Here are the links to two Cincinnati Reds Opening Day videos I produced for Reds.com.
The first video covered the Opening Day Parade.
http://mlb.mlb.com/media/video.jsp?mid=200904064020507
The second video was a glance at the pregame festivities that took place on the field.
http://mlb.mlb.com/media/video.jsp?mid=200904064023163
Comments are welcome!
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Friday, April 3, 2009
You don't need to live in the same state as your favorite teams!
While watching the Siena vs. Ohio State NCAA tournament game March 20 at happy hour in Mt. Adams Pavilion, I came across a sports topic that absolutely needs to be addressed.
As the Buckeyes mounted a small lead over the Saints in the second half, there was a woman standing near me talking smack about OSU winning. I, as usual, had to talk back, defending Sienna as if they were my favorite team.
(I will be the first to admit I’m an anti-Ohio State fan. I root for any team the Buckeyes play, regardless of the sport.)
When I opposed said-women, she started yelling at me is if I was crazy for not loving Ohio State.
“What state are you in?” she repeatedly screamed toward me.
I, having been through this argument several hundred times previously, immediately lied to her and said “I’m from Kentucky,” just to see how’d she react. (I reside in Ohio.)
“Go back to where you came from,” she angrily responded.
Essentially, the gist of her argument was all Ohioans should root and cheer for Ohio State.
This is one of the dumbest things I’ve ever heard.
If I wanted to take this ridiculous argument to another level, I could’ve asked her “What city are you in?” to imply she’s stupid for cheering for a college basketball team other than Xavier or UC
.
The geographical argument needs to stop!
People, we are not bound by maps when deciding which sports teams we pledge our allegiance to.
There is nothing wrong rooting for hometown teams. It’s the norm and it makes sense because the hometown squad is the most accessible and easiest to follow, but that doesn’t mean it should be a requirement.
If I’m supposed to like Ohio State because I live in Ohio, doesn’t this also mean I’m also supposed to like the Cleveland Browns and Indians? Do I have to cheer for the Toledo Rockets and Akron Zips? Absolutely not.
Yes, I root for hometown teams – such as UC (I’m a Bearcat alum), the Reds and Bengals.
But, I also like University of Miami (Fla.) football, the Phoenix Suns of the NBA and the Detroit Red Wings of the NHL – none of these teams have anything to do with proximity.
Geography should not be the end-all factor when selecting your favorite sports teams.
If you only root for hometown teams, that’s your choice. Just don’t judge those who think outside the box.
As the Buckeyes mounted a small lead over the Saints in the second half, there was a woman standing near me talking smack about OSU winning. I, as usual, had to talk back, defending Sienna as if they were my favorite team.
(I will be the first to admit I’m an anti-Ohio State fan. I root for any team the Buckeyes play, regardless of the sport.)
When I opposed said-women, she started yelling at me is if I was crazy for not loving Ohio State.
“What state are you in?” she repeatedly screamed toward me.
I, having been through this argument several hundred times previously, immediately lied to her and said “I’m from Kentucky,” just to see how’d she react. (I reside in Ohio.)
“Go back to where you came from,” she angrily responded.
Essentially, the gist of her argument was all Ohioans should root and cheer for Ohio State.
This is one of the dumbest things I’ve ever heard.
If I wanted to take this ridiculous argument to another level, I could’ve asked her “What city are you in?” to imply she’s stupid for cheering for a college basketball team other than Xavier or UC
.
The geographical argument needs to stop!
People, we are not bound by maps when deciding which sports teams we pledge our allegiance to.
There is nothing wrong rooting for hometown teams. It’s the norm and it makes sense because the hometown squad is the most accessible and easiest to follow, but that doesn’t mean it should be a requirement.
If I’m supposed to like Ohio State because I live in Ohio, doesn’t this also mean I’m also supposed to like the Cleveland Browns and Indians? Do I have to cheer for the Toledo Rockets and Akron Zips? Absolutely not.
Yes, I root for hometown teams – such as UC (I’m a Bearcat alum), the Reds and Bengals.
But, I also like University of Miami (Fla.) football, the Phoenix Suns of the NBA and the Detroit Red Wings of the NHL – none of these teams have anything to do with proximity.
Geography should not be the end-all factor when selecting your favorite sports teams.
If you only root for hometown teams, that’s your choice. Just don’t judge those who think outside the box.
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
New Pete Rose argument?
So I was at a local sports bar with a couple of friends last night and Barry Bonds appeared on one of the big screens. We couldn't hear the audio from the television, so we had no idea what was being said.
But what ensued, was a conversation about how terrible it is for baseball to recognize Bonds as the all-time home run king. This led to an argument about which is worse: taking steroids (or performance enhancing drugs if you want to be up-tight about it) or gambling on the game, Ala Pete Rose?
Clearly, Major League Baseball feels gambling on baseball games is much worse than taking steroids. Rose's ban is still in effect, almost 20 years later. "Shoeless" Joe Jackson of the Chicago "Black Sox" scandal in 1919 is still banned from the Hall of Fame, as well. All this, while any MLB team is welcome to sign Bonds at their convenience (although this is highly unlikely given his age and the media circus that would follow).
While we were all debating this, I made an argument that none of my friends had heard before; which surprised me because I thought I was just repeating some old jargon.
I noted that the only evidence found of Rose's baseball gambling occurred while he was a manager. There was no evidence that showed he gambled while playing.
So the question I had for my friends was: Why can't he get elected into the Hall of Fame as a player?
Think about this. He wasn't going into the Hall as a manager. He was only caught gambling as a manager and never as a player.
I think the best solution to this whole debate would be to let him in the Hall of Fame as a player, but keep his lifetime ban intact. It's the only way MLB can rid themselves of their hypocrisy.
If MLB can invite Rose to the 1999 All-Star game in Boston for the All-Century Team and make money off him, then they can also give Rose his due as a player and let him in the Hall of Fame. You can't have one or the other. It's either none or both.
And speaking of none or both, this should also apply to gambling and steroids. MLB shouldn't allow admitted steroid users to continue to play if their going to give lifetime bans to men who gambled.
Steroid usage is not less of a crime than gambling, it's equal and should be treated as such.
But what ensued, was a conversation about how terrible it is for baseball to recognize Bonds as the all-time home run king. This led to an argument about which is worse: taking steroids (or performance enhancing drugs if you want to be up-tight about it) or gambling on the game, Ala Pete Rose?
Clearly, Major League Baseball feels gambling on baseball games is much worse than taking steroids. Rose's ban is still in effect, almost 20 years later. "Shoeless" Joe Jackson of the Chicago "Black Sox" scandal in 1919 is still banned from the Hall of Fame, as well. All this, while any MLB team is welcome to sign Bonds at their convenience (although this is highly unlikely given his age and the media circus that would follow).
While we were all debating this, I made an argument that none of my friends had heard before; which surprised me because I thought I was just repeating some old jargon.
I noted that the only evidence found of Rose's baseball gambling occurred while he was a manager. There was no evidence that showed he gambled while playing.
So the question I had for my friends was: Why can't he get elected into the Hall of Fame as a player?
Think about this. He wasn't going into the Hall as a manager. He was only caught gambling as a manager and never as a player.
I think the best solution to this whole debate would be to let him in the Hall of Fame as a player, but keep his lifetime ban intact. It's the only way MLB can rid themselves of their hypocrisy.
If MLB can invite Rose to the 1999 All-Star game in Boston for the All-Century Team and make money off him, then they can also give Rose his due as a player and let him in the Hall of Fame. You can't have one or the other. It's either none or both.
And speaking of none or both, this should also apply to gambling and steroids. MLB shouldn't allow admitted steroid users to continue to play if their going to give lifetime bans to men who gambled.
Steroid usage is not less of a crime than gambling, it's equal and should be treated as such.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
