Yankee Stadium Review

Well, I didn't think it was any more likely than you did that I'd be writing a little review of the new Yankee Stadium, especially this soon, but thanks to the fates (who love trying to make me look like a hypocrite), here I am. Good old Mr Dyer sprung a nice field-level seat on me at the last minute this Monday, and I jumped at the opportunity since 1) it was probably a rich a-hole who paid for the ticket, not me; 2) I love watching baseball games; and 3) when would I get another chance to see a game in the new stadium, seeing as how I've boycotted it and all?
First, the stadium itself is mostly reminiscent of the old stadium (the renovated old stadium, I mean, since by all accounts the actual "old" stadium was a far sight different from the renovated version I saw many times firsthand). I say mostly because it carries none of the grandness of the scale of the old stadium, so at no point during your stay in the new one will you ever forget you're not in the old one. It doesn't feel as big, for one thing (which of course it isn't. They fit many extra seats in to offset the capacity difference, but those come at the expense of less foul territory and more outfield seats closer to the field. The simple size of the stadium is quite smaller).
This is a lazy thing to say, but it sorta just seems like a lot of the newer stadiums in the league: nicer than most of the old, and more inviting, but ultimately less distinct. This kind of thing would be a definite plus if replacing a stadium such as Shea, or the Pitt/Philly/Cincy bowls, but not so great when replacing something as iconic as Yankee Stadium.
Now to the positives. The concourses (at least the lower one, that's all I saw) are excellent. It's all very very open with great sightlines, not just from the concourse to the field, but also from the lower seats up into the concourse. This is nice since I could just sit in my sight and scan around the stadium to see exactly where I wanted to go for beer or food or restrooms. It's one of those smallish things you don't notice initially that shows what a lot of thought was put into this stadium (pricing excepted of course, as well as the theorized possibility of a homer-heavy wind draft). There is a large enclosed bar right behind center field, and the windows are tinted jet black so they double as the batter's eye. The seats are nicely cushioned and sized, and the food, while nothing spectacular, was adequately varied so that if you wanted something reasonably healthy or nonstandard, you could get it (I had a pulled pork sandwich that was pretty good). The scoreboard is nice and big as expected (Scotty brought up an odd point, that since the scoreboard is directly in center, and features a huge headshot of the batter, would it be odd for that batter to look right over the pitcher's shoulder and get distracted by his own massive image?) and the score and count seemed to be visible from most angles. There was an electronic K counter, plus count, pitch speed and description, plus a nicely detailed rotating out-of-town score and current pitcher-batter-base-out status. Each batter also got a full six season stat categories: AVG, HR, and RBI, plus R, OBP, and even SLG. Very nicely thorough. Sticking in the outfield, although I didn't get a good look from there, the outfield seats seemed to be vastly improved from the old stadium.
A very nice thing is the friezes ringing the top of the stands. These were the famous image of the old stadium (not so much the renovated), so it's very nice they've got them somewhat prominent. Maybe it's sentimentalism, but they look very good, and somehow not forced.
Now, to a couple random points. There is a vast almost-hall-like area off to the first base side of the stadium, behind the concourse but within the outer wall, that was quite visually impressive and maybe even intimidating. The only problem was that it didn't have much use, being mostly empty except for a selection of your standard stadium vendors: bank/credit card companies, a lemonade stand, couple beer stands, and some souvenir stands. Amidst this out-of-the-way randomness was one detail that amazed and--I'm almost ashamed to say because I know they're shamelessly pandering to someone just like me--impressed me was their "Retro Beers" fridge. This nondescript vending spot was manned by two lonely people, and contained 16oz cans of PBR, Schafer, Schlitz, and even Ballantine. Of course I bought a Ballantine, and of course I was upset they had to pour it into a plastic cup, since everyone knows the only joy in drinking a Ballantine is showing off the can while you do so.
Back to the concourses, and another thing I was impressed with: they seemed to be letting anyone who wanted, for as long as they wanted, to just stand at the edge of the concourse right behind the last row of seats and watch the game. I've always wondered why teams didn't let people use the standing areas of stadiums, and they seem to be doing just that.
Finally, on a personal note, I will turn to our specific seats. They were labled $325, and were located 9 rows up directly behind the visitor's dugout. They were in the fourth row beyond the infamous Legends Suites, but they still were low enough to have the offensive (to me) waiter service that they also practiced in the old stadium. They were very good, providing a perfect side-view perspective of the pitcher-batter matchup, as well as the flight of the ball of the bat (so I always knew if a fly was shallow, medium, deep, or a homer, and didn't do the annoying expectant gasping thing that some people do in stadiums anytime a batter lofts a ball out of the infield.
Scotty told me that his company (who provided the tickets) was actually given two extra seats (they orginally bought four), when the Yankees recently came to their senses and lowered the prices for all the lower-level seats. So the absurd pricing for those seats is slightly less absurd now. They're still a bunch of bastards.
Anyway, to sum, new Yankee Stadium is nice, and they mostly did everything right, both macro and micro. You can't build character, though, and I'm not sure that this one will necessarily ever produce it much on its own. That's where it will likely always lag behind its predecessor.

Hey Yankees--Go Fuck Yourselves

Post title directed more at the team's ownership and management. The players I'm basically ambivalent about.

Most people know that I am a pretty big baseball fan. Since I've lived in NY, I have zealously attended many games (highlights: 2006 Mets playoffs, 3 Sox-Yankees matchups in 2003-04, including one Pedro start, and a Yankee/Shea stadium same-day double last September) and would reasonably be expected to continue to do so as both the Mets and Yankees open new stadiums this year. For the Mets, this remains true, for the Yankees, not so much.
In fact, I am stating now for the record that I will never attend a game at New Yankee Stadium, unless I'm getting the ticket for free (and I don't mean a friend buying the ticket, I mean free from some corporate kickback). Even then, I will have to think long and hard before ending my boycott.
You see, what the Yankees have done in the last year with ticket prices and ridiculous arrogance is just absurd. Go to their website and check ticket prices. For the first sections (I said "section," not "row") in the outfield that used to be bleachers and cost $12-15, they are now charging $95-150. For the lowest field level, even several sections away from the dugout, they are charging a minimum of $525 per seat. For the best sections behind the plate and dugouts, they are charging $2,625 per seat. Again, that's $2,625.
For comparison's sake, the Cubs (another large-market, popular, recently-successful team) charge $325 for an equivalent seat. The $525 seats at Yankee Stadium are $90 at Wrigley. The $95-150 outfield seats at Yankee Stadium are $50.
For a breath of reality, the Pirates charge $27-35 for their equivalent of the $525+ Yankee tickets (the "Legends Suites").
On top of this, the Yankees have been getting a lot of bad press lately for their brashly condescending attitude toward fans, and especially their refusal to let other people even so much as enter the Legends Suites during batting practice. These overpriced seats have been largely empty most of the year, fyi.
Probably the most egregious example of what's cause me to tell the Yankees to go fuck themselves is their refusal to seat people in these precious Legends Suites during the recent NYU graduation held at the stadium (pic at left). They're not even playing a game and they still won't let even the people taking part in the ceremony that they're hosting to use these overpriced seats? Really? No thanks. I'm sure your new stadium is nice enough, but I'm equally sure I have no interest in finding out.

More words than necessary on NCAA pools

My NCAA bracket is ranked only in the 22nd percentile overall. This is poor. I was correct with only 11 of the final 16, and I have only one of the four elite 8 representatives correct so far. I take solace in the fact that any baboon could have successfully picked many correct teams so far since there have been so few upsets. This year, the pools will all be won on the last two rounds, when the little number next to each team becomes irrelevant. I'm quite fine getting trounced by 78% of the United States this year. I'm fine losing to 78% of the field several years. Playing in NCAA tournament pools is not like taking a test in high school. If you get an 85 on a test that score will carry over and affect the average. NCAA pools don't carry over. You either get a 100 or you don't. A series of 85s or 90s is impressive, to be sure, but they're all failures. You might was well have all 0s. I think too many people playing in pools, even the very smart ones, lose sight of this fact. It's hard to turn off the natural human instinct to try to do the best you can. Probabilities work amazingly well over the long run, but they're basically worthless in a small sample size. People who habitually pick the higher seeds in NCAA pools will consistently do well, and that helps to prevent these people from changing their strategy.
I don't have statistically proof to back this up right now, but the best way to win an NCAA pool is to make one or two big guesses that very few other people will make. The reason for this is that if you stick with the seeds like everyone else, then your margin for error slips to virtually zero; you'll have to be right with basically all of your late-tournament picks, something ridiculously hard to do. If instead you single out one unpopular team, then all you need is for that one team to hit for you and you will have close to an even shot at winning. Basically, the odds of your one team coming through for you--even though it must necessarily be an underdog and somewhat of a longer shot--is much better than to hope that a whole sequence of final four and title picks falls in line. Remember that if you play it conservative and do well heading into the last few games, you will still be competing against a large chunk of the pool. and late in the tournament is when you have to start guessing more anyway.
The beauty of my theory is that you have much more freedom outside of your one big guess to go with your gut. And if your gut proves right, then you've just hedged against the possibility that your big guess only ends up half-right. You're narrowing the playing field immensely.
I won a 65-person pool in 2005, and should have won again last year, using this philosophy. 2005 is maybe a bad example because everything hit just perfectly that year, but even still i don't think I had more than 12 Sweet 16 picks right. Last year I picked Memphis to win it all. They were a 1-seed but they were a very unpopular title pick. I may have only gotten 10 Sweet 16 picks and 4-5 Elight 8 picks right, but still if any number of things had happened in the closing minutes of the title game, I'd have won the pool again. In between these efforts, you have years like this one and a couple others where I've finished in the bottom third. It happens. I guess the great unsaid secret in all this is that you have to have a good eye for who these unpopular picks will be that will surpass expectations. This is where I've done well, and the reason I've finished so high in so few years. Memphis was a really good, well-rounded team that was disrespected because of its conference last year. They were easily talented enough to win it all. In 2005, 5-seed Michigan State helped win me the pool by making the Final Four. They were another very talented underrated team that did lots of things well and had my all-time tournament hero coach, Tom Izzo.
Wrapping this up, and perhaps explaining why I'm thinking about all of this right now, I'll remind you of my 22nd percentile standing. I can still win, because I have two potential aces up my sleeve: 4-seed Gonzaga making the Final Four, and 2-seed Michigan State making the title game. If both of these things happen, I will have a better than 50% chance of winning. If only one happens but my other picks are good, I still might have a chance. More than likely, they both won't succeed, and I'll finish 58th out of 75 or something, but maybe they will. And they're both playing tonight.

The Brink

Boy, I'm going to miss Sara the next couple days. Sure, I'm going to miss her in the normal sense cause I like her being around and all, but I'm also going to miss her laptop. Last night was the first of seven consecutive nights I'm going to spend without her (she's staying an extra week in Chicago), and maybe it's just the pre-NCAA Tournament unquenchable desire for more and more bracket-related knowledge and numbers, but I was seriously wishing I had a constant internet connection. It's one of those things you take for granted once you get used to it.
But even more than that, I wish I had a laptop now because I'm about to leave work in the next few minutes and I think I'd like to be able to do some semi-live blogging tonight and tomorrow while watching games and being drunk. Maybe I'll do it with pen and paper like the old days but probably not.
Good news is I'm feeling the good vibes right now. Although I really am (and already have in just the first night apart) going to miss Sara, it's also nice to have a little time to not have to be considerate at all. And what better time for that than the first weekend of the tournament.
Just let it go.

SB XLIII from a homer's perspective

This post is a sorta rip-off from a column Bill Simmons just posted doing a "retro-active" running diary of the Super Bowl. His rationale was that it was such a good and interesting ending to the game that it would be worth watching the replay and taking notes from it, even though he didn't take live notes during the game. This is a fine idea for a writer and all, and I'd normally not copy something so obviously, but I am a Pittsburgh homer and I thought maybe it would be interesting to get a direct fan's perspective of some of what turned out to be madness. (Doubly sorry about the irrelevance of this posting as most of yinz who'll be reading were probably in the room with me (through most of it).) I'm not going to rewatch the whole game; play-by-play scanning is sufficient.

1st Quarter, 10:11 remaining: 3rd & 1 -- B.Roethlisberger scrambles right end for 1 yard, TOUCHDOWN.
This played was reviewed and overturned of course, and the whole time I was almost hoping they'd overturn it since I didn't want to have to hear shit forever about a bad call on a BR sneak on the goal line in a Super Bowl on 3rd down, like Seattle bitches about constantly.
Also, I thought this was an ok call because I was 100% adamant that we should be going for it on 4th down. The fact that we didn't and took the easy field goal was a decision that was at least haunting me throughout the first half. In a big game like this you can't just leave opportunities lying there. I was furious but it's hard to complain when you've just marched down the field on the opening drive.

1Q, 7:57: 1st & 20 -- K.Warner FUMBLES (Aborted) at ARZ 22, recovered by ARZ-E.James at ARZ 23. E.James to ARZ 27 for 4 yards (B.Keisel).
One thing I've learned from visiting the stat-oriented website footballoutsiders.com is that anytime the football hits the turf, the team to recover that ball is essentially random. This randomness drops slightly for in-the-backfield fumbles, but still the addition of this play to my earlier angst regarding the goal-line decision left me very very uncomfortable about the little breaks of the game to that point. But that's not all......

1Q, 5:25: 1st & 10 -- B.Roethlisberger pass incomplete deep middle to N.Washington (D.Rodgers-Cromartie).
Washington had him beat by a couple yards on what would have been an easy 44yd TD, Roethlisberger underthrows him by only about two yards, and DR-C makes a fantastic effort in getting there just in time to get a fingertip to deflect it. So close but not quite.

2Q, 14:09: 3rd & G -- G.Russell right guard for 1 yard, TOUCHDOWN.
See, a couple minutes ago, I didn't know the near-miss wouldn't matter. This put us up 10-0, and with more than a quarter gone, we had two long efficient drives and they'd had only one short one. I was starting to feel ok.

2Q, 11:24: 2nd & 9 -- K.Warner pass short left to E.James to PIT 49 for 11 yards (I.Taylor).
This was the third completion to James on this drive, and I was started to get pissed that they'd noticed you can pick on us with screens and passes to the flat.

2Q, 8:43: 1st & G -- K.Warner pass short left to B.Patrick for 1 yard, TOUCHDOWN.
Damn. That was kinda a fast response. Farrior was sooooo close to tipping it away but a super catch by the TE. Can't really complain about that.

2Q, 4:27: 4th & 12 -- M.Berger punts 43 yards to ARZ 23, Center-J.Retkofsky. S.Breaston to PIT 43 for 34 yards (C.Davis).
First, thanks to NBC giving us a from-behind-the-punter shot pre-play, so that we couldn't see the line of scrimmage, there was a lot of debate about whether this punt went over or under 44.5yds to settle a prop bet, so it didn't fully register how horrible it was Breaston had returned it into our territory. That's the last freaking thing I wanted to see at this point, a team we were starting let get some offensive momentum a short field to work with. I officially started being pissed at this point that they were receiving the second half kickoff.

2Q, 2:09: 2nd & 4 -- B.Roethlisberger pass short middle intended for S.Holmes INTERCEPTED by K.Dansby (B.Robinson) at PIT 33. K.Dansby to PIT 34 for -1 yards (M.Moore).
A fucking tipped pass at the line of scrimmage. A play which has three equally-likely events: caught by no one, caught by offense, and caught by defense. To this point, the penalties were pretty evenly called: a couple more on AZ, but then the type (holds, false start) were sorta predictable given the way our D plays. There was a 15yarder against them but nothing egregious. So I was pissed thinking that the breaks were going to go their way and there was a chance we'd lose the game because of it. I was definitely bumming at this point.

2Q, 0:59: 2nd & 10 -- K.Warner pass short middle to L.Fitzgerald to PIT 12 for 12 yards (I.Taylor).
I noticed earlier in the quarter that Fitzgerald was being shut out. This was his first catch, and even it was innocuous.

2Q, 0:18: 1st & G -- K.Warner pass short middle intended for A.Boldin INTERCEPTED by J.Harrison at PIT 0. J.Harrison for 100 yards, TOUCHDOWN.
Pick, holy cow that's fortunate........I mean, that is a massive change of events...........Ha, Harrison is still running, too bad it's not someone faster..............Whoa he broke a tackle!............Jesus, there's not much time left...........He could make it!..........Come on! Don't fall down!...........Yes!!

HALF -- After that pick-six, I was back to feeling balanced about the game's flow. Ten point lead was nice, even though their ball coming out. I was thinking, we've moved the ball pretty well, all we need is another TD or a couple FGs, and that would give us 23-24 points, forcing them to score three times against our D. Feeling good about those chances.
Also, feeling like I needed to remind myself to eat something while the game was off. And thinking I don't want to be wasted right now. If we start blowing them out, or if horrible things happen and they somehow get ahead and I feel hopeless, then yes.

3Q, 11:02: 3rd & 6 -- K.Warner sacked at ARZ 45 for -6 yards (J.Farrior). FUMBLES (J.Farrior), RECOVERED by PIT-J.Harrison at ARZ 44. J.Harrison to ARZ 43 for 1 yard (L.Brown).
This play was reviewed and overturned, which after the fact isn't such a big deal since it was going to be 4th down anyway. But at the time it seemed huge, and it seemed a 50/50 shot that it would be overturned/upheld, even though I thought (and always think) that if a QB gets hit and the ball comes out while he's still holding the ball--even if his arm is going forward--that it should be a fumble. Of course, they thought differently and AZ got to punt. Disappointed, but not upset, cause like I said, that call could have gone either way.

3Q, 10:11 -- PENALTY on ARZ-D.Rodgers-Cromartie, Face Mask (15 Yards), 15 yards, enforced at PIT 21.
Watching live, I saw Holmes give a long stiff arm, and when I saw the flag I was ready to go ape-shit for them calling an offesive facemask penalty. Then on the replay I saw DR-C get a hold of Holmes' helmet and was thankful. This is the perfect support for my constant argument for 5yd personal fouls: it's definitely a foul but not bad enough to warrant 15. The way it stands though, this is a completely legit and necessary flag.

3Q, 7:41: 1st & 10 -- PENALTY on ARZ-K.Dansby, Roughing the Passer, 15 yards, enforced at 50 - No Play.
This is where people who are rooting against PIT start getting restless because they just saw the facemask a couple minutes ago. I agreed and still do agree that this doesn't justify a 15yd personal foul. Speaking now, as I look at the play-by-play, this was on first down and Holmes caught a 15yd pass two plays later so in the context of the game this call was nearly meaningless.

3Q, 3:36: 4th & 9 -- Je.Reed 27 yard field goal is GOOD, NULLIFIED by Penalty, Center-J.Retkofsky, Holder-M.Berger. PENALTY on ARZ-A.Wilson, Unnecessary Roughness, 5 yards, enforced at ARZ 9 - No Play.
The third personal foul of the drive finally has some effect on the drive, coming on 4th down. This one is much like the first, where clearly a flag should be thrown, but probably not a 15yd flag. Unfortunately for AZ, the NFL doesn't have 5yd fouls, so it had to be an automatic first down. The way I saw this play, I think it's fair, but I wouldn't have gone crazy if they'd let it go. Really, since PIT blundered away the gift (see below), and the FG attempt during the penalty was good anyway, even this penalty ended up having no effect on the game.

3Q, 2:49: 3rd & G -- B.Roethlisberger up the middle to ARZ 3 for -1 yards (G.Watson)
This was the second time in the game (after the first drive), when I yelled before a 3rd & close-to-goal situation, "Two runs! Run twice here please!" Oddly enough, on both occasions, they choose a QB run followed by a FG. Earlier I was horrified, but this time, especially after watching the stupid non-sneak QB run on 3rd down here, I was very unhappy but consolate with giving the D a 13 point lead.

4Q, 12:07: 3rd & 8 -- B.Roethlisberger sacked at PIT 38 for -12 yards (D.Dockett).
This ended a four-and-out drive by PIT, not at all what I was looking for. Up to this point, up 20-7, I was having flashbacks to Super Bowl XL when we had a smallish lead throughout but always chewed up enough clock or made a 3rd down stop to keep Seattle from getting back into it. Taking a giant sack in this spot is not an XL-type play.

4Q, 7:41: 3rd & G -- K.Warner pass short right to L.Fitzgerald for 1 yard, TOUCHDOWN.
I instantly thought: well, you knew it was going to happen at some point, so it would have been silly not to. Fitzgerald caught 4 passes on this drive and I was slightly perturbed that they scored so fast.

4Q, 5:28 -- PENALTY on PIT-I.Taylor, Unnecessary Roughness, 15 yards, enforced at ARZ 36.
I was kinda pissed that this wasn't an off-setting penalty, since Taylor and Boldin had a hold of each other well out of bounds. Not much happened, and to flag one guy and not the other seemed wrong. Again, with hindsight, they punted on the drive anyway, so it wasn't a game-changer, but those 15yds proved pretty important when........

4Q, 3:34: 4th & 20 -- B.Graham punts 34 yards to PIT 2, Center-N.Hodel, downed by ARZ-M.Adams. PENALTY on PIT-J.Harrison, Unnecessary Roughness, 1 yard, enforced at PIT 2.
Great job downing the ball. At first, I chuckled when I saw Harrison flattening the guy on replay cause I knew it would only cost us a foot, but then I realized that one foot might be important since Fast Willie isn't so great at getting one or two when he needs it, and we'd be best served just running into the line for a yard three times and then punting away with a 7 point lead and maybe 2:00 to go.

4Q, 3:26: 1st & 10 -- B.Roethlisberger pass incomplete short right to H.Ward [A.Smith].
Horrible. Was not happy. At the very least, you punch it up the middle and run off 40 seconds of clock. It's not hard (I did get nervous on the next play when Parker nearly got stuffed for a loss).

4Q, 3:04: 3rd & 10 -- B.Roethlisberger pass deep right to S.Holmes to PIT 20 for 19 yards (D.Rodgers-Cromartie). PENALTY on PIT-J.Hartwig, Offensive Holding, 1 yard, enforced in End Zone, SAFETY - No Play.
God, was I happy when Holmes held onto that ball. Great catch in a big spot. Nice game by him. Then, to see the flag and the replay, I couldn't believe it. When the ref went to the safety symbol it was like in slow motion, the worst possible outcome just happened. Getting the replay, I couldn't believe they made the call in that situation. Like previous calls, sure you could call it, but normally you don't. Unlike previous calls against AZ, this one had a direct impact. At least they still needed a TD, I told myself, but I was in full-on panic mode. And I needed a few moments to calm myself because the whole room of people around me had done the usual when a Super Bowl is exciting at the end: started to pull for the upset and/or the team trailing. I didn't necessarily blame them for it, but it had made me completely uncomfortable anyway.

4Q, 2:47: 2nd & 10 -- K.Warner pass short middle to L.Fitzgerald for 64 yards, TOUCHDOWN.
Jesus Christ. How can that happen against a prevent defense? The room went crazy and even before NBC had shown the replay I was walking out of the living room cause I absolutely couldn't take being in the middle of people cheering at that point.
Thankfully, Sara was watching alone in our room (supposedly doing work for school but can you believe she had the game on and was watching? God bless her), so I could actually sit down next to her and continue watching rather than just taking a few minute breather before re-entering the living room.
When I sat there and watched the commercials and then the kickoff I had a ridiculous peaceful feeling, like it didn't matter what happened anymore cause I was happy where I was in her company. It helped to remind me that the game was one day or at most one season and right there in the flesh next to me was much much more than that. Maybe it's hard to explain and maybe it's corny, but it is what it is.

4Q, 1:56: 3rd & 6 -- B.Roethlisberger pass short right to S.Holmes to PIT 39 for 13 yards (K.Dansby).
After some average clock management, Holmes here makes another big catch. There was a holding call against us at the beginning of the drive which caught me still in the zen-moment and didn't affect me. Still after this big catch I was only thinking FG and I was still fairly calm.

4Q, 1:33: 1st & 10 -- B.Roethlisberger pass short right to N.Washington to 50 for 11 yards (A.Wilson).
How does Washington not go out of bounds? It was right there, just fall over the line. Cost us 20 seconds. Roethlisberger now was on camera running up and yelling out instructions to people and I was pissed that he didn't have the time to huddle up and concentrate. He's amazing in unscripted situations, but he doesn't make the right decision all the time, so I didn't like to see that. Also, Tomlin isn't very good with end-game strategy, so I was thinking about that too.

4Q, 1:02, 2nd & 6 -- B.Roethlisberger pass short right to S.Holmes to ARZ 6 for 40 yards (A.Francisco). Timeout #3 by PIT at 00:49.
Man alive, everything was happening so fast in this game all of a sudden. I will fully admit that as Holmes was running through AZ territory, especially the last 10yds, I was terrified he'd get hit from behind and fumble. He's great as a receiver but on punt returns (in other words, in the open field), he fumbles a lot. He's the kind of guy who doesn't switch the ball to the outside hand. Only when he went down at the 6 with ball still in hand was I relieved.
During the timeout, I was thinking, even though we'd struggled with short runs, we have to run on first down. With no timeouts, we've got to have a couple plays called at once, so if the run is stuffed, you go to a called pass, but if you gain a few yards, you run up the middle again. Then with maybe 15-20 seconds to go, you call a pass at the line and throw into the end zone.

4Q, 0:42, 2nd & G -- B.Roethlisberger pass short right to S.Holmes for 6 yards, TOUCHDOWN. The Replay Assistant challenged the pass completion ruling, and the play was Upheld.
What an amazing catch. Thank you, Santonio. He let one go right through his hands on what would have been an equally amazing catch the play before, and I was worried we wouldn't get another chance that good. In fact, for a quick moment I was thinking we'd kick the FG and absolutely dreading the possibility of losing the OT coin toss and the game without ever touching the ball, then being used as a sort of martyr to finally change the OT rules.
During the review, I was back to being calm, although I felt there was no way you could overturn it. However, since the worst official review of all time (Polamalu's "football move" against Indy in the 2005/6 playoffs), I am forever scarred and will assume the worst until hearing otherwise.

4Q, 0:29: 1st & 10 -- K.Warner pass deep left to L.Fitzgerald to ARZ 43 for 20 yards (L.Timmons).
Yet again, this was almost the worst thing that could happen. Fitzgerald has such great hands. Now I was no longer confident since they'd have a couple chances at normal-length hail marys, and not have to just try a hopeless lateral-fest.

4Q, 0:15, 1st & 10 -- K.Warner sacked at PIT 49 for -5 yards (L.Woodley). FUMBLES (L.Woodley), RECOVERED by PIT-B.Keisel at PIT 43. B.Keisel to PIT 43 for no gain (L.Brown).
Lots going through my mind during this sequence. Too much, actually. First, thank god we got to him. When Keisel fell on the ball, I was looking for flags or assuming something would be overturned or whatnot; it just seemed too easy a way to end the game. Then, during the couple replays, I was: 1. very sure that I thought it was indeed a fumble, and 2. completely 100% terrified that they'd review the play and overturn it just like they did for the Warner fumble earlier in the game. I was thinking how freaking angry I'd be in two of those tuck-rule-esque calls went against us in the same game. Then, suddenly the rational side took over and I remembered that they would still have to complete the hail mary to win, and even though Indy damn near accomplished the feat against us in the '95 playoffs, I didn't think it would happen this time. Then, thankfully and unexpectedly, the Steeler offense comes on the field and Roethlisberger takes a knee and they never reviewed it. Amazing. What a weird way to end the game. Just 90 minutes earlier, I was so very confident, and then it all washed away and here I was, the game was over and it took a few seconds for the satisfaction to kick in.

I thought Milk was nothing really special. Naturally, a nice job by Sean Penn (actually Emile Hirsch might have been his equal, though in a much smaller role) and the filmmakers generally but nothing resonated and it felt like I've seen this type of film and especially this type of acting job before. The intensity and call-to-arms nature of the story (Sara: "I am going to make you be a gay rights activist") propels it to a definitely good film, but I can't say you really need to spend $12.50 to see this unless you are really looking forward to it (which is what I am for Revolutionary Road, thanks to seeing its preview prior to Milk).

Now, what I've really come to write about today is sports. Specifically, college football, which would seem a timely subject as its national championship game is to be played tonight.
It's taken 28 years for me to be able to say this, but I really am done with the bowl system. I get virtually nothing out of the bowls anymore. Ohio State just played a close, exciting game against Texas a few days ago, and I never really felt like what I was watching mattered. I haven't watched very many other bowl games this year, because they don't matter either. And even if they did, how seriously should we take them if the teams competing have gone usually at least 5 weeks since last playing, after having spent the previous 3 months playing games no more than two weeks apart.
It doesn't make a whole lot of sense. The whole bowl system is a ridiculously out-of-date relic, and the fact that everyone forces today's college football into a structure built 50, 60, 70-plus years ago is absurd. Roads we use today are much bigger and smoother than those used in 1925. The technology of cars and the complexity of the advanced transportation systems demanded it. In 1940 it was a big deal for a Big Ten and its fan base to win a bid to the Rose Bowl. It gave midwesterners a chance to travel to warm southern California, and it gave warm southern California an injection of tourism that it may not have always enjoyed. From the team's perspective, it allowed two very disparate but powerful football regions to pit their best teams against one another in glorified exhibition games (remember the long layoff between games, then multiply that by great magnitudes to reflect that teams didn't practice as ubiquitously as they do now). Remember now that the sport itself was still rather young back then and so the notion of exhibition games was not at all silly. They needed to get their product out in front of people however possible, and so grandly scheduled (New Year's Day) games featuring presumably the best teams was good for business.
Does any of that last paragraph sound remotely relevant to college football today? No. Teams travel across the country multiple times per year anyway. They don't truly get the time off between late November and January 1 either, so the 5+ week gap between games is contrived. I don't need to tell you that air travel is now commonplace so people will travel to warm southern California, sometimes just on a whim, and certainly whether their favorite team is going there or not. TV has given the sport a spotlight every weekend through the season, and the aforementioned big inter-sectional matchups through the fall command at least as much attention as bowl games ever did.
Assuming you follow reason you agree with me now, that there is no need for bowl games to exist in 2009 as they once did. So then what's the point? The way I see it, the only thing bowls really achieve today is to stand in the way of a playoff, something that would both make sense and have consequence.
I won't get into the endless debate about the pros and cons of a playoff, especially the financial aspect of the argument, but I will say that, from a competitive standpoint, a playoff is really the only solution. If you are one who feels that it would diminish the importance of the regular season (something I disagree with, and something I feel could easily be mitigated by structuring the playoff properly), then just choose your champion at the end of the regular season. Or, if you absolutely must, run the BCS like they do now and select just two teams to play for the title. But don't do it in conjunction with any bowl, and don't do it 5 weeks later. Remember that the current setup technically is a playoff, simply a two-team playoff. Everything else is consolation. Consolation that loses value and interest every year. This year, I think it lost me. Tradition for its own sake is preposterous.

1. Ok. It was a long time coming this year, but I'm finally and legitimately excited for the OSU-Michigan game tomorrow. Michigan's pathetic 3-8 is still not enough to taint what is the most anticipated football game for me every year The only exceptions to this would be if the Steelers were playing in the AFC Championship game or of course the Super Bowl. All other games of any level or importance would be secondary, even, believe it or not, an OSU national title game appearance (though I'm sure this opinion is colored by semi-recent events). So it will be fun tomorrow, and I'm semi-confident that the game might itself be interesting for quite a while, or at least long enough to give Michigan a victory against the historically-high 20.5 point spread.
After our game at noon, what I think might be the biggest game of the year is at 8:00 with Texas Tech and Oklahoma. TT is good and all, but I think a lot of people are forgetting how ridiculous Oklahoma is. I think they're going to put the hurt on Texas Tech, and I think they ought to get into the title game over Texas, even though they lost head-to-head.
This is a small digression, but this would be a great year for a playoff, maybe the best yet. I'm fairly certain there will be no major unbeatens (sorry Alabama), and at least 6-8 legitimately good teams to duke it out, in order of quality: Oklahoma, Florida, USC, Texas, Alabama, Texas Tech, Penn State. Add to that potentially-undefeated Utah and you've got a nice playoff lineup (first-round games: OU-Utah, Florida-Penn St, USC-TT, Texas-Bama. Excellent).

2. There has been a minor controversy online regarding a guy trying to use shady means to prove his theory that Obama was elected because the media covered the race unfairly. First, know that the guy at the center of this, John Ziegler, used to be a conservative talk-radio host, which really is about all you need to know about him. This guy cooked up a survey to show that Obama voters absorbed slanderous news about McCain/Palin better than about Obama/Biden, and that this obviously means that the liberal media played up the Republicans' faults while obscuring the Democrats'. Never mind that Obama is black and therefore belongs to a minority group that hasn't ever been portrayed remotely fairly by any form of media, or the fact that it would take some impressive kind of conspiracy in 2008 to effectively filter info.
Anyhow, I'm not as interested in that part of the debate. I'd like to look at a couple examples of why Ziegler/conservatives are angry about the media's treatment of the election, as found through his survey. People were much more likely to know that Palin has a pregnant teenage daughter and received $150,000 worth of clothes than they were to know about Obama's (out of context and misquoted) comment about the coal industry or Biden's past plagiarism. To any observer, partisan or not, this should come as no surprise. Even accepting Ziegler's general assumption--that this is because the media focused on the former stories and ignored the latter--should not be at all debatable. He--we--everyone, unfortunately--is assuming the media is operating with any kind of journalistic standards in mind, that the media is concerned with reporting honest stories and presenting honest pertinent information. Maybe it's archaic, but the major TV and radio networks are subject to federal oversight because they were originally intended to be responsible guardians of the public's information absorption. This has gone by the wayside, and is only really ever expected out of PBS anymore.
Instead, what we have now in almost all media outlets (and throughout all entertainment in fact) is a constant pandering to a least-common-denominator. The media doesn't give us what we ought to know, they give us what they think we want to know. We're interested in trivial scandal and personal details about politicians, cause lord knows those are the things that affect a person's governance (sometimes I know, they do, but you know what I mean).
I've criticized news and entertainment industries about this stuff before but so many people seem unfazed by this that it bears repeating. Our culture is different now, and not for the better. I don't care that Sarah Palin's daughter doesn't use contraception, I don't care that Eliot Spitzer sees prostitutes, I don't care that Bill Clinton got a hummer in the White House. I care that it's perfectly legal to discriminate against gay people, I care that U.S. leaders don't need to adhere to the same standards we hold to the rest of the world, I care that this country isn't remotely solvent.

3. The other day, I received an email from my good friend David Plouffe asking me for money again. (A reminder, Plouffe was Obama's campaign manager.) It was more or less your standard request for donation, this time to help fund the transition effort, except I noticed a couple lines that hint at something I find--at the risk of sounding naive--wholly remarkable and admirable:

For the first time, transition efforts won't be financed with donations from Washington lobbyists and PACs -- which means we'll need to keep asking for your help. Your generosity during the campaign helped get us here, but building a more transparent and open government means continuing to rely on a broader group of people to do this the right way.

First, the theme is the same as always, the same as it was since the day Obama rejected public financing and instead decided to raise all his money on his own. Through these constant emails from them, the campaign has been consistently proud of this fact. Although it sets a dangerous precedent toward ever-escalating money spent on political campaigns, I'm inclined to agree with their pride. Why not be supported quite literally from your supporters, and not some taxpayer funds or professional lobbyists? I know my ignorance on this forces such simplicity, but it makes sense. Again, I'd be worried about the path this could lead us down, but in this moment, I like it.
The much more interesting part of the quoted paragraph, though, is this: "building a more transparent and open government means continuing to rely on a broader group of people."
Obama has found himself in a difficult position after managing to somewhat transcend some of the usual politics in the eyes of millions of people. It's a corny cliche word here, but he's given hope that he might be different or run things differently than we're used to. In this task, and given these expectations, he will of course fail. He's a politician after all. He might represent better things to people but in the end he's one of them.
Nonetheless, if there is one thing that I've sorta noticed about how Obama and his people have gone about things, it's that he seems to genuinely be making an effort at transparency and accountability. Of course, after 8 horribly secretive Bush years, this is politically fruitful, but it seems more of an institutional mandate for the future from the future Prez himself, rather than a comment on the past. I'm too lazy to provide specific examples here from his campaign or the last couple weeks, but I'm happy to say that it seems to me at least that he's trying to deliver on a pretty important bit of promise that his victory represents. So good for him. But don't fuck it up.

1. I feel like shit. I'm sick of getting sick at the same time every year. Whoever heard of seasonal allergies unrelated to pollen? Bullshit. Worst part is, this was the year that I finally resolved to get my first-ever flu shot. Then, about two weeks ago, I got an email from the HR director at work announcing free flu shots given right here at my office--in three weeks, or next Friday. So I first thought, gee that's kinda late for a flu shot. Then I thought, yeah but it's free. So I saved myself maybe $20 and here I am sick. I know it's after the fact, but I don't know what's more pathetic: that I'm so cheap that I refused to spend $20 on something like this, or that I'm so cheap that even now I actually think that not spending the $20 was the right call. At least I'm leaving work early today. Going to go home at taking a fucking nap. On a Friday evening. Middle-age here I come.
2. Did you know that there are only five political parties even on the ballot in enough states to plausibly win the presidential election? That's exactly what I'd like to see change. For posterity, the three non-major parties are: Libertarian Party, Constitution Party, and Green Party. Notice that I had to say "on the ballot in enough states." This is interesting as the United States and Switzerland are the only two countries that do not have national standards of ballot access for federal elections. Laws for ballot access within each state are complex and diverse to say the least. The state of New York has slightly easier standards than some states (they allow something called electoral fusion, look it up but it basically amounts to riding the coattails of the major parties), so there are eight non-major parties on the ballot for President in NY state: Independence, Conservative, Working Families, Socialist Workers, Socialism & Liberation, Green, Libertarian, and Populist. Seems like a lot of choices, doesn't it? Seems like we're on the right track? Only kinda. The first two I listed have nominated McCain, and the third has nominated Obama. This is the electoral fusion at work. What it amounts to is a total of seven names on the ballot for President in NY state, probably not much better than average nationally.
3. The "Independence" Party I mentioned just a moment ago? They are actually just the NY chapter of the National Independence Party of America, which could easily be misunderstood as simply the Independent Party. There is also an Independent American Party, which was founded in 1998. I, as a true independent and unaffiliated voter, find this rather deceitful.
4. We were arguing about geographical recognition of cities last night, spurred by my frequent general claim that I am from "close to Pittsburgh." It was stated that this might be somewhat disingenuous because I am of course not from Pittsburgh, but moreso because what guarantee is it that anyone who wouldn't be expected to know where Steubenville is would know where Pittsburgh is? To draw that arbitrary line of geographic recognition seemed obvious to me but is it really? How do people understand placement of national cities? Do they picture their state first then the city's position within? Or do they generally ascribe the city to a specific region and leave it at that? The city that caused me to wonder about all this was Chicago. Everyone knows Chicago, and they know it's in Illinois and the Midwest, but what does all that mean to someone not from there? Most people could think about it and know that Chicago is on a lake, but there are five Great Lakes of course. If someone had a map with state boundaries drawn, I'm confident they could point to Chicago, but without the state lines, probably not. So I think those state lines are pretty damned important. At any rate, I wonder what's the biggest city that you couldn't find within 50 miles on a blank map? For me (using Wikipedia), it would be somewhere in the 30s, with Tuscon, Oklahoma City, Fresno and/or Long Beach. But as always, I feel like my abilities in here are higher than most.
5. Now for fun, here are my NFL picks (listed first) that I'm tracking. Special picks asterisked. Incidentally, I'm not as confident in these picks in general as past weeks. In fact, if I were betting for real I wouldn't choose more than 3 games I don't think.
KC +8.5 vs TEN under 35.5
SD* pickem at BUF over 44.5*
PIT -9.5 at CIN over 35*
MIA -3 vs BAL under 36.5
DAL -7 at STL over 44
CHI -3 vs MIN over 37.5
NO* +3 at CAR over 44.5
NYG* -10.5 vs SF under 45.5
HOU -8.5 vs DET under 47
OAK +3 vs NYJ under 41
CLE +7.5 at WAS over 42
GB +1 vs IND over 46.5
SEA +10.5 at TB under 38
DEN +3 at NE over 47.5*
6. Finally, I really dislike the Boston Red Sox. And I'm still confident in the Rays. James Shields is a tough motha.

Once more into the breach

But now with trepidation.
Ok so I thinking of falling off the wagon again. Or falling on or whatever. I participated in an NFL picks minipool with a couple friends two weeks ago and did fairly well. So well that I'm rueing not having made actual online wagers on the games. So well that I'm wanting to open up an account and have a go at online gambling again. Actually, if you know me even a tiny bit, you know that it doesn't take much to effect these desires.
As I am a few years older and some dollars lighter thanks to my last foray into online gambling, I approach this attempt more conservatively and certainly more analytically (or at least I'm going to give the impression of the latter). In this vein, I've decided to pick every game both on point spreads and over/unders, in order to get a true feel for my prognosticating powers. Picking every game is key because when gambling online for real I will usually only select 5-6 wagers per week, the ones I'm presumably most confident in, while the others I'll leave for the suckers to pick. The problem is that unless you are truly excellent are picking games, your judgement on what's most certain will be just as random as your overall picks. The other reason for selecting every game is to expand the sample size and to eliminate having the memory of only a couple nice victories overshadow several losses. This selective memory I believe is my achilles heel as a sports gambler, and truly the mark of a potentially dangerous gambler. So I'm approaching this from a hopefully humble and pragmatic fashion. (Also, for my own curiosity and vanity, I'm going to specially designate 6 games each week as confident picks, to simulate games that I would actually bet on were the exercise done for real. This will allow me to track my overall acumen while getting a feel for whether or not my confidence is lucky or actually a product of some positive trend.
Results so far:
Week5:
14-8 overall (2 pushes)
5-5 Against the spread
9-3 over/unders
Week 6:
16-12 overall
10-4 ATS
6-8 O/U
5-1 in Special Picks

So we've got a bit to work with so far. 30-20 overall, 15-9 ATS, 15-11 O/U. Assuming a standard $22 bet on each wager gives me a +$160 overall, split into +$102 for ATS and +$58 O/U. My 5-1 special picks from Week 6 would have netted me $78 in profit.
These obviously are good results overall, but still erratic when you notice my strong suit switched from ATS wagers one week to O/Us the next. And of course the 83% success rate on special picks far outpaces my 60% mark overall, meaning that it real terms I would have won lots of money this week but would surely have to expect to come back to earth some in the coming weeks. The big positive news is that, for now, "back to earth" is still a 60% success rate.
It should be noted that given the standard vig ($22 bet only wins you $20 profit on a win, whereas a $22 bet loses you the full $22 on a loss), you must win at least 52.38% of the time to break even. So if I'm not doing at least that well, I shouldn't be playing.
I'll be checking back in periodically with updates on my performance. I promise it will be cleaner and more concise. Not like anyone cares. Well, after I start winning big and turning into a big shot and picking up bar tabs, then some sonsabitches will care.

*To look at my Week 6 results even closer, my ATS bets won by a total of 122 pts for an average victory margin of +8.7. My 10 wins were by an average +15.6 pts, while my 4 losses were by an average -8.5 pts. This is good and indicates that my wins weren't simply due to luck or close calls.

Truth Hurts

We're kinda average.

Why in god's name is Ohio State's football team currently ranked in the top 25?

Really: 13th? Why?

We've played four games. We had an average game and soundly beat a D1-AA team. We looked terrible and beat OU, an average-at-best MAC team. We were pounded on the road by the best team in the country. And then we scuffled around and beat an above-average Sun Belt team. You take "Ohio State" and "Preseason top 5 ranking" off the top of that resume and you're not left with much. Just look at the results, or--more damning--the play on the field and we're talking about a Wake Forest or Oregon State or Texas A&M or Iowa or--god forbid--TCU or Fresno type performance. Are those teams consistently ranked? No of course not cause more often than not they're jokes.

Look, I love that my team benefits from name recognition and consistently favorable preseason poll positioning, but those things are probably the top two things wrong with college football. It sorta pains me to say it, but Ohio State currently represents the worst of the NCAA football structure.

Let's roll around in my own depravity for a moment now. Have a look at Auburn, just one of more than 100 teams ranked below us right now. They're also 3-1. They didn't play any 1-AAs yet but they beat in average-ish performances two overmatched teams, then got an ugly win against a conference opponent. Their loss was to the current #5 team in the country after leading most of the game. I'm sorry but that's a better showing so far than us. Now let's try Ball State. They outclassed an 1-AA team, snuck by a 2007 bowl team, beat an average MAC school, then defeated a Big Ten school on the road. Still that's better than us. Going further, go ahead and scan the results of schools like Kansas, Maryland, UConn, hell even Duke and tell me with a straight face that they couldn't have produced the same results as us with our schedule.

I'll list those again: Kansas, Maryland, UConn, Duke. I'm talking about football, not basketball. Would anyone ever consider ranking Duke 13th in the country?

Just think about that one when watching Pryor open up our Big Ten schedule this week, and hope he helps to start bringing our performance in line with our spot in the polls.

It's been a long time so briefly at the top here I'll give you a free film review. High Plains Drifter, Clint Eastwood's second movie as a director, is a mid-seventies western starring Clint as the "Stranger," a character that is so obviously copied from his Sergio Leone roles that it's actually jarring not to see his mexican poncho. All the other trademarks are there: black flat-brimmed hat, skinny cigar, general mute stoicism. Aside from the simple joy of watching Clint do this familiar dance, I was quite disappointed in this film. It seemed to go out of its way to incorporate all the lame conventions of the western without adding anything. In fact, I didn't even finish it cause I realized an hour into it that it wasn't really necessary. This might have been fun for people who like westerns back in 1973, but I can't really recommend watching it for any kind of value. In 2030, would someone who generally enjoys romantic comedies ever go back and watch You've Got Mail for any good reason?

I've got a more formed opinion now of There Will Be Blood, of which I watched the first 90 minutes of again the other day. There are three things about it that are utterly extraordinary: Daniel Day-Lewis, the music, and the beautiful camera movements within virtually every scene that isn't simply static. DDay pretty much speaks for himself and unless you've been subjected to cold-war era psych treatments, his power emanates right from the first time you see him. To speak more (or really at all) on his performance is superfluous.
The music too was intensely enchanting even throughout my first viewing of the film, but I'd like to say that perhaps not enough has been made about how truly amazing it is because upon a second tour I found it often to outshine the verbal story it's woven into. I know the guy from Radiohead did it; let's hope he stays in the movie business cause he's a natural genius for it.
Finally, the camera action. This is something that I noticed initially but felt like maybe I didn't appreciate it as much as I should have, and so paid particular attention to the way Mr PT Anderson was technically delivering his images to us. I'd like to report that he did it phenomenally. through extensive movie-watching, I've come to realize that something I fundamentally love is an intelligent use of editing, or more specifically a conservative use of cuts combined with well-thought-out uses of pans and zooms between shots. Go watch some of the classics of Kurosawa for a visual course in what I'm talking about. Anderson seems to have done his homework in this regard, to the extent that several times throughout I found myself thinking about Kurosawa. He seems always to start on a general wide scene shot and drift forward or laterally across the scene so we can take everything in before finally settling on what will ultimately be important in the scene. Think of a shot where he surveys the land and the camps near the Little Boston well before finally bringing the derrick itself into the frame and zooming in, where Plainview is usually involved in the true action of the scene. Another specific example is when Eli is walking down to confront Plainview about where his church's money is. Instead of simply letting Eli walk into Plainview's frame, we follw from Eli's perspective as he walks along a pipeline and a vast lake of oil finally walking into where Plainview had been talking to some assistants. All the information that we see as Eli walks is important and stimulating. To top off this particular example, we get a beautifully framed shot with three men forming a perfect Kurosawsa-esque triangle, whose gap is of course filled by the entering Eli. This is the stuff that most people might not notice but most definitely adds to the overall experience of the film. If you are like me and do notice, then it moves everything to another level. My only nitpick is that none of this style seems very ambitious, innovative, or creative, so while it's certainly fine work, it falls quite short of being anything truly brilliant. Nonetheless, this is more argumentative and should not get in the way of your noticing the wonderful quality of this aspect of the film. So do enjoy.
(I'd like to finish off the last hour of the film again before passing a complete judgement (even though I'm quite sure the last hour will only serve to intensify my opinion), but the main problem I still have with There Will Be Blood is the character of Eli and/or perhaps also the actor Paul Dano. There is something quite seriously not right with this performance. I haven't yet determined who's at fault here: the writer for screwing up the dynamic of the character, Dano for screwing up the role, the casting director for hiring Dano in the first place, or Anderson the director for simply leading him to all the wrong decisions in playing the part. I suppose I can see how it might be desirable to have someone projecting extreme calm in the face of DDay's/Plainview's intensity, but in my opinion something is forced and awkward about Eli/Dano. It's uncomfortable, which I suppose would be preferrable if the film were an allegory, but of course I don't see that it is. It seems like someone made that decision somewhere along the line but then everyone just went too far with it. The entirely of this film is grandiose and intense and just simply large--all things that should be considered not only positive but essential to its quality; however, too much of the character of Eli is merely theatrical. (Again, I'll wait until I've watched it again, but this for me is exactly the underlying problem with the ending, that all of the sudden the foundation was absent from epic story, leaving only the bombastics.)

Some other things I've been thinking about:

1. What is a New Yorker? This is more a question for a first-year resident, but for whatever reason I've found myself considering it in the last couple weeks. My automatic reaction to this meditation is that I'm still not a "New Yorker." But is that true? I'm finishing up my fifth full year living in the city, and since I can't imagine moving out of my awesome apartment after just one year, I'm guaranteed to spend not just a sixth year here but also at least half of a seventh. That's quite a commitment to a place. I've got a somewhat tenured job here that has given me a rapibly growing 401k and a not-insignificant mutual fund. I've got an almost encyclopedic knowledge of the transportation system and the geography, both street- and ground-level. I've voted in local elections, choosing candidates ranging from our current mayor to the founder of the Rent Is Too Damn High Party. I've lived in three apartments in three somewhat different neighborhoods. I've seen businesses open and close and maybe I'm being presumptuous but I think at this point I can even accurately predict success or failure when a new one arrives. I've even adopted a local pro sports team (the Mets) and believe it or not, but when I find out someone like Charlie Villanueva is from the city, a curiously civic or pride-filled (perhaps also preposterous because there are 8million of us here) emotion causes me to root for him. So I guess what I'm trying to say--even though I can't stand some of the local accents, and I am still often amazed at the concentration of Irish and Jews here, and I can't bring myself to actually fold my pizza--is that maybe I've crossed the New Yorker threshhold.

2. Another line that I think I've crossed is a certain relationship line. I'm not experienced enough with this stuff to know exactly where I'm at or what's happened but I know that I was given a phone number by a rather attractive Asian girl this past weekend, and that this seemingly nondescript event made me think for two reasons. First, though I don't remember (I don't remember because it wasn't important enough to file the memories, not because I was too drunk to know what was going on) having any kind of flirty contact with this girl, apparently I was communicative enough for her to have the confidence to proffer a wholly unsolicited number. Basically, I've slipped into contented relationship mode so much that I don't even notice when an attractive chick is flirting with me, or even vice versa. The second, and personally deeper, issue is that when I realized what had happened, my reaction was not to be satisfied with myself or become arrogant or in any way emboldened, as would be the natural effect for most men. Instead, it occurred to me how happy I am where I am and how I've taken for granted the whole flirt/phone number/maybe-I'll-call-maybe-not/is-it-worth-it process of meeting people or escalating something or simply hooking up with a ho. I've taken for granted that I don't need to enter into this process and that I've already got the end result of such process, and I've got it as positively as I could imagine. So, while admittedly it can be a little exciting dipping into the lady pool, and there is a particular excitement that's possibly only at the very outset that of course I'm unable to truly recapture at this point, but it's much more pleasant to know that I don't really have to bother with all the crap that inevitably will follow. In fact, (though I'm even trying to overstate it) it would be hard to overstate the positive effect of this.

3. I don't know where it came from or how long it will last, but in the last two days I've strangely encountered a renewed desire to become a runner again. I don't know if--after immersing yourself in it as deeply as I did for several years--a person can really ever stop being a runner, but I do know that I haven't really felt like a "runner" for quite a while now. "A person who runs" is a better label. From time to time, I get serious pangs of determination relating to physical improvement. These can usually be sated through a few quality runs and a recommitment to regular gym visits. But this time it feels like a true and focused motivation for running. Though I don't know how disciplined it is, it's an excellent feeling and I'd like to see how long it will last. Rather, I'd like to see how long I can make it last. Proactivity.

4. I might make another longer post about this, but a man, acting without any consideration for other people, quite likely personally cost me at least $5,000 yesterday. That is a lot of money, enough to easily displace the displeasure I still have toward Chris Douglas-Roberts for failing to make uncontested 15foot shots and therefore costing me approximately $600. A couple missed free throws and spectacularly poorly timed act have likely conspired to make April 2008 the great month of missed financial opportunity.

5. On a lighter note, I've finally discoverd the joys of Fox Soccer Channel. I expect my Saturday and Sunday mornings/early afternoons will never be the same.

The NFL Hate List

The Patriots lost the Super Bowl two days ago, to the NY Giants. As a lifelong Steelers fan, this shouldn't really cause much pain or joy. Pittsburgh was eliminated (not by the Patriots) nearly a month ago, and our traditional rival--the Browns--never even made the playoffs. However, as I was conversing with a friend yesterday, it was obvious that the SB result caused me great joy and this friend great discouragement (which is doubly odd as his allegiances are as equally dispersed as mine).
This got me to thinking about sports fandom, and more what it means to be a fan in general (ie of football) than to the more traditional idea of being a fan in specificity (ie of Pittsburgh). To illustrate the point, I've prepared a listing of teams I least like to see win the Super Bowl. I considered doing a top ten least like to see win and a top ten most like to see win, but I realized my specific Steeler fandom automatically eliminates all 31 other teams from being eligible for the latter list, whereas the former could cover any of the 31. Also note this list is "least like to see win it all," not least favorite, and there is an important difference, as least favorite is more simply about a team, whereas least like to see win is broadly about the team, their fans, their city, and any number of other variables. I'm talking about the joy/disgust of a title versus the pleasure of aesthetics.
Here it is, in reverse order:
31. New Orleans Saints -- not much needs to be said here.
30. Arizona Cardinals -- hard not to root for a perpetual loser with nothing really unsavory about them. They are the one team I'd have no trouble riding the bandwagon of should they suddenly get good, as long as it's not at the Steelers' expense. Bonus points for taking Pitt's coaching staff and installing Steelers West.
29. Green Bay Packers -- Old school. Cold. Football. And Brett Favre is all man.
28. Philadelphia Eagles -- Good quality teams usually and pathetic pitiful fans, they all would deserve it.
27. Indianapolis Colts -- Another great team with the greatest player, plus classy s.o.b. and ex-Steeler Tony Dungy. You have to respect it when you see it.
26. San Diego Chargers -- A fairly harmless good team, though Phil Rivers is dragging this team down the list singlehandedly.
25. Chicago Bears -- A good fan base and a classic team lately dominated by defense. Probably should rate them higher.
24. Washington Redskins -- can't really explain this one. Just another innocuous and classic old team.
23. Buffalo Bills -- Kinda have to feel bad for them a little, plus I was a fan of the exciting offensive early 90s teams.
22. Oakland Raiders -- Steelers used to have a little of a rivalry with them, but that was long ago. Plus the jerseys are awesome their reputation is awesome and even just the name is awesome. 21. New York Giants -- I don't really care for the NY teams but the Giants are far more preferrable and really they've never done anything to me.20/19/18. St Louis Rams/Tampa Bay Buccaneers/Atlanta Falcons -- three basically nondescript NFC teams that don't displease me in any way but also don't really ever cause me to want to watch their games.

17. Detroit Lions -- if it weren't for the Pistons being good, I'd be much more sympathetic. A classic team as well.
16/15. Houston Texans/Tennessee Titans -- two AFC South teams that don't do much for me. If Tennessee were still the Oilers, they'd be rated much worse.
14/13. Minnesota Vikings/Carolina Panthers -- two more basically nondescript NFC that for whatever reason I have more respect for.
12. San Francisco 49ers -- Boy, fifteen years ago they would have been in the top 5, easy. Many years of suck, plus Frank Gore carrying me to a fantasy title in 2006, plus Pittsburgh tying them with their fifth Super Bowl in 2005, have brought them down quite a bit.
11. Kansas City Chiefs -- I'm not sure why but I still remember losing to them often in the 90s. And there is just something that seems snotty about this team, maybe it's the way they always pose for their individual pictures wearing those pissy white turtlenecks.
10. Denver Broncos -- Their period of goodness has overlapped pretty exactly with the Steelers the last 15 years, so fuck them. Something not aggressive but definitely unsavory about this team and their fans.
9. Jacksonville Jaguars -- Kindof a quietly intense rivalry between this team and Pittsburgh. We've gone toe-to-toe many times in recent years, not always getting the better of it.
8. New York Jets -- As I said earlier, I don't care for the NY teams, the fans are really no good, which is odd because I respect NY baseball fans. For me, the difference between Jets/Giants is this: Giants are the old-school team, the better team usually, the better looking team, and the team less likely to force me to sit in a bathroom for 45 minutes while I wait for their kicker to shank two game-winning FGs so my 15-1 team can scrape by a divisional-round playoff game.
7. Miami Dolphins -- Don Shula has basically shown the world this season what's awful about the Dolphins and their odd smugness. Fuck you. And Dan Marino better keep blindly picking the Steelers to win every week cause his delicate douchebag idiot routine is close to getting him disowned by the city of Pittsburgh.
6. Cleveland Browns -- This is the toughest team to rate. On one hand, I get no more joy than from beating the Browns. On the other, it's frequency is slowly taking away the satisfaction. On one hand, this is the one fan base that probably deserves a title more than any. On the other, you know they'd abuse the priviledge of being arrogant. On one hand, they are a classic, well-respected team. On the other, I hate them. On one hand, this team shares more in common with my own than anyone else. On the other, Bernie Kosar was a hugely overrated hack, for crying out loud. Webster Slaughter. Kevin Mack. Fuck you too. Clips of The Fumble and The Drive are fun to watch.
5. Baltimore Ravens -- Most heated Pittsburgh rival of the last 10 years. Already won a Super Bowl. Brian Billick needs no introduction(though they just fired him so there is a chance they could fall a few spots). Ray lewis used to be good, but now he's just a dancing fucko ex-Miami cock.
4. Cincinnati Bengals -- We had a mini-rivalry with them for a few years there but it seems to have dissipated. Still, theirs is our freshest intradivisional hate-fest, so they rate the highest of the three. Their offense is good but there is lots about this team that screams Mickey Mouse (stupid garish unis, no defense, offense that wilts against good defenses, coach that's overmatched, just a team that you know has no chance to win a playoff game. A Mickey Mouse team one that's cute but has no spine. Texas Tech is a decent example of a college team of this ilk), and there's nothing that elicits my scorn more than a Mickey Mouse team. Plus, their record of thuggery is so ridiculous that it's not even funny anymore, just pathetic. Damn, I almost forgot: Boomer Esiason: All-Time Douche.
3. Dallas Cowboys -- Old-school Steeler rival. Tied with Pit and SF with five Super Bowl wins. Legendary arrogance. Legendary incorrigible owners and coaches. Mentioning the phrase "America's Team" is a real sure way to get my blood up. Tony Romo. TO. The most retarded stadium in the NFL. The worst most out-of-the-woodwork fans in the league. They're kinda the Notre Dame of the league, when it comes down to it.
2. Seattle Seahawks -- 75% of my distaste here comes from Super Bowl XL. Get over it. You lost. There was a game played, and some people hired to make sure it was fair, and you lost. By 11. There are close calls in every game that people complain about, but congratulations, you win the prize by far for being the biggest whiners in the history of the sport. In addition, I hate that they are basically a Mickey Mouse team that gets by because they've got a quirky stadium that gives them a built-in edge and they play in easily the worst division in football. St Louis, Arizona, and San Fran would have all gone 2-14 playing in any AFC division in any of the last five years. Good job making the playoffs Holmgren, you fuck. Even with decidely mediocre teams, you're going to go no worse than 5-3 at home because of the stadium and you're going to go 4-2 in your division. You're like Hawaii for godsakes.
1. New England Patriots -- The combined effect of the 2001 and 2004 AFC Championship Games, coupled with their three Super Bowl wins, were enough to put them in this spot before the absurdity of the 2007 season vaulted them basically off the charts here. In fact, I should rank them zero, that's how disgusted and angry thinking about this franchise makes me. Watching them lose a Super Bowl as heavy favorites is the next best thing to seeing the Steelers win one.

i don't know where it's coming from, but there is a lot of energy going out of me today. i should be exhausted as a continuing byproduct of not just the move wednesday night, but also the slow process of putting the little material pieces of my life back together. though i'm feeling good--for now--so i'll take it and not ask questions.

we put together our new sectional black leather couch last night. in related news, last night was a very good night.
i now live in an apartment that makes a big sectional black leather couch look small. in related news, this year is going to be a very good year.

maybe this is unnecessarily intimate information, but my girlfriend and i are "making love" now. so big cheers to me, her, and us.

i won two more fantasy football leagues this year for a total prize of $950. i won one last year worth $1000. and i'm doing extremely well (20-9 vs the spread) so far in a bowl pool right now. i really should quit my job and devote myself full-time to fantasy sports and other sports-related gambling/contests. by my count, i've participated in 10 fantasy leagues covering 3 sports over 3 years, plus one league (basketball) that is currently in midseason. of these 10 leagues, i've won 5 and placed third in another. my total buy-ins for all 10 leagues has been $970 and my winnings have been $2725. that's a 281% return on my investment for the non-MBAs out there. if only LaDainian Tomlinson and Albert Pujols were NYSE trade-able commodities, then maybe i'd have some chance at being a successful member of society.

here's something negative now. not negativity emanating from me, but something that bothers me. we've got a middle-aged (45ish) woman working as an executive assistant here who--and i'm saving myself some adjectives here--is just pathetic, in the dictionary definition. and unfortunately, she likes me, and not in a platonic way. i'm pretty sure i'm at least an occasional subject of her sexual fantasies. let me state now for the record that this woman is as attractive as a bucket of vomit and the mere mention of this has caused my testicles to assume their natal size and position. she's fond of coming to my office and standing in the doorway while asking me to do something, which will invariably require me to get up and check it out. except she doesn't much like to move out of the doorway. she'll sorta half-turn so it's not incredibly awkward but still forces me to brush up against her to get by. i told you it's pathetic, but i'm 95% sure these little brushes are what she uses to get her rocks off later on. (now i know what some of you are thinking. and yes i do often like to joke about chicks being into me when obviously they are not, but you'll just have to trust me on this one. if i were female and she were male, what this woman does would be called sexual harassment.) she also likes to ask me to come help her with a painfully obvious problem with her printer, which just so happens to be all the way around her desk so i've got to essentially crawl over her chair to get to it. most non-perverts would just get out of their chair and let me do my work, but not this one.
so this morning as i'm stocking the fridge, standing with the door open probably about a foot back from the shelves, she comes bounding into the pantry and with no warning leans down to the lowest shelf and just shoves her whole head and shoulders in front of me to grab a bag of something. if you're wondering, yes, this put her directly in line with my crotch. and these things happen--not all the time, but as often as she can find a way.
through most of the 4.5 years i've worked here i haven't minded these silly encounters. i mean, it bothers me but not in any serious way, more like how someone tapping their finger constantly would bother someone. in some deviant ways (because i can't stand her), it almost amused me to think of what a sad human being she is to sink to these depths. and really, if someone wants to use a little folg-candy to enliven the later experience of double-clicking the mouse, then sure, i'm happy to help.
but today, and one other time in the recent past that i can't as effectively recall, i have been annoyed by it, in more than a passing or frivolous manner. i have a girlfriend now, so it irks me a bit to think she has the right to get a cheap thrill from me. this shit ain't hers to take. it's sara's. so i don't like it. so there was a lot of words on the subject, more than such a pathetic person deserves.

i've got a noland bull's-eye on my phone. i'd have rothko too but the light wasn't right cause it's just a cell phone after all, and his orange turned out kinda brown. damn shame messing up orange.
i've almost weaned myself off of the wetting eye drops. 6 weeks since the surgery. that's good healin.
mother i don't think you've ever read this before thank goodness but if you are now, please hide your eyes. i was as high as i've ever been last night. maybe it was the 4.5 hours of tap budweiser that preceded it but lordy those two bowls i shared set me dizzy. dave and i were literally crying laughing walking in the cold talking about hamster wheels. don't even ask me about the show at the knitting factory. i got the paranoid jumpy jitters for a while and had trouble focusing on anyone who dared talk to me. i made an epiphanic and amorous exclamation to someone late friday night and the recipient was at the show and was adorably concerned about me. made me smile (an actual smile not just a cannabic smile). if that doesn't say all you need to know about my lot in life, i don't know what does.
i realize that van gogh is pretty famous and starry night is too but that painting had easily the largest crowd around it of anything in moma last friday. seemed odd. i was able to walk right up 6 inches from both the aforementioned rothko and noland and stand there for 3 or 4 solid minutes without bothering anyone behind me waiting for a view. warhol's soup cans were similarly dismissed. a huge pollock and a huger monet were probably the 2nd and 3rd most popular pieces in the museum. i will say that the monet--something like "clouds reflecting on a pond"--produced the finest effect of anything on me: after a couple minutes of staring from a normal distance away from the probably 30-foot wide painting, the clouds really started to seem as though they were drifting and floating across the painting. it was surreal, and positively sublime. a similar, if much more frenetic, effect was produced by a mondrian called "broadway boogie woogie."
the previously number-one-ranked football team of my alma mater was defeated tragically close to the end of the season on saturday. i'm supposed to be pretty upset by this, but i'm not. my favorite pro team very nearly lost to a rival on sunday as well but that wasn't really causing me any distress either. i think i'm getting too old to stress out about sports. i enjoy them, but throughout their duration i am fully aware that the outcome really doesn't matter much to me.
if someone were watching a videotape of my weekend he or she would be hard-pressed not to say "sheesh this guy drinks too much." it seems like i share the same feeling at the front end of many weeks. not this one though. 27 is a good age to be in new york city. 28 will be a good age too, but probably slightly less so. 29, 30, 31.........you understand the pattern. it doesn't really get better, presumably. the time of your life. is it ok to know it's the time of your life while it's happening, and not merely much after the fact. can you forsake the warmth of nostalgia by superheating the glory of the act itself? i am molten. now.
the whole point of my stated and reinforced claim to willingly leave this earth after just 60 years is that you don't need all those later years if you live yourself out before you get there. out loud out front outside out of bounds out out out out. my 81st year is living vicariously through my 27th right now, sensing and savoring and experiencing and remebering my 27th year all at once. i want to get to 60 and just be too exhausted to have any desire to continue. i want for the world to be too exhausted to let me continue. do not begrudge me.