Professionalism people!

While watching the AFC championship game, I can't help but shake my head at Bill Belichick.  I know that his signature clothing choice is a hooded sweatshirt.  I understand that it is very, very comfortable.  Hell, Jim Rome refers to him as 'The Hoodie' instead of by coach Belichick.  But dude looks sloppy.  The hood is so big sometimes that it reminds me of the Emperor from Star Wars.  It does not look professional.  And he isn't the only one.  Other NFL coaches do not dress professionally.  Most of the time, you see head coaches (and other coaches) in baseball caps, polo shirts, or turtle necks, khaki pants, etc.  It's what most people would refer to as casual professional.  

If you look at the other three major sports, there is no other head coach or manager that looks so under dressed.  Baseball managers wear a team uniform, have a number, wear the team's either home or away hat.  They look like they are one of the team.  Some of the younger managers look like they could take the field, or at the very least, pinch hit or run.  Basketball coaches dress up too.  Most of the professional coaches are seen wearing suits.  I'm talking button up shirt, tie, suit coat and matching pants. College coaches vary from suits or sweaters, but that is a different thing all together.  Hockey coaches all wear suits too.  Now, when I'm talking about coaches, I'm not just referring to the head coach or head manager, I'm talking the entire staff.  Every assistant coach, or batting coach, or goalie coach.  They all wear suits.  It is professional looking.  It makes them look in charge.  The football coaches don't dress up.  It sucks.  They look like bums compared to the rest of the coaches in the professional sports.

During the 2005 season, Mike Nolan, head coach of the San Fransisco 49ers, had to ask permission from the NFL to wear a suit (seriously?).  Here is a complete explanation from Wikipedia (because who doesn't get all their information from Wikipedia) because I don't feel like writing a ton about it.

Following his hiring by the 49ers, Nolan asked the NFL for permission to wear a suit and tie on the sidelines as a tribute to his father. The league initially denied Nolan's request because of the contract it has with Reebok for its coaches to wear team-logo attire, a ruling that was changed during Nolan's second season as coach. In the new NFL policy, coaches were allowed to wear a full suit for only two home games per season. The suits were designed, marketed and labeled under the Reebok corporation. Nolan debuted the suit in a game at home against the Seattle Seahawks on November 19, 2006. A day later, Jacksonville Jaguars head coach Jack Del Rio sported another Reebok suit on Monday Night Football.  

I'm sorry, but wearing a suit and looking professional, looking like you are in charge of a sports team's decisions far outweighs wearing a team's logo.  Doesn't it?  Reebok needs to suck up the fact that everything doesn't have to be about making money.  Aren't they making enough money as it is?  Let the coaching staff wear suits and give them pins to wear on their lapels.  Even if they aren't wearing a team's logo on a polo shirt or hooded sweatshirt, they would look like the coaches of old that most of them idolize.

I'm sure that if Tom Landry or Vince Lombardi were to see these coaches now and the way they dress, they would do one of two things.  They would either walk away shaking their heads or would pummel them all into submission.





And when they were done with all the coaches, they would knock on Roger Goodell's door.

Hockey on TV

Right now, Washington and Pittsburgh are playing on NBC which is fine because I will never turn down hockey being played on national television.  NBC has been scheduling these two teams ever since Crosby and Ovechkin have come into their own.  The problem is that both of these players are having horrible years.  Crosby has practically been out since last January with a concussion or concussion like symptoms.  Ovechkin has been having a down year in the scoring columns.  Both are still very skilled.  Both still have drawing power.  Both suck this year.  So who wants to watch Washington and Pittsburgh play if the two biggest names aren't playing or playing well?  For NBC, I guess, it doesn't matter because they can try to put a new spin on the rivalry.  I know that today there aren't many games being played so they just have to go with their plans, but if there were a slew of games, why would they not find a game between two contenders? 

Right now, in the Eastern Conference, two of the top teams are the Rangers and Flyers.  They played the Winter Classic game this year.  Both are in bigger markets.  And it's a great rivalry, both as cities and as sports teams.  I know that you are going to see some east coast bias when it comes to sports, that's just how it goes.  Bigger cities and bigger markets means bigger returns for the television.  I get it.  And I think that if you have a choice between a New York/Philadelphia game and something like a Vancouver/San Jose game, obviously a national network would take the New York and Philadelphia game, it just makes sense.  But if Vancouver and San Jose are fighting for first place in the conference and New York and Philadelphia are struggling overall to make the playoffs, a true hockey fan would want to see the former game as opposed to the latter.  But why doesn't a network see that?  In the end, it's all about the money. 





And that's too bad. 

Ligament damaged season

Every Detroit Tiger fan was sent running for their fallout shelters to await the 2013 season as word came down that Victor Martinez tore his ACL during an off season workout and is most likely out for the year.  And by most likely, I think one hundred percent out for the season.  I don't want him to rush back before he is recovered all the way.  In fact, I think it would be an asinine if he were to try to rush back.  So please, Victor.  Recover all the way.  There's always next year.  

So of course the minute this story hit the wire, there was all kinds of speculations and theories of who the Tigers could run out and sign for their now void designated hitter's spot in the lineup.  Lots of free swinging, hard hitting bats that would only be a band aid on the wound that is the number five spot in the lineup.  or.  Or. OR.  What they could do, is stick with the batters that they have now.  Can any of them replace Victor Martinez?  Absolutely not.  What they don't need to do is rush out and sign some over priced batter who could possibly ruin the chemistry that is in the Tigers' clubhouse right now.  Why not run out Brennan Boesch or Delmon Young on a rotating schedule?  It will take Young out of the field which can be beneficial to the defense and can keep Boesch fresh.  Why not have in concentrate on just hitting instead of playing the field as well?  There are options for the team within the organization.  I think it would build a lot of confidence and trust with the players if Dave Dombrowski and Jim Leyland gave someone within the organization an everyday chance in the line up.  Of course, if they do that and it backfires, fans will be calling for their heads.  I will not be one of them. 

While this is a huge blow to the Tigers for this year, I don't think it is the end of the world.  The division is just going to be closer than last year.  The Tigers have answers within the clubhouse.  They do not need to run out and sign someone that has the possibility of ruining the greatness that the Tigers are bound to repeat this year.  They are still in the driver's seat within the division.  The only other team that is not in some kind of rebuilding process is Cleveland.  And let's be honest.  It's the Cleveland Indians.  They haven't been good since.  Well, since Victor Martinez played for them.







How ironic.  

How to best the books and timelines

*Author's note:  this is the 600th post at My Own Manifesto.  Kind of a big deal*

So I made a resolution to read six books this year.  Not the greatest resolution ever and kind of setting the low for an entire year, but reading one book in two months is a decent clip for me, so I'm sticking with it.  Besides, resolutions don't have to be an earth shattering goal.  Sometimes smaller, easier goals are the way to go. 

The best way that I can see going about this is setting a day to day goal for the books.  The one that I am reading right now is 450 some pages.  So, I figured that if I read ten pages a day, I would be able to finish the book in a month and a half.  Right now, I'm on page 145, so I'm a little behind.  To be fair, I worked closing shifts most of the week last week so it threw a kink into the plan, but I have the day off today so I might find some time to pick up the slack.  Besides, there is still a fifteen day grace period between the second a third month in which I need to finish this book (if I keep on the pace of two months per book).  But that's a bad way to look at it.  Plus, it isn't like I'm going to wait for the two months to end in the event that I finish a book a little early.  That just means that there is more time to read the next book.

With the novels, it might be a little more difficult to just read ten pages a day.  Just reading ten pages can leave you in the midst of great story development or a character revelation.  Who wants to stop half way through that?  With the history books, you are reading for knowledge.  Pretty dry stuff despite the fact that it is really interesting.  It's history, it has already happened.  It's not going anywhere you don't expect it to take a big twist.  That is part of the fun with the history books.  It is more about analysis and opinion than it is about the main character and story line.





At least I find it fun.

I've seen this before

Of course everyone knows about the Detroit Lions' 0-16 season.  There wasn't a week that went by this year that some sports talking head didn't mention it.  And with good reason, they were the first team to do so.  Not the first team to go without a win in a season, that would be the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, just the first to go 0-16.  This year was great for the Lions as they went 10-6 and made it to the playoffs.  They played last night and were bested by the better team, the New Orleans Saints.  Going in, there was a small part of me that believed they could pull it off, but for the most part, I knew that they were major underdogs.  My wife put it best with this:  'Your heart wanted them to win, but your brain knew better.'  And it's true, if I were to have bet on the game, I would have gone with New Orleans.  It was a good season and they have come a long way from three years ago going 0-16.  The bar has been set for years to come with this playoff berth and it reminds me of one other team. 

The Detroit Tigers in 2006 started playing unconscious baseball in October and made it to the World Series only to lose to St. Louis.  Three years prior to the World Series, they put up the most losses by an American League team in the history of baseball.  After 2006, Tigers fans have expectations that their team will make it to the post season.  They got that taste and now want it every year.  They were close for several years before getting back this year.  It use to be that if the Tigers won half of the games during the year it was successful.  Now, making it to the playoffs is a successful year.  If the playoff runs continue, how long before making it to the World Series is considered normal and expected? 

The Lions might be on the same path.  Their fans have tasted the playoffs for the first time since 1999 and even though they didn't win, it was a successful season.  The fans will want postseason play every year now.  It is going to be very difficult for them to make the playoffs every year because they play in a conference with Green Bay (same division) and New Orleans, two very tough teams built to go to the Super Bowl every year.  The Tigers have an advantage because they are on top of their division and built to stay there for some time. 

There is a shorter season in the NFL, so mistakes are more glaring than during the MLB season.  Going through a six or seven game losing streak in baseball can be recoverable, not in football.  A three game losing skid can derail a team's playoff hopes.  If the Lions continue to stay healthy, draft smart, beat the teams they are suppose to beat (and beat one or two that they aren't suppose to) they will continue to make their fan base happy.

Seven and eight wins in a season is not going to be the rule anymore for the Lions.  Nine or ten wins will be.  Making the playoffs is a good start and a good turn around for the franchise and it'll do for a few years, but it will only be a matter of time before just making the playoffs won't be enough.  The fans will want wins.  One win, then two, then a conference championship.  And who knows, eventually they will make a run to the Super Bowl.  





And win. 

Sleepless Morning

One of the few times I have the opportunity to sleep in during the week and I was wide awake at three thirty.  There haven't been many mornings when I have woken up extremely early and not been able to fall back asleep since moving to Minnesota. 

I don't always know what to do with myself at this moment when this happens.  There are a few options.  I can try to go back to bed.  Tossing and turning never leads anywhere and can just infuriate you to the point where you say 'fuck it, I'm getting up.'.  This usually works out for me when I have to be to work at six in the morning, I just add some more water to the coffee pot, throw in an extra scoop of coffee smelling Colombian children's tears, start brewing, and browse around the internet or write.  It kills a few hours, I go off to work and catch up on sleep that afternoon with a nap or go to bed earlier that evening. 

There are mornings when I can't get comfortable in bed and come out to the living room and sleep on the couch.  In fact, I might do that after finishing this up.  The couch isn't the most comfortable, it isn't the Nap Couch we had at the cabin growing up (my family knows what I'm talking about), but it works for a few more hours of sleep.  Even falling asleep on the couch doesn't totally resolve the issue because it isn't a deep and complete sleep to get fully rested for the day ahead.  It's like several naps crammed into one. 

I know there are some people that read when they can't sleep, but I don't like to go that route.  It would wake my brain up even more and not want to go back to sleep.  Even typing this, I can feel a part of me getting more and more awake.  Reading would kind of do the opposite of trying to get back to sleep.  That isn't much of an option. 

I will just suffer through a few days of going to bed early to try to regain the sleep I am losing today.  Three hours isn't enough for someone closing in on thirty.  Hell, I don't even know if a college kid can survive on three hours of sleep and be productive for the next few days.  

Sports eliminations

On ESPN's show, 'First Take' on Tuesday, they discussed eliminating field goals and place kickers because one of the people thought that field goals shouldn't determine a game.  His thoughts are that the place kicker isn't really a part of the team because he isn't on the field for the majority of the game.  A quote of his:  'Other players fight for fifty nine minutes and fifty nine seconds and to have all that work come down to one kick isn't fair to them.'  I don't completely understand his reasoning, but I don't get paid to give my sports opinion.

Some of the more exciting games in football have been at the end with the weight of the game (or season for that matter) being placed on a field goal.  Some have been monumental victorious kicks and some have been crushing defeats.  Think of all the wide rights and wide lefts you have seen in your lifetime.  Now imagine if those kicks never happened.  Kind of boring, right?  Imagine if the team was forced to go for it on fourth down instead of putting points on the board with a successful field goal.

If you go outside of football, can other plays or players be eliminated?  Let's look at free throws in basketball.  A lot of times in basketball games, if a team is losing by one or two possessions (two to four points), they will start to foul the other team in order to stop the clock and also there is a chance that the opponent will miss one or both of the free throws giving the team that is losing a chance to tie or win the game.  Why not eliminate free throws in the last five minutes of a game?  Free throws can determine a winner or loser in a basketball game just the same as a field goal can.  If a player commits a personal foul, just take it out of bounds and continue to play.  It would also speed up the last five minutes of a game which we all know would be good because basketball games take forever with all the stoppage and free throws in these types of close games.

What about icing in the last few minutes of a hockey game?  Icing doesn't give an advantage to a losing team, but what it does is not allow for the team that iced the puck to not change their players on the ice.  Let's take the last three minutes of a one goal game.  During the last three minutes of a game, why would you let an icing call stop the momentum of one team?  I'm not going to say that an icing play is going to determine a game, but it slows it down to the point where players get stuck out on the ice and can lower the level of play and can lead to penalties and soft goals.  Just let the clock continue to run in the event of an icing in the last three minutes of a game.  It still allows a team to change their players, but they lose the time on the clock.  

All of these topics and ideas will never happen because everything written about is part of the sport.  Everyone always has their opinions on what they would do to change a sport, but if the sports changed, what would we complain about?  Politics?  I don't think so.

Onward resolution makers!

New year resolutions are a joke.  I think that is why they are broken so easily.  Not everyone has the tenacity to keep up year round on what they decide to do at the beginning of the year.  I think one factor is that resolutions aren't specific enough.  Some people want to lose weight over the course of the year, but does weighing 210 pounds in January and weighing 208 pounds at the end of December constitute a completion of a weight lose resolution?  When people talk about losing weight, they don't target two pounds as a goal.  What about exercising more?  If you didn't work out at all the previous year, going to the gym once fulfills the resolution.  For every failure there are successes too, don't get me wrong, but if you talk to people in June about how they are doing on their resolutions, how many of them just flat out laugh about it?

This year, I want to read a bunch of books, and by a bunch I mean a handful.  I'm okay with the fact that I am a slow reader, but I have picked out six books I want to read over the course of the year.  Six books doesn't sound like a lot, but it is a good goal for me. 

• Guns, Germs, and Steel:  The Fates of Human Societies
• Tell All
• Damned
• A Little Matter of Genocide:  Holocaust and Denial in the Americas from 1492 to Present
• Suttree
• Founding Brothers:  The Revolutionary Generation

Again, six books doesn't sound like a lot, but there are three history books on this list and are heavy reading.  I've started with Guns, Germs, and Steel and cheated a little bit because I started this book in December.  Now, let's talk strategy.  What is the easiest way to get through this list (no, reading faster is not the answer).  Is it read all the history books first and blast through the novels or vice versa?  Or alternate between the novels and history books?  Or some other pattern.  I think that going with two history books followed by the three novels and finishing off the year with the last history book is the way to go.  





So it begins.  *Dramatic movie music*

Writing recap

We have turned the page on another year.  It's 2012.  Ignore the end of days jokes that have been flying all around Twitter and Facebook.  Here's a quick rundown of what I think are the best entries from 2011.  Self serving?  Yes.  But you're the one clicking the links.  Enjoy. 

January:  Historic Baseball
February:  Fate, free will, or somewhere in between 
March:  You can (always) never go home again  (For what it's worth, this is my favorite of the year and one of the best pieces I have written so far)
April:  Weather worries
May:  Online panhandling
June:  Father's Day
July:  Baseball milestone
August:  A nice note before it gets messy
September:  As Luck would have it
October:  The new counterculture Part One and Part Two
November:  The Visor Debate
December:  Reading more (quickly)

Sometimes the best entries are the ones that remind you of why you write.