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.