The Nine Decade Club

Well, the White Sox won the World Series, just two seasons shy of 90 years removed from their last championship. I wasn't rooting for them to win, but as the series progressed I found myself not caring that they were winning games and that they eventually would win the whole thing. I'm more happy that Houston lost -- in a sweep no less. Actually, the last two years went as well as they could given who won the National League. Cardinals -- swept. Astros -- swept. Good. Screw 'em both. All I know is it's finally the Cubs' turn. Witness:

	2000: White Sox win division, swept in the playoffs
	2003: Red Sox win wild card, lose pennant on game 7 walk-off home run
	2003: Cubs win division, lose pennant after 3-1 lead in NLCS
	2004: Red Sox win World Series
	2005: White Sox win World Series
	2006: ???

Each team got close, then broke through, ending legendary generation-spanning droughts and breaking various curses along the way. The Cubs have to win next year, don't they? Don't these things happen in threes?

One play away, times three

I'll be going to football games for the rest of my life, and there's a good chance I'll never experience anything like Oct. 15, 2005 ever again. The backdrop of USC's place in history for their current run, combined with the results of the last three meetings and the history of the greatest rivalry in college football, lent itself to impressing on everyone that this game would be something special. It was evident at the pep rally -- attended by 45,000 -- in the parking lots, and especially throughout campus just walking to the stadium. That's a walk I've made dozens upon dozens of times before, but never with the same heightened anticipation.

The game itself, of course, was better than anyone dared imagine. The crowd was into it from the word go -- something that can be rare up in the nosebleeds. When Zbikowski ran the punt back for a TD (right into my corner of the stadium) I couldn't even hear myself scream. USC came out with guns blazing and we took their best shot, and responded in kind. But what made the game even greater was knowing that no matter how much we were up by, or for how long, USC was never out of it. When we got the ball back with about five minutes to go and down four, it was as if everyone knew not only could we score and take the lead, but we would. We just did it too early.

Watching the 4th & 9 play live, it was hard to tell how badly Wooden got beat on the catch. Watching the tape and seeing pictures of the play, it was even closer than I would ever have thought. He was literally inches away in any direction from knocking the pass down and sealing the victory. Then a few plays later Leinart fumbled and I honestly thought we'd won, just because the clock ran down to 0:00. We've recovered two fumbles at the one yard line already this year, and were maybe a different bounce away from grabbing that one and ending it. On the sneak, of course I couldn't tell if he actually got in, but either way I'm glad the replays showed he did rather than it being so close that a ref would have had to mentally flip a coin.

So, naturally, when it finally was over, everyone was stunned and almost unwilling to accept a loss, especially with the way it ended. I think the highest compliment came when USC's sideline went apeshit after the touchdown -- when have they gotten that excited over the last 28 games? They've played some good teams and embarrassed them, which makes our accomplishment even more special, and the loss even more heartbreaking. We were good enough to win, we played well enough to win, and I think everyone will agree that there are many sets of circumstances, some quite small in deviation from actuality, that would have resulted in a win. That's what makes this loss different from any other I've witnessed. We've been clobbered by USC recently, against OSU in '96 we were on their level but faced a few unfavorable matchups, we were happier just to be competitive with Nebraska in '00, the refs screwed us against Colorado in the Orange Bowl, Tennessee outclassed us in '99 and '01, against BC in '93 we were flat and brought it upon ourselves, and of course upset losses to teams like Air Force hurt for entirely different reasons. On this day, we brought our best, we played our best, our best was good enough to win, but so was theirs. It was simply a game of emotion, physicality, strategy, execution, played as well as two top teams can do it -- all the things that combine in perfect amounts about once every 20 years to produce an unforgettable game that leaves both the winners and the losers in tears.

Welcome (whoosh) to baseball (zip) on Fox (dadumm)

2006 can't come soon enough.

There are many, many things that I hate about Fox's presentation of baseball games, i.e. commercial breaks longer than security checks at the airport, "Scooter", Tim McCarver, promos for crappy Fox shows, entirely unnecessary shots of actors in said shows taking up space in prime seats, Joe Buck, "instant polls" asking inane questions about pitching changes, replays with transitions laden with more sound effects than the Death Star battle in Star Wars, the "right now" box, bumper music from shitty undifferentiated bands, etc. But with two games on simultaneously last night, you'd think that by flipping between them, I could avoid some or most of them. But in one moment, on two channels, Fox showed why its coverage of baseball cannot be allowed to continue for a nanosecond after the current contract expires. Watching the NLCS on Fox, somebody made an out and the announcers threw to Jeanne Zelasko. FLIP. An instant later, during the ALCS on FX, the useless sideline reporter was in the stands interviewing some old guy who was probably the "oldest living fan who saw the last White Sox World Series championship." I'm not sure, because I didn't hang around long enough to find out. I instinctively hit the up button on my remote and watched Court TV for a few minutes just to make sure baseball would actually be on when I returned to the game.

There is so much depth to my hatred of Fox's baseball coverage that I can't explain it all right here. But I think it all comes down to a simple misunderstanding: Fox doesn't realize that baseball is not football. Since they got the NFL, Fox did bring a lot to the broadcasts, including the yellow first down line, new angles on replays, etc. to capitalize on the physical nature of the collisions and the urgency of the two minute drill, which are unique to football. Baseball doesn't have and doesn't need such contrivances. Baseball fans know, understand, and are happy with the "dead space" between pitches or between innings. That has been part of the game forever. A baseball game, properly televised, can supply all the drama by itself with minimal commentary. But "minimal" and "Fox" are never seen together. There's a (gasp) 15-second window between pitches? Better show eight jump cuts of the managers, some fans, a close-up of the pitcher's face so tight you can count his whiskers, another player in the dugout, the managers again, and rejoin the center field camera as the pitcher is halfway through his windup! We don't need to see someone on the bench, we don't need Joe Buck reminding us that A-Rod would bat sixth this inning, especially during the playoffs we NEVER need to throw to the studio (and Jeanne Zelasko and Kevin Kennedy should never be allowed within fifty miles of any baseball broadcast), and we don't need the sensory overload on our TV that goes against the backdrop of a baseball game. Please, ABC, NBC, Food TV, somebody, outbid Fox for the next contract and do this right.

A Twister play

You know that whenever you see an umpire at a postgame news conference, something went haywire during the game. Such was the case last night in Chicago, where home plate umpire Doug Eddings had to face the music for his botching of a third strike call. In recent years, especially since the umpires have been gathered under one umbrella and the reviews and QuesTec have been used, umpire mechanics and signals have been largely standardized. Of course, everyone has their own called strike signals, and a good "ring 'em up" called third strike always brings pizzazz. But for fair/foul, home run/in play, and especially some specific strike calls, virtually every ump has the same signals. On a checked swing for strike one or two, the home plate ump will point at the batter and then signal strike. When a batter checks his swing on strike three and it's caught cleanly, the ump points at the batter and then punches him out. On a dropped third strike, the ump will hold his arm out sideways to the right and then follow the play to first or when the tag is made by the catcher, punch the batter out. Watch any major league game and you'll find that to hold true.

All this further muddles things as they happened last night, and confounds Eddings' postgame explanations. On the third strike, Eddings held his arm out to the right to indicate a swing, then punched the batter out to indicate that the ball wasn't dropped and that Pierzynski was out. That's why not only catcher Josh Paul, but the rest of the Angels started to leave the field, since all the infielders had to go on was the signal. Pierzynski was completely within his rights to run to first, but according to the ump, he was out at the plate anyway. During that time, Eddings admitted he was watching Paul to gauge his reaction. This happens on many close plays -- the ump gets his cue from the player. If a fielder makes a swipe tag, then goes back for another tag, it's a cue to the ump that the fielder thinks he missed the first tag, so the ump will generally agree and call the runner safe. So if Eddings was unsure of the call, and was watching Paul, who rolled the ball back to the mound, why would he use that reaction as grounds for a no-catch call? The bottom line is if Eddings hadn't punched Pierzynski out, we could assume he either saw the pitch hit the dirt or wasn't sure and was erring on the side of caution. But once he punched him out, the play was dead and the inning was over. Chalk this one up to bad umpiring and the cardinal sin of officiating any sport -- wavering on your call.

No Valid Opinions, exhibit 243

Sideline reporters at football games are inherently worthless. In all my years of watching football, I have yet to see a worthwhile report from any of them...but that's an issue for another day. I just want to pass along a nugget from last night's ND-Purdue game. Late in the second half of the blowout, Purdue was still taking timeouts on defense, and Ron Franklin (one of my favorites) and Bob Davie (human waste) were rightly criticizing Joe Tiller for prolonging his own misery. Blah, blah, blah, a few minutes pass and they eventually throw to Holly Rowe on the sidelines. She offers her typically pointless drivel and then finishes with, "and guys, about Purdue taking timeouts, that's just the coaches not giving up and still coaching all the way to the end. Back to you." Franklin snaps back, in the most condescending and paternalistic tone you can imagine, with, "Coaching? It's 42 to 21, sweetheart."

Just the latest proof that women have no valid opinions about sports.