assured me that U Florida was one of the best universities ever, both in terms of courses and in terms of social fun, ever. Apparently a lot of celebrities and actors send their kids there. But they, too, were Gators.

I’m actually happy for Florida and the Gators. Maybe it took Steve Spurrier leaving for them to get a national championship, or maybe just a Tim Tebow to put them over the top. Whatever, they’ve now won two BCS national championships in three years, which is a signal accomplishment.

But this is about the horrible BCS, which this year served up a couple of one loss teams in Florida and Oklahoma in the BCS Bowl. This year, other schools which have a reasonable claim to the national championship include Utah, which finished undefeated, won a BCS Bowl and destroyed their BCS opponent in that Bowl. Why wasn’t Utah in the BCS Final? Frankly, they looked pretty compelling in destroying Alabama.

Then you have the USC Trojans—who did a pretty good job of destroying the Penn State Nittany Lions, and a very good Nittany Lion team at that, one which was a one point loss from being undefeated. It’s hard to believe that USC lost a game to anyone this season. Even so, watching them in the Rose Bowl, USC certainly looked like a national champion. Why wasn’t USC playing Florida in the BCS final bowl?

Then you have Texas, which defeated Ohio State in another BCS Bowl, though it was a close game and not a decisive win. Texas didn’t really make out the case for a national championship, but certainly they belong in the mix of elite teams. Why wasn’t Texas playing Florida in the BCS final bowl?

So what this controversy builds up to is the compelling need for a national playoff system in BCS/NCAA football. Why this is so difficult escapes me. The top eight ranked teams in the BCS should be eligible for the playoffs, and should be seeded in the BCS bowls; in fact, to be REALLY fair, the BCS/NCAA should put in the top sixteen teams and seed them accordingly. They certainly have enough teams. After all, if you’re ranked first, you should have a creampuff first round opponent, eh? Meanwhile, you can get some interesting 8-9 matchups, etc.

Sixteen playoff teams will result in eight bowls in the first round, four bowls in the second round, two bowls in the third round and a final championship bowl in the penultimate round. That makes fifteen bowl games over four weeks to decide a national champion. There would be plenty of advertising money and plenty of TV rights all around. As for the remainder of the bowl games, obviously there should be a pool to allow all of the bowls to be playoff/BCS bowls from year to year—but due to regional and conference matchups other bowls will still have appeal, e.g. Penn State, Notre Dame, the service academies, even if they’re not for the playoffs or national championship.

Many, many persons have spoken out for a national playoff system in NCAA/BCS football, including our President-Elect, who is in favor. The team that has been most hurt by the lack of a national playoff system in NCAA football, without any doubt, has been Penn State. Four times in NCAA history, Penn State has had an undefeated system without being ranked #1 or having an opportunity to play for the #1 ranking in a bowl game at the end of the season. By my reckoning, Joe Paterno and Penn State should have six, not two national championships. Paterno and Penn State have been shamelessly deprived of numerous national championships by both the polling systems and by the lack of a national championship playoff system, starting in 1969 and most recently in 1993.

The other team that has been systematically discriminated against even with the BCS system is Utah, which the BCS/NCAA feels for some reason can’t play football, even though Utah churns out pro quarterbacks and pro coaches with astounding regularity. I don’t even know who the Utah quarterback is, but I bet even now he’s more likely to end up on an NFL roster than Bradford the so-called cant miss prospect from Oklahoma (who looked hopelessly confused during the fourth quarter of the BCS bowl).

Meanwhile, Tebow, who the NFL scouts say won’t make it in the NFL, there’s a guy I’d certainly draft if I was GM for an NFL team. Tebow is a born leader. I’ve only ever seen one guy do that jump pass thing—the star quarterback of our prep school football team—and all he did was play for BC four years and play for the Giants until he messed up his ankle. He’s a professional sports announcer now. I say Tebow can play pro—he’s got the desire.

But the horrible BCS has to be overhauled. We need a playoff system. I’m pretty sure Tebow and Florida would still win such a system, and the final game would probably be Florida and USC. But what a game that would be.

–Art Kyriazis Philly/South Jersey
Home of the World Champion Philadelphia Phillies
Happy New Year 2009

THE EAGLES FAMILY OF COACHES IN THE NFL

The clash between Eagles head coach Andy Reid and his former assistant coach (and now Minnesota Head Coach) and good friend Brad Childress in the playoffs yesterday highlights a new trend in the NFL—the Philadelphia Eagles family of coaches in the NFL. First, there are the Buddy Ryan assistant coaches—Jon Gruden, formerly of Oakland (where he went to the Super Bowl) and now of Tampa Bay (where he also went to the Super Bowl, and narrowly missed the playoffs this year) and Jeff Fischer of Tennessee, the NFL’s longest tenured coach, who is the AFC’s top seeded team this year, a regular playoff contender, and a former Super Bowl coach and AFC champion. Former Eagles head coach and Buddy Ryan assistant coach Ray Rhodes continues to work as an assistant coach in the league. Buddy Ryan’s two sons now are assistant coaches in the league. Second, there are the ex-Eagles—such as Herm Edwards of Kansas City, and former head coach Dick Vermeil, who used to coach at St. Louis, and won a Super Bowl there. Ex-Eagle John Bunting was a college head coach at North Carolina. And then you have the Andy Reid connections–Harbaugh at Baltimore, who used to coach special teams with the Eagles, and all the connections of Reid through Green Bay as well as Philly like Childress at Minnesota and Holmgren in Seattle.

There are probably many more connections to the Eagles that could be found, but it certainly is illuminating how many coaches and assistant coaches in the NFL (and in the college ranks) now have philly ties. And we used to think this was a college hoops town with a lot of college and pro hoops coaches everywhere. Who knew we were a spawning ground for college coaches. Guess it’s a spawning ground of football coaches as well for the NFL.

–art kyriazis philly/south jersey
home of the world champion phillies
Happy New Year 2009