UVA Basketball On the Rebound

UVA men’s basketball fans should put the NCAA tournament out of their minds for one more year because it will not be possible unless the ‘Hoos win the ACC tournament.  Now that expectations are realigned with reality, we can look at the immense progress the team has made this year under new coach Tony Bennett.

Bennett’s boys are taking care of the ball, playing consistently, playing with confidence and even slam-dunking the ball—a small sign of attitude not lately seen at UVA. The team is unselfish, does not get into foul trouble and is pretty good at the free throw line. Three-point shooting percentage and scoring are up from last year, yet the team does not rely on or resort to too much gunning from behind the arc. The team runs pretty crisp set plays and even slashes to the basket off the dribble, fairly regularly beating defenders off the dribble. Overall, I have seen tremendous progress and growth. If Mr. Bennett can keep Landesberg from leaving early, UVA has a high ceiling for achievement in the coming years.

I find it surprising how new coaches in any sport are able to do so well with someone else’s players.  It is not like going to your neighbor’s shed and borrowing a rake, lawn mower, weed wacker and clippers and being surprised your lawn looks good; your lawn should look good because those are universal tools, not guards and centers and forwards.  College kids who play ball are fickle, with personalities, attitudes, and when a program turns sour, at least a little baggage. Taking over at a new school, a coach inherits players he did not watch play, he did not recruit nor visit with their families nor offer them scholarships.  He does not know them from Adam and is still expected to get them to respect him and play as a team representing a school at which he is the newcomer.

In UVA’s recent basketball history, the school has been pretty fortunate with new coaches since Jeff Jones’ departure. Pete Gillen did pretty well in his first couple years, enough to convince the school to give him a far too long and too lucrative contract given the short-term accomplishments.  In academic parlance, he gave a few flashy lectures, and got tenure. He had the advantage of an unfortunate departure by Jeff Jones for comparison, so UVA bought character in his case and tried too hard to forget the recent past. 

Dave Leitao picked up the pieces from Gillen and had some early success. Leitao had the advantage of following a really bad record in the ACC tournament and only two NCAA trips in about nine years for comparison.  Like Gillen, Leitao could recruit too, but his teams seemed to be hit or miss:  they opened JPJ arena with an invicibility streak, and were even co-champions of the ACC one year I believe.  They could shock a powerhouse like Arizona two games into the season, but easily go 5-11 in the ACC.  There was not a consistent, building body of work for Leitao. In academic parlance, he wrote a manuscript that got a book deal and was given tenure.

Tony Bennett seems to be solid, but ‘Hoos fans have seen this early success before in Gillen and Leitao.  What I like in Bennett’s team is his team has an identity (gutsy and defense-oriented) and seems fundamentally-sound, i.e. no 24 turnover games like the Gillen and Leitao years. And, Bennett has four recruits in the Rivals Top 150 coming in next year, mostly out-of-staters I believe; no five-star studs yet, but already this is progress. Jeff Jones had a pretty consistent tap into the Oak Hill and Hargrave Military Academy pipelines.  If Bennett augments his recruiting network with some local talent, watch out.

Jeff Jones’ formula as UVA’s coach fifteen years ago was far from a juggernaut, but I believe he maximized his talent and was always good for a shocker upset or two over the always-highly-ranked ACC gang of Duke, UNC and Wake Forest back in the day. He got sloppy near the end of his time judging player character, but also took UVA to the NCAAs fairly regularly with at least one Sweet Sixteen and an Elite Eight appearance in the mid 1990s on the back of an NIT Championship.  He was no golden boy, but a fair standard of recent success against which we can judge UVA head coaches in the post-Holland era.

Tony Bennett is on a familiar path of early success, so let us not be suckers or skeptics but realists:  we have seen this happen before and turn out poorly for the program and school.  Mr. Bennett is young and appears to be a classy gentleman.  I offer up my support to him and his methods, with patience—patience I hope the University also has before it opens its coffers for a long-term deal. 

Like many professors, he will want to know his future, seeking tenure, and be able to settle into the local groove.  First, he must prove himself one player and one year at a time. May he return UVA to conference and national relevance again in the sport.  And soon enough the Dance invitations will come.  Go ‘Hoos!

Virginia Takes 2009 Men’s Soccer Title

On Sunday the University of Virginia won the 2009 NCAA Men’s Soccer championship defeating the University of Akron 3-2 in penalty kicks after a 0-0 draw.  It was Virginia’s first men’s soccer title since 1994, and sixth overall. 

More importantly, it was Virginia’s first of the post-Bruce Arena era. George Gelnovatch finally guided them to the promised land after so many good years. I was accepting some guilt for believing I had something to do with the championship drought. I bought tickets and attended the semifinals in Richmond in 1995 after Virginia advanced. After four titles in a row, Cavalier soccer fans were a little spoiled I suppose; Virginia’s team was rock solid and we expected to make the final, especially since UVA was playing Duke, a familiar ACC opponent. However, Jay Heaps and the Blue Devils frustrated the effort and UVA lost 3-2. My tickets to the finals went in the trash when I got home. All the better, as newcomer Wisconsin upset Duke in the final. UVA made the finals in 1997, but lost to UCLA. Since then it was a lot of near misses in reaching the finals.

UVA men’s soccer went through a weird transition period in the post-1994, post championship years.  Virginia recruited some extremely talented players, but the MLS was catching on and started poaching talent. For the first time in school history, kids were leaving college early to get drafted and play professionally in the U.S.  Cavaliers like Ben Olsen left to make their name and fortunes on a larger stage, so the chemistry and recruiting efforts of the coaching staff were frustrated and challenged in a new way. No longer could you count on four good years from your scholarship players.

Virginia’s win on Sunday was beneficial because it was in a style that was non-traditional for the program. UVA’s brand of ball in recent memory (since Bruce Arena’s tenure began) was a beautiful, offensive finesse game:  pretty passes and smart strikes in relatively unflappable, stoic style. UVA would never get goaded into ugly play, fouls or poor sportsmanship.  Watching the team, you felt they were in complete control, and could either mount a game-winning charge or tighten the defensive press when necessary to decide a game. On the world stage I liken UVA’s style to Spanish or Dutch league play.

But Sunday was all defense—physical, relentless defense.  UVA and Akron were the two best defensive teams coming into the tourney and I suppose it made sense the game would end in a scoreless tie, even after two overtimes. UVA was less measured than usual with more streaky play. They pressed and pushed; they looked almost uncomposed at times. They reminded me of Clemson or Wake Forest in the ACC, two teams known for quality defense and tough, physical play. UVA fouled Akron about twice as often; it was a very un-UVA-like effort. No goals after 110 minutes was also uncharacteristic.

Arriving at penalties at the end is such a heart-rending experience for the soccer fan. On one hand, you are justified in thinking: ‘now look what you’ve done. You had your chances. It is the flip of a coin, luck—and you just might lose it!’  But then, there were the near misses by the opposition that make you feel PKs are somehow a blessing. Soccer fans know penalty kicks are a way to settle a match that could not be settled on the field. Unfortunately, it is like playing rock-paper-scissors to determine a winner; there is little skill and a lot of luck involved.

Why, you ask? Because a penalty kick is a high percentage play; regardless of skill or age level, penalty kicks are typically converted about 93% of the time. When given five kicks per side, as each team is, it could be expected for all ten to be made.  If one is stopped, that usually decides the contest.

UVA’s keeper stopped Akron’s very first penalty shot; this was a huge psychological blow for Akron because the first kicker is often the most reliable shooter. Right off the bat UVA was at an advantage. Akron then missed their third kick, while UVA converted its.  With a two goal advantage, if UVA made its fourth PK the title was theirs. However, the Akron keeper made a stop. Akron then converted its kick. After eight penalty shots, five were made—very odd and rare.

In the final round, the fifth of five penalty kicks, UVA had a one goal advantage:  if they converted, once again the title would be theirs. Yet, Akron’s keeper made a great stop!  Akron had new life. If they made their fifth, it would be tied and head to sudden victory PKs.  All of UVA’s early advantage would be erased in an amazing turn of events and clutch keeper play.

But as history would have it, the shooter who won the previous game for Akron in PKs, missed his shot high—game over! It was so stunning, UVA’s goalkeeper was unsure what happened and looked around for a second before he realized UVA had won the championship. UVA fans went from an optimistic high after the third kick, to two gut-wrenching lows, then to a very unexpected ultimate high. In the end, only five of the ten shots were converted, an astoundingly low 50% conversion percentage.

UVA proved it could win ugly, that it could win in the foul weather that was befalling the fans and players in Cary, North Carolina. For me, soccer is a fall sport that should be played in legitimate fall weather, so it is nice that the College Cup is not played in San Diego or Miami. Soccer, especially the NCAA tournament, is best played in season-appropriate, fan-friendly confines, which means the east coast.

Nothing against west coast soccer, but the east, and particularly the ACC, is the dominant soccer conference in men’s and women’s college soccer. The games should be where fans can get to them. On the men’s side, three of the final four teams were ACC schools. On the women’s side, Virginia, Duke, Florida State, Maryland and North Carolina are competitive programs every year, with occasional showings by Clemson, Boston College or NC State.  North Carolina won the women’s tournament, again, proving they are truly the school to beat every year.

Now that I live in Florida, I lament not being closer to the College Cup sites. Maybe now that UVA is back in the hunt for championships, I might have to schedule a pilgrimmage.

Virginia Football’s Next Move

The University of Virginia dismissed its head coach of nine years, Al Groh, on Sunday. After starting the season with an embarrassing loss to William & Mary, and a string of mostly mediocre seasons, Cavalier fans could see this one coming. Kudos to UVA for sticking with Mr. Groh for nine years; they gave him a fair shake at getting his coaches in place, his players in place and a system in place. It is tough to say good-bye to a Virginia man and a good character guy, but it is time for change.

For me, two aspects of Al Groh’s tenure will define his legacy.  First, he was an excellent recruiter of defensive talent. I suspect Al Groh put more UVA graduates in the first and second rounds of the NFL draft per years coached than any other UVA coach—and most were defensive players.  This was a significant step for the image of the school and the football program. 

Getting players selected consistently high in the professional football draft takes baby steps, like making the NCAA basketball tournament.  After getting burned by weak performances, a school has to work its way back into the good graces to be selected repeatedly.  I think UVA has proven it can produce professional quality players.

Recent football and basketball coaches at UVA have been, very generally speaking, either good recruiters who could not maximize the team talent (parts greater than the sum of the whole) like Al Groh or Pete Gillen, or good team coaches who could not land outstanding recruits  (whole greater than the sum of parts), like George Welsh or Jeff Jones, the Barbers and Cory Alexander notwithsanding.

A successful coach needs to land skilled players, develop them individually, and also meld them into a team which plays with a coherent identity.  Al Groh was not successful at maximizing team talent or getting the team to have a collective purpose. They probably felt they could compete, but did they feel mentally they could win?  On the field they did not show it.

And then there is the age-old issue with consistency.  UVA could upset UNC and turn around and lose to Duke.  They could hang with Virginia Tech for the first half and be down one point, only to not score again and give up four second half touchdowns as they did on Saturday. And I think every UVA fan wishes its team had a killer instinct—where the team puts a game out of reach and the other team is mentally defeated.  UVA had a grand showing at the Orange Bowl’s finale against Miami two seasons ago shutting out the Hurricans 48-0 where that domination instinct seemed present.  But I attended the 2008 Gator Bowl, a few games later where UVA dominated the entire game, then let Texas Tech back in it, and lost a game they had no business losing.

Lately the offense had been anemic, which was an unfortunate signature of Groh teams.  UVA’s defense, while mostly stalwart, was not good enough to repeatedly win games 17-13.  The offense was 116th nationally in scoring going into the Virginia Tech game Saturday, which is inexcusable.  Although Groh had his fair share of very good quarterbacks during his tenure—Matt Schaub, Aaron Brooks—he would also not have a quality youngster waiting in the wings to learn and replace that talent. Throwing on first down is something most teams need to do to be successful and lately UVA rarely went deep.  Groh did develop some quality tight ends, most recently Tom Santi, but his wide receivers were always the weak link—and more than a couple offensive guys, pun intended, were kicked off the team throughout the years.

Second, I will remember Al Groh for turning the UVA fans into the hoi polloi of college football.  Mr. Groh took a relatively stable student fan base and dumbed down the attire, trying to whip them into a sort of Orange Crush frenzy. I like orange; the color was underutilized in UVA sportswear prior to Groh’s arrival. Those orange “VIRGINIA” shirts did not exist when I was in school. 

However, to de-emphasize the coat-and-tie and summer florals is to erode a little Southern football tradition that I actually found endearing as a Northerner. Somehow the formality of the student body was mistaken for a casual fan base by Groh.  A sweatshirt was more appropriate for Groh, but what is good for the goose is not always good for the gander.

When you watch Auburn, Alabama, Clemson, Ole Miss, and all the other “southern” schools you see the look in full effect, and those schools are proud of it, like they invented the style. It may seem sratty, and it is definitely de rigeur for the fraternities and sororities, but it encouraged a little gentrification which is not so bad.  Often times you asked a date to the game; the game was an event.  You were going to sweat anyway, so you might as well look good doing it.

Nevertheless it might be far easier to reinstitute some formality back into the dress code amonst the Charlottesville collegiate viewers than it is to reinstitute winning ways with the team. UVA is still stocked with plenty of ladies and gentlemen and a great love of history.  I feel strongly the navy blazers, ties and sun dresses will be back.  The question is:  will the wins?

Betting on Sports, the Legal Way

The stars aligned this year for me to finally get my first legal sports betting experience. My brother was in Las Vegas the weekend of my birthday, which happened to coincide with the first weekend of college football. Baseball was also in full swing and the lines for the first week of the NFL were released. As a gift, my brother spotted me $75 to play with and offered to be my on-call bookie—no easy task for him given the temptations of Vegas and his social appetite. He needed the rest of his cash for cover charges, cabbies and cocktails.

I had been wanting to legitimately test my sports prediction skill for many, many years. There is a mental rush in trying to channel Nostradamus and predict the future. I feel if there is something you invest in, why not try to make some money from it. I invest in sports knowledge for entertainment purposes. Some people watch E!; I watch ESPN. It is not all I watch and I am not the world’s biggest sports nut, but I follow lots of different things because I like to be able to talk sports with lots of different people.  I follow MLB, NFL, a little NBA, NHL and MLS.  I am a college sports fan and keep tabs on football, baseball, field hockey, ice hockey, men’s & women’s soccer, basketball and lacrosse. At times, I might even be confident enough to bet on those sports.

Thinking back, my first betting experiment was putting a dollar in to a high school friend of mine so I could pick a mixed college / NFL football ten game ticket for the chance to win a pot. I remember not doing well and quitting a few weeks later. I have always been a March Madness tournament participant and would place college bowl bets with my dad, usually a dollar per bowl. The first legitimate bet that whet my appetite was a proposition wager on the 2003 Super Bowl between the Oakland Raiders and the Tampa Bay Buccaneers. A coworker of mine found this website called Easybets.com and he put a bet in for me. I bet $10 that Tampa Bay would score at least two touchdowns. The Bucs were heavy underdogs, but the bet came through and I won $51. I will never forget that bet because I was so psyched to come in to collect the next day. As it turned out I needed the money more than I knew because I was laid off first thing that morning.

Out of work for a few months, I turned to internet sports betting to hopefully supplement my unemployment checks. The internet was a little wide open back then, so it was unclear what was legal online. Easybets was registered in England or Isle of Man or something like that, so I figured it was as legal as it got. I sent a $50 money order Western Union to somewhere overseas and went to it, betting mainly on NFL and college football. My wife approved the experiment, and I did not try to make a living off it—more to stave off boredom and feel just a tad bit better about myself and my situation as I looked for jobs at the public library and shoveled snow.

Over the next 18 months I bet off and on. When I was patient I did pretty well and my bankroll grew to a maximum of $274 dollars mainly on $10 and $15 bets. I actually cashed out $50 once along the way. I wanted to put some real money in play after a while and, in an attempt to beef up my roll, I started $25 and larger bets. Then from that peak I flamed out and lost everything in a series of three bets, the largest being a $125 bet on a college basketball game between, of all teams, Miami of Ohio and Cleveland State. Easy come, easy go. By 2005-ish, the laws were more clear on what you could and could not do legally as far as betting online, and I stopped.

My biggest coup was an office pool at my next job after getting laid off, where I won third place in a season-long contest of betting against the spread on every NFL game. My winning percentage was a hair over 56% I think. It does not sound impressive. Oddsmakers are good, really good, at their jobs. The gal who won it all had a win percentage of over 62% if I remember correctly. There was something gratifying about picking the games. I did rudimentary research on each game match-up, but nothing crazy. I paid for no information and had a lot of fun. More importantly, I know I spent a lot less time picking my games than anyone else I knew involved in fantasy football.

I have since read The Zen of Gambling by Wayne Allyn Root, which is mainly a fairly self-centered book on sports betting. I appreciate the contrarian viewpoint and self-confidence needed for success. I also like Bill Simmons’ views on sports in relation to the bet; in some way, almost everything can be cast in a ‘what are the odds’ scenario. When you bet, you have to trust yourself and there is definitely a lot of second guessing. I also found myself really beating myself up about my misses. After all, bets are for money and I play to win. It was hard to enjoy myself unless I came out ahead.

I doubt I could ever be a professional sports bettor, just as I could never be a professional poker player. Still, there is something mystical about a job where you study, make a prediction and then sit back and watch it play out, pun intended. Or better yet, you do not watch it play out and busy yourself with a worthwhile task, then come back to collect your money and go on your way until the next week.

Unlike the stock market or any other system, I feel sports has transparency. The only wild card is injuries, and maybe depending on the sport, weather. When you pick a stock, you assume and rely on information symmetry, basically that everyone has access to the same information or knows the same stuff, but most people doubt that. The amateurs cannot compete with brokers and pros on the Street. But there is a purity to sport that I find appealing. I may not make a living off sports betting, but I definitely enjoy it, and will look for opportunities to see what I really know, albeit in a legal forum.

Sports Referees, Umpires and Officials Unite!

Yossarian, you speak the truth again.  The protagonist from Joseph Heller’s Catch-22 pops up every so often, as his postulate is an inveterate part of my life. 

This weekend I was refereeing youth soccer.  Right off, you know I am either crazy, a masochist, or really bored—or a combination of the three.  I choose my involvement with the sport as a referee, which allows kids to play.  In our area of north Florida there are not many referees, and it hurts me to know kids who want to play the sport would be denied because of the lack refs.  Referees receive a stipend per game, but I think of it more like community service, and our fall season kicked off two weeks ago.

Yesterday I was an assistant referee, which means I was one of two sideline referees who help the lead referee officiate the match.  The assistant referee’s main jobs are to run along half of the touchline and judge when the ball leaves the field of play, judge offside and watch for fouls and general shenanigans that might be missed by the head referee.  Balls in and out and fouls are pretty basic.  Offside, however, is one of the most difficult concepts for players, coaches, and especially parents to grasp.  Even officials need education, experience and study to correctly judge the situation when it comes up.

Refereeing involves a great deal of judgment, subjectivity and nuance.  In essence, you must enforce the laws of the game while also encouraging the players to behave.  I have pretty thick skin, so occasional comments from parents or coaches usually do not bother me, especially things like “you missed that one” or “that was a handball, ref”!  These are opinions and everyone is entitled to his.  Most decent humans either keep them to themself or communicate them in a civil way.  Deep down, most participants are lobbying their case so that the next time, you see it their way.  It is a negotiation or light-hearted argument at times.  Most officials know this and are prepared to josh with participants.

I take a lot more comments than I respond to in order to maintain my professionalism and to ensure I do not appear combative by nature.  However, it is appropriate to respond in kind in certain instances, especially if it helps get the behavior you are looking for.  If you bark back at a parent and they quiet down, that can be a good thing.  What does bother me is when a coach or parent is ignorant about a particular aspect of the game, and attempts to belittle me, under the guise that they are right and I am wrong.  I also find it surprising when parents take offense if you respond to their own snide comments in kind, as if it is also my job to take any abuse they throw at me and like it.

Last weekend, I had an instance where a parent was misinformed about an offside situation.  Multiple times they felt I missed calls and this one parent kept saying “you have to be in position to make the call“.  I really enjoy that, when a parent who is not educated about the particular game law let alone a licensed referee, tells me I am in the wrong position.  All parents have a running commentary throughout the game on the sidelines about whether a certain call was accurate or not; they know the assistant referee can hear them and they want me to hear them.  It is their own passive-aggressive way, and I am very familiar with it.  But when someone tells me I not only (allegedly) missed a call, but am not even positioned correctly to make my judgment—that is ridiculous.

As a referee, I can either ignore it, make a comment to the parent, or complain to the center referee, who could ultimately have the parent removed from the field area.  I have never done this, as it is incredibly embarrassing to the offender unless the behavior is especially boorish.  This is a recreational game, right, with nothing at stake?

Still I am in a Catch-22.  I really want parents to understand the game better so they don’t look and sound silly, but can enjoy the game a little more enlightened.  I want people to go home, thinking ‘I learned something about soccer at my kid’s game that I did not know before’.  If I speak up and try to educate the parent without invitation, I look like a meddlesome show-off.  No one likes to be taught a lesson without asking.  But then I also am subjected to further negative comments the rest of the game.  But if I say nothing, I continue to be verbally abused, which only brings on more comments about my poor calls…which distracts me and makes me want to resolve the confusion.

The biggest problem is that the phrase “ignorance is bliss” is accurate.  People do not want to know what is correct or incorrect; they want to believe they are always right.  In fact, the other Catch-22, and maybe the bigger one is:  the more you try to explain something to someone unwilling to learn, the more they doubt it.  It is as if they are convinced you are lying to them with propaganda, and they argue.  This only makes them question and doubt the referee’s calls even more.  I call this the Poe Corollary:  “Can’t talk to a psycho like a normal human being”, from Poe’s song “Trigger Happy Jack”.

Refereeing is rewarding, but at times, thankless.  I think many parents do not realize the study and time involved in becoming a ref and to recertify, like I just threw on this shirt and walked off the street to officiate a game.  I have more years playing and refereeing then they have as parents, and frankly, they would become irate if someone gave them parenting advice.  But if they want to browbeat someone, let it be their own kid, as in the case of the parent I describe above.  With all the harping that poor kid took, he was the saddest kid on the field.

Whenever I had philosophical differences with my parents growing up, particularly in high school or college, they would respond:  “someday when you are a parent, you’ll understand”.  And they were right.  When I became a parent, some things unfathomable as an individual kid became clear as crystal as a parent.  As sports referees, umpires and officials, our ultimate ace-in-the-hole response is to encourage ignorant but enthusiastic parents to become one.  This is really the only wise response to the sports heckler:  until you are a referee, you just won’t understand.  But in the meantime, you will have to trust me and take my word for it.  Or just talk to the hand.

Banner Year for UVA Baseball

The University of Virginia’s men’s baseball team was eliminated from the College World Series in Omaha last night.  It was bittersweet because UVA was within one strike of moving on to face LSU again.  In addition, UVA had three baserunning blunders that cost them the win, and four other legitimate scoring opportunities in the ninth and beyond that would have won the game, but no clutch hitting. 

The bullpen, which was virtually a lock-down during the ACC tournament, Regional and Super Regionals was not as lucky in the CWS, giving up eight runs alone over three games in the eighth inning or later:  thee against LSU, which made a ninth inning comback virtually impossible, two runs against CS Fullerton which created some anxiety despite the win, and three against Arkansas—two in the ninth to send it to extra innings, and the mortal blow in the 12th frame.

All told, it was not a sour grapes loss because the team overachieved and sailed into unchartered territory with a school record in victories, advancing to the Super Regionals, and ultimately the CWS for the first time.  UVA was one of only three teams to win a Regional without being a number one seed; number one seeds were 13 for 16 in advancing to the Super Regionals.  Making it to the Super Regional was no small feat, considering UVA was forced to travel across the country despite winning the ultra-competitive ACC tournatment.  UVA’ss Regional was nicknamed the “Region of Death” because it contained the team with the best pitcher in the nation and number one draft pick, San Diego State, the previous top-ranked UC Irvine, and defending national champs, Fresno State.  UVA showed a lot of heart by winning two elimination games, one in the Super Regional against Ole Miss and one against the early CWS favorite, Cal State-Fullerton.  By eliminating Fullerton in the CWS, UVA placed itself among the top six teams in the nation in 2009.  And to file in the ‘there’s always next year’ category, the core of the team is underclassmen, including ACC Freshman of the Year, Danny Hultzen.  Very impressive.

As a side note, NCAA.com has really stepped up its image and fan interface for its championships.  There is a wealth of information on each game, easy to follow graphics, and depending on the sport you are tracking, video highlights.  This is huge because it is difficult to find information and recaps of collegiate sports outside football and basektball. Kudos to the NCAA from those of us who passionately follow college sports.

Congratulations, ‘Hoos, on a great 2009.  Enjoy your off-season and we hope to see you back again next year!

Wayward Golf Balls

Since I do not yet own an iPhone (although I think we all might someday), when I am stuck in traffic or otherwise tied up I run through a long list of unresolved questions in my life.  Some of these have short-term focus, like “what would I do if I got laid off next week”, and others are a little more trivial, such as “what should I do with my mounting collection of golf balls?”  I am open to suggestions on either.

I live alongside a public golf course, which is not as exclusive as it seems, and definitely not as exclusive as living on the beach; golf course communities are quite common in Florida.  I quickly tried to find the data on what percentage of state residents live on a golf course versus live on the beach, but to no avail.  We are a midway down a fairway, so we receive a lot of well-struck slices.  I am amazed at the frequency of errant shots.  I probably collect one or two golf balls a week on average, so they add up.  I am not a golfer, yet (maybe when tennis fells me), but even if I was I would have a hard time playing frequently enough to lose the number of balls my wife and I find.

I give the gently used ones to my dogs; cracking a ball casing is a good workout for them.  The new and virtually new ones I keep, I mean I have to.  Some duffers must be too lazy or embarassed to look for their poor shots because the balls are laying out in the open of my back yard, outside our fence where no one accidentally finds them.  Is that why golf is ‘the sport of the rich’? And who knows how many golfers go by and could snag a ball just by taking a quick look.  I know the few times I played I have; it is usually worth the effort.

As it goes with fads, many of the ones I find lately are marked with a golfer’s glyph, as if the hack is hitting into a sea of balls and will need to sort through a pile to find his again.  C’mon.  A fluourescent ball, maybe (but that’s not cool, right), because you may have a hard time finding a white orb in a sea of green (?!), but Sharpie braille?  Why not autograph it?  Is there a subtlety to a noticeable mark, but not too noticeable?  So some I have collected have marks.  Alas, there is no links almanac for me to match the mark with the golfer who sent it my way.  Maybe there should be.  Maybe golfers should have to trademark their sign like a brand if they are going to go through the trouble of marking their ball.  Somehow I need to use or catalog this information.

I have not given the golf ball collection much thought just yet.  There might be a craft I can create and sell on Etsy.  I believe my operation is not substantial enough to start a secondary market back to the golfers; I would need some major volume, and a way to clean the marks and occasional scuffs.  As an object, the golf ball is attractive:  small enough to collect, gleaming white out of the sleeve, and man can it fly.  This is a project-in-progress, much like the swings of most of the folk that need the extra width my yard provides in order to play through.

#1 Sports Let-Down

Let me channel Bill Simmons on this topic because I believe he would do a bang-up job.

On Saturday, the top-ranked University of Virginia’s men’s lacrosse team lost 15-6 to Cornell in the national semifinals. A nine goal difference in lacrosse is significant, but in this case, not indicative of how dominating Cornell performed in comparison to UVA.

For one competitor to defeat another, usually one of two things happens: both competitors play their best and the better team wins, or the winner exerts his will over the loser, playing superior while forcing the loser to play worse-than-expected. As a fanatic of many sports, I always hope for a true clash of titans, where both competitors play to their potentials. This is what makes any competition intriguing: two maximum strategy and execution efforts where the outcome is in doubt.

Unfortunately, two ideal performances rarely happen in the same match. In most sports, one competitor or team is able to take the opposition out of its game, at least partially, so there is one better performance and one sub-par performance.

To me, almost nothing is more disappointing in the sports fanatic’s realm than to get psyched up for a contest where one side just does not show up, especially if that team is the one you pull for. Referencing Bill Simmons’ famous “Levels of Losing” column, the UVA loss to Cornell was a Level IX:  The Full-Fledged Butt Kicking with hints of Level VIII:  The “This Can’t Be Happening” due to UVA’s ranking and the fact that they had defeated Cornell earlier in the season.

In this case right from the get-go, the individual or team simply does not execute on the same level that they had done consistently all season; they act uncharacteristically, make bad decisions and play without fundamentals. Often times this is described as a mental block, or even a lack of preparation for a specific opponent. However, it happens quite often, and to some very good teams across all sports.

It happened to UVA. Yes, Cornell came out and played well; you could even say they did take UVA out of its game a bit. However, UVA was so unresponsive from the beginning that it is too gratuitous to chalk it up 100% to Cornell disrupting UVA’s style of play. UVA never really showed up or performed as a team; they looked tired, made mistakes, lacked both creativity and their instincts.  In addition, their goalkeeper had a career-worst game, and no coaching maneuver pulled them out of their funk.

I am most puzzled how, particularly on the team level with a lot at stake (such as a championship), a collection of skilled athletes all play a poor game, and no one can rise above to lead the team out of the predicament.  Is this considered crowd behavior?  My only hypothesis is that this phenomenon is tied to mental toughness simply because I see it happen to collegiate athletes and in the Olympics more than the pros in MLB, NFL, NBA, etc. Yet to be accomplished in a sport, maintain a high ranking and make a playoff game, you have to have proven yourself mentally at some point. There must be some level of mental or competitive maturation related to sports psychology that occurs after collegiate student-athletes become elite professionals in their sport.

When I watch NCAA sports, I tend to view the athletes as only one notch below professional athletes in their skill levels.  I think this mainly because I am always amazed at how well athletes can show, even when confronted with intense public pressure to perform. Maybe this is an unreasonable expectation on my part. However, it is clear to me that somehow the mental part of sport plays a larger part in the outcome of collegiate athletics than professional sports. As a fan, I enjoy seeing a tough competition where both competitors are mental equals in their sport. Unfortunately, it is a little more difficult to tell when two teams are equal in accomplishment on the field and in their noggins.  To me, that is the ultimate in competition—and one reason I would recommend not betting on collegiate sports.  But that is another subject for another time.