Wednesday, June 20, 2007
Yes, it is now time for the not-at-all anticipated follow-up to the mascot rant. Because it's a poor blogger indeed who complains about something without offering an alternative.
The Mascot Rant, if you've forgotten ('tho how could you, because it's just two posts down... I was so bummed about the Michigan loss that I had to take a little break to sulk and kick beavers).
Now, I'm not saying that these mascots are The Answer. They are simply alternatives to the current designs. They may not be any good, but they are, in my wildly biased opinion, better in concept than the ones in use now. Let's be honest: it would be hard to be WORSE than this terrifying and confusing beast, or this ferocious abuse of fake fur.
First up, the Astros!
Again, to refresh your memory, here's the current mascot, Junction Jack, feeling up his front-butt.
Why a rabbit? Why a rabbit wearing a train conductor's uniform? Why all of this ESPECIALLY for a team named the ASTROS, a team whose name has roots in the local space program? WHY NOT A MASCOT THAT MAKES SENSE??
Do you see how RIDICULOUSLY EASY it would be to have a dude in an Astros-colored astronaut suit running around out there? Or even how easy an aggressively goofy rocketship in Astros colors would be? Both of these would make SO much more sense than a sleepy-eyed rabbit manbeast that it's not even funny, except in that "ha ha oh god nervous laughter" kind of way.
For the record, I am a big fan of things that shouldn't have arms or legs having arms and/or legs sticking awkwardly out of their bodies but clad in similar-colored spandex so that everyone knows they should be assuming they're a part of the costume. Donuts... coffee cups... hot dogs... space shuttles.
the Devil Rays
If you recall, the current mascot is Raymond, seen here making terrifying eye contact with the cameraperson.
The more I think about Raymond the more OK I am with him as a mascot. He just misbehaves too well, by which I mean that he torments the other team during BP, he goes out of his way to interact with fans, he runs over tiny stuffed versions of rival mascots in toy cars, etc. That's what you want in a mascot, and I give Raymond credit for doing his best.
HOWEVER. This does not satisfy me, because when I see a team name that IS AN ANIMAL, I want to SEE THAT ANIMAL AS A MASCOT. There is no giant plush devil ray, and this strikes me as a deep wrongness. So.
You can see how a person would wear this. The 'wings' would be stiff foam, I guess, or whatever it is that makes Lefty and Righty's protruding sock appendages possible. The tail would be stiff and would stick out the back, while the mascot-suit-wearers limbs would be all black spandexed up and would have pretty good freedom of movement.
Yes, it would be bad news going through doorways, but since when are mascots supposed to be practical? At least they don't have to deal with oversized clown shoes and giant unwieldy paw-hands. And the eyes (which Devil Rays do not have, but a mascot would need, so the children know where to poke it) could be googly eyes, so when he danced around they would jiggle all over the place and it would be a hilarious floppy chondricthian.
the Indians
Current mascot, again, is the abominable pink furman known as Slider.
Slider exists because nobody wants to see the mascot that would be based on the actual logo. Can you even imagine? A giant dancing bright red figure with a hooked nose, huge grin, and a feather sticking out of its headband... ugh, I can barely even type that. Which is maybe a sign that you need to CHANGE YOUR LOGO, CLEVELAND.
Personally, I think that Cleveland's best bet is to go back to the days of baseball in Cleveland BEFORE there were the Indians, which means going back to the Cleveland Spiders.
Pros:
-getting rid of Chief Wahoo
-embracing history
-spiders are cool, different (when it comes to mascots), and scarier than, say, orioles
-TONS of new merchanidising opportunities!
-no longer having to be embarrassed to market your team logo
-positive press for getting rid of a longstanding racist image
-losers are cool (look at the Sox pre-04, and the Cubs now)... the Spiders are the holders of the worst record in baseball history
-ability to get rid of the pointless and alarming Slider
Cons:
-having to revamp an entire team brand
-having to do the work to get new logos/mascot designs/uniforms/etc. made and approved
-idiots who claim that history is important to preserve even when it's wildly offensive
-necessity of having the chutzpah to make the change
I don't really see an argument.
I'm not sure if you can see the outline there, but the suit fits so that two of the spider legs are the person's real legs (in red spandex) and two of them are the person's real arms, similarly attired. I did try to make him as goofy and nonthreatening as I could, since some people are irrationally afraid of spiders, but my mother still claims that the 8 eyes are not cool. I think a giant fuzzy blue and red spider dancing up to you with 8 possibly googly eyes staring in 8 different directions would be AWESOME, but maybe that's just me.
the Diamondbacks
For reference, the current mascot, Baxter the bobcat, in his old uni.
Aside from the problems relating to the fact that Baxter looks like a furry, this is another team with an animal name that DOES NOT USE THAT ANIMAL AS THEIR MASCOT. Why. Whyyyyyyy. Is it because they thought a snake would touch off some people's snake phobias? Because let me tell you guys, they have snakes already in their logos. See? Snake. And check it out, this is their sleeve patch: more snakes (I actually REALLY like this logo, it's a glorious success of graphic design and I could write a whole separate article about how good I think it is. But that's for another time).
So the snake phobic ship sailed a long time ago, Arizona, and anyways, what about the people who have serious phobias of fursuiters? They're going to be just as perturbed by Baxter as they would be by a snake mascot. YOU ARE THE DIAMONDBACKS. THAT IS A SNAKE. EMBRACE IT.
This is the same mascot, just from the front and the back. He's friendly! He's goofy enough to count as a mascot and not terrify children! He doesn't look like a sexual fetish! HE'S ACTUALLY A SNAKE!
I think children would love this. Two of my favorite stuffed animals from my childhood were snakes: one was a snake made out of ties that I think my grandmother sewed for me, and one was a big fuzzy cobra that is in fact still sitting up on top of my dresser, along with a giant cheetah pillow I made myself, and a sock monkey. Snakes are awesome. Bobcats are SO overused as a mascot... how many college teams are the bobcats? They're probably only overrun by the wildcats, which are even more ubiquitous. You have a good mascot potentially right there in your lap, Arizona.
I'm still trying to decide which would be better for Seattle: a giant compass, or a seafaring dude in the style of Bernie Brewer. And I'm thinking about the White Sox. Suggestions welcome.Labels: baseball, drawn, mascot, MLB, rant
3:19 PM
Sunday, June 10, 2007
It is time for me to go on a rant about one of my favorite/least favorite subjects: MASCOTS.
Or rather, THE APPROPRIATENESS OF VARIOUS MASCOTS IN RELATION TO THE TEAMS THEY REPRESENT.
Some things irrationally infuriate me. One of these things is a bad concept mascot. This is not to say that I don't appreciate a random mascot... I'm a huge fan of surrealism, y'know, and a completely wacked-out and random mascot can be a huge success. But some mascots are just A DEEP WRONGNESS. I don't ask for a lot. Usually I just want LOGIC to dictate the form of the thing, with something clever in the name of the mascot. You'd think that wouldn't be so hard to find, but you would be dead wrong.
So I have here compiled a list of Major League Baseball teams, the mascot I think they SHOULD have, the mascot they DO have, and why this actual mascot is, in my opinion, good or bad. It's been too long since I went on a pointless, inane rant around these parts. BCRS shall be rantless no longer.
The Mascots of Major League Baseball
Baltimore Orioles
Mascot they should have: An oriole.
Mascot they do have: The Bird.
How'd they do? Good job, Baltimore. Boring name, but it's an oriole. Bonus karma points for having a realistic design on the hats, and even MORE bonus karma points for having the mascot design refer back to the old, thankfully abandoned cartoony logo design.
Boston Red Sox
Mascot they should have: Red socks.
Mascot they do have: Wally the Green Monster.
How'd they do? As it turns out, the Red Sox DO actually have a pair of red socks mascots... I've seen 'em in the ballpark before. Wally's the main mascot, however, probably because those red sock things are completely terrifying. When I step back and try to look at Wally objectively, I guess he's OK. The Green Monster (the wall) is a very distinctive and well-known feature of Fenway... he's a 'green monster'... his name is 'wally'... ehhh. Let us not forget that when he was first introduced at Fenway, though, he was booed loudly and thoroughly. It's only through the efforts of Jerry Remy that he's become almost universally beloved in Boston.
New York Yankees
Mascot they should have: Satan. Alternatively, a giant dollar bill. I'm being mean. Really they should have a giant baseball thing along the lines of Mr. Met, because they consider themselves to BE baseball.
Mascot they do have: none.
How'd they do? The Yankees are too good to have a mascot, didntcha know? I can't fail them because there's nothing to fail.
Tampa Bay Devil Rays
Mascot they should have: A devil ray. I'd settle for a zoologically incorrect but thematically similar manta ray.
Mascot they do have: Raymond.
How'd they do? What is Raymond? His biography describes him as related to a dog, and I think we are supposed to assume that he's the product of an unholy mating between some sea mammal (dolphin, manatee, whale, walrus, dugong, take your pick) and a strong-swimming golden retriever, despite the fact that he looks like a giant fuzzy blue imagining of a sugar-high six-year-old.
I know what he's NOT, and that's a goddamn manta ray.
Bonus points for giving the mascot a blog, bonus points taken away for having it updated so infrequently.
I was going to fail Raymond, but then I thought about it more closely. He's got personality, backstory, and he definitely misbehaves... he hates Wally and always torments stuffed versions of him at Sox games. It's possible that, in time, he will reach the status of the Phanatic for sheer random beloved mascotness and I'm just being unfair because Raymond hasn't been around that long. However, the Phanatic comes from a team with no obvious mascot possibilities. Raymond comes from a team with a built-in mascot. I thus label him a
potential FAIL.
Toronto Blue Jays
Mascot they should have: A blue jay.
Mascot they do have: Ace.
How'd they do? Pretty good. It's a blue jay. The head design is a little aggressively cartoonish for my tastes (he looks like a freaking Hanna Barbera creation), but such is the mascot business. I assume he's "Ace" because he's a good pitcher or something. I don't know what this has to do with birds, but it has to do with baseball, so I guess I'll let it pass for now. Bonus points for using the actual scientific name of the blue jay in his profile.
Chicago White Sox
Mascot they should have: A pair of white socks.
Mascot they do have: Southpaw.
How'd they do? O HAI GUYZ LOOK ITS RAYMOND ONLY GREEN. Unlike Raymond, who at least has a backstory, absurd and moronic though it may be, Southpaw has no explanation available. What does he have to do with the White Sox? Nothing, so far as I can tell. What does he have to do with Chicago? Nothing. He's a lefty, presumably, and that's all we know.
FAIL.
Cleveland Indians
Mascot they should have: Um. Let's put it this way. Chief Wahoo should not be their logo, so despite the fact that he IS, I'm not gonna say that he should be their mascot. I think it could be cool for them to have a spider as their mascot, you know, recalling the Cleveland Spiders of old. Or something generically baseball.
Mascot they do have: Slider.
How'd they do? It's pink. It's hairy. What is it? Nobody knows. Beyond the pink and the hairiness there is a vacant, soulless creature. It only exists because the actual logo/mascot is a racist holdover of a bygone era and nobody in the Cleveland marketing department was clever enough to come up with something actually relevant to the team or city.
FAIL.
Detroit Tigers
Mascot they should have: A tiger.
Mascot they do have: Paws.
How'd they do? Good. DO YOU GUYS SEE HOW EASY IT IS WHEN YOUR TEAM NAME IS AN ANIMAL AND YOUR MASCOT ACTUALLY IS THAT ANIMAL?? Why do so many teams have trouble with this simple, simple concept? We may never know. Anyways. Paws recently underwent a redesign, which is good, because his old incarnation was actually an incredibly deformed and disturbing-looking version of a tiger. He's still not great (how can you screw up a TIGER costume? only in Detroit), but he's getting there.
Kansas City Royals
Mascot they should have: A king? Now I'm getting mental images of the Burger King guy leading the wave at Kauffman Stadium and it's just a bad scene.
Mascot they do have: Sluggerrr.
How'd they do? A lion is a clever take on "royals", I'll give them that. And "Sluggerrr", while cutesy, also works. MAJOR point loss for the fact that he's a MUTANT LION WITH A CROWN GROWING OUT OF THE FLESH OF HIS HEAD. I get that the crown over the scoreboard is a major feature of the ballpark, but I think a regular old gold-colored lion, sans crown, would have done just fine. Or even a lion WEARING a crown. The idea that his skull is deformed out into a crown form is just disturbing.
Minnesota Twins
Mascot they should have: Twins, maybe. I dunno. Freakish siamese twin baseballs. That would be insane and amazing.
Mascot they do have: TC Bear. All of poor TC's photos seem to be red-x-ing... are they phasing him out of existence? Here he is.
How'd they do? Not bad. I think the bear thing refers to a number of Minnesota landmarks which are named after bears, right? They should have two, though. Identical twin bears.
Los Angeles Anaheim California Western US Region Angels
Mascot they should have: The name is religious, but the mascot shouldn't be. So they shouldn't have an angel. 'Tho I must say that a giant 3D dancing version of their logo- an A with a halo 'round its top- would be hilarious.
Mascot they do have: Rally Monkey.
How'd they do? Good. It's got nothing to do with the name or the city, but the Rally Monkey is a freakish, idiosyncratic LAAWhatever Angels phenomenon. It's random, and they've embraced it. Perfect mascot material. Bonus points for having a real monkey, or at least video of a real monkey, instead of a guy in a cartoon suit.
Oakland Athletics
Mascot they should have: I got nothin', beyond some generic big muscular guy. Someone who knows something about the Oakland area could maybe suggest a mascot, but I know very very little about Oakland (except for the fact that apparently it's terrible and the team needs to flee it).
Mascot they do have: Stomper.
How'd they do? Good. It has nothing to do with Oakland or athleticism, but the elephant nickname is a part of the team's history, and as such makes for a unique yet topical mascot. Top work, Oakland.
Seattle Mariners
Mascot they should have: A mariner. Anything nautical. A ship. A giant freaking anchor. A compass, like their logo. Anything along those lines.
Mascot they do have: The Mariner Moose.
How'd they do? They try to claim that the moose has tenuous ties to the "forests of the great Northwest". Yeah, OK, how many forests are there in Seattle? If they were the Washington Mariners, maybe. As they are, nope. Sorry. Doesn't work. They FREELY ADMIT that the damn moose was chosen as a mascot because a 14 year old girl thought that moose "are funny, neat and friendly. The Moose would show that the Mariners enjoy playing and that they still have a few tricks up their sleeves. It shows they're having fun no matter what the situation." You know what else is funny, neat, and friendly? My dad. Why isn't he your mascot? He has exactly the same amount of claim on the position as the moose does, because guess what the moose actually has to do with the team? NOTHING.
FAIL.
Texas Rangers
Mascot they should have: A ranger. Cowboy hat, boots, spurs, fake guns, badge, the whole hokey shebang. It is the Mascot Way.
Mascot they do have: Rangers Captain.
How'd they do? OK. I guess this is the horse the ranger rides in on? Boring, but serviceable. Loss of points for the most boring mascot bio in existence, and the resemblance to an oversized plush chess piece.
Atlanta Braves
Mascot they should have: Er, this is another thorny one. A dancing Native American is not the route to go here. A giant anthropomorphic tomahawk isn't much better, but it seems to be what the Braves have set themselves up for.
Mascot they do have: Homer. Homer doesn't seem to have a page, but you can see him in the photo accompanying the article here.
How'd they do? Mr. Met is a Braves fan? Or is it the Cincy Red dude? Either way, it's a blatant knockoff inspired by the fact that, like the Indians, the Braves' old mascot was too racist to be allowed to exist. Sorry, guys, no sympathy here. Update your shit and get with the times.
FAIL.
Florida Marlins
Mascot they should have: A marlin.
Mascot they do have: Billy the Marlin.
How'd they do? Good! Florida Marlins... Billy the Marlin... good lord it's LOGICAL! Small loss of points for having two flipper-like feet instead of an actual tail. You could totally have a guy in a suit where his feet go in the ends of a huge one-piece tail. I could design it. It would be a little awkward, but it could definitely be done. Heck, even keep the legs separate and just have the tail in a kind of skirt down to the ground... you gotta problem-solve, guys!
New York Mets
Mascot they should have: Since Mets is short for Metropolitans, I would love to see a big plush walking city skyline. You may not be able to picture that but I could design that suit in a second. A giant apple would work too. Big apple and all that, and they do have that apple that comes up in Shea when someone hits a homer.
Mascot they do have: Mr. Met.
How'd they do? He's an institution. And it's kind of hard to argue with a baseball as a mascot for a baseball team. I do wish they'd done something a little more specific to the team and city... put him in a different uniform, and Mr. Met could represent any team in the league. But he doesn't fail because he is, as I said, at least a long-standing Met.
Philadelphia Phillies
Mascot they should have: Tough, tough. A giant plush liberty bell.
Mascot they do have: The Phillie Phanatic.
How'd they do? What does the Phillie Phanatic have to do with anything? Nothing. I can find no reasonable explanation for his design, and I think this is probably because none exists. The name makes sense, at least... it's a reference to insane Philly fans. But the creature himself? No reasoning can explain it.
And yet. Unlike Raymond, who comes from a team with a built-in mascot possibility, there is no ready answer for the Phillies.
The Phanatic is beloved BECAUSE it is so random. It eats people's heads! It misbehaves gleefully! It has an enormous tongue! It is AN ABOMINATION AGAINST NATURE, and this last is perhaps exactly why it fits. Philadelphia fans are ALSO an abomination against nature. It begins to make sense.
The Phillie Phanatic also manages to get Tommy Lasorda's manties into a twist, so whatever inclination I had to fail it is immediately nullified based on that alone. That is solid win.
Washington Nationals
Mascot they should have: Lots of choices here. The capitol building! Abraham Lincoln! Anything patriotic!
Mascot they do have: Screech.
How'd they do? OK. It's a bald eagle. Totally works. I actually especially like the feet, or at least the fact that he HAS talons and not some comically oversized sneakers. The only problem I have with him is that he seems to be less of a bald eagle and more a... well, an eaglet. He looks like a baby eagle. Why couldn't they have had an adult eagle? You know?
Chicago Cubs
Mascot they should have: A baby bear.
Mascot they do have: none.
How'd they do? I couldn't quite believe it. I guess I just hadn't thought about it before, but despite the fact that several of their logos have bears in them, and despite the fact that they have a ready-made easy mascot in their name, the Cubs... do not have a mascot. Huh. Wow.
I guess this is a "we're so old-school we don't need one" kind of thing, and is the same reason why the Yankees don't have one, and why it took so long for the Red Sox to get one.
Cincinnati Reds
Mascot they should have: Reds is short for redlegs, IIRC, so... more red socks, I guess.
Mascot they do have: Mr. Red and Gapper.
How'd they do? Mr. Red is a classic, especially his incarnation with the mustache. Gapper is a pointless, inexplicable and superfluous hanger-on. Why would they team a vague fuzzy anthropormorphic nightmare up with their classic guy? Only the twisted minds in Cincy can tell.
1/2 FAIL.
Houston Astros
Mascot they should have: A rocketship! A star. Something related to NASA or astronomy.
Mascot they do have: Junction Jack. His photo there is red-x-ing, so here he is.
How'd they do? IT'S A DEFORMED RABBIT IN A TRAIN CONDUCTOR'S OUTFIT
IT'S A DEFORMED RABBIT IN A TRAIN CONDUCTOR'S OUTFIT
IT'S A DEFORMED RABBIT IN A TRAIN CONDUCTOR'S OUTFIT
FAIL.
Milwaukee Brewers
Mascot they should have: A brewer. Or a giant beer bottle.
Mascot they do have: Bernie Brewer.
How'd they do? Awesome. I think Bernie Brewer is the only mascot in baseball to be based on an actual guy. The suited-up mascot is a little terrifying; what's up with those INSANE eyes? But the concept is too cool.
Pittsburgh Pirates
Mascot they should have: A pirate. A ship. A cannon. A parrot. Anything piratey.
Mascot they do have: Pirate Parrot and Captain Jolly Roger.
How'd they do? Good. Both mascots are piratey to the max. The parrot is the classic... I'm not sure why they felt like they needed another mascot to go along with him, but I guess when you're the Pirates and you draw 3,000 fans per night or something, you need all the mascots you can get.
The guy behind the parrot in the mid 80's used to smuggle cocaine to the players. The rumor is that he did this by hiding it in the beak of the parrot suit. Now THAT'S mascot history.
St. Louis Cardinals
Mascot they should have: A cardinal.
Mascot they do have: Fredbird.
How'd they do? OK. Bird teams are 3-for-3 when it comes to actually using their name as their mascot. There's one thing about Fredbird (I assume a cutesy take on "red bird") that worries me, though. Why are the feathers hanging from his arms/wings yellow and blue? Not nearly enough to fail him, but I do wonder.
Arizona Diamondbacks
Mascot they should have: A diamondback snake.
Mascot they do have: Baxter.
How'd they do? Why. Is it. A bobcat? YOUR TEAM NAME IS A SNAKE. YOUR TEAM LOGO IS A SNAKE. IN FACT YOU HAVE SEVERAL DIFFERENT SNAKE OR SNAKESKIN-RELATED LOGOS. HOW DO YOU GO FROM ALL THAT TO A BOBCAT??? This is exactly what I mean when I say that you'd think it would be easy for a team with an animal name to have a mascot, but it apparently is not. A bobcat?? WTF? Not only that, but Baxter in "person" is incredibly disappointing. He doesn't even have a bob-tail sticking out the back.
He also looks a lot more like a furry than most MLB mascots.
FAIL.
Colorado Rockies
Mascot they should have: A mountain crag! Or a giant boulder. A boulder with eyes, you can't tell me that wouldn't be amazing.
Mascot they do have: Dinger.
How'd they do? Uhhhhh.... OK? It's a triceratops? Colorado is indeed known for having several important paleontological sites, with dinosaur fossil deposits, so. I guess it works, although the whole 'purple dinosaur' thing is dangerously Barney-esque. Loss of points for the completely ridiculous name of "Dinger".
Los Angeles Dodgers
Mascot they should have: A trolley car.
Mascot they do have: none.
How'd they do? Another grandfathered-in mascotless team.
San Diego Padres
Mascot they should have: The name suggests a padre, which I think is a priest of some sort. I'm still uncomfortable with religious figures in baseball though.
Mascot they do have: The Swinging Friar.
How'd they do? Fine. Uninspired, but it fits, and the friar's been around for a while. It's just awfully hard to beat out the Chicken...
San Francisco Giants
Mascot they should have: A giant.
Mascot they do have: Lou Seal.
How'd they do? Good. This is a blatant slap in the face of the team name, but I assume it's a reference to the fact that the ballpark is on the water, and... well, I assume there are seals in there. It's a little bit of a stretch, but it makes more sense than the Mariner Moose, and makes a whole heckuva lot more sense than, say, Slider. Can't fail it.
So there you have it. Out of 30 MLB teams, you have 6 outright FAILs, one half FAIL, and one potential FAIL... and that isn't even getting into the design issues many of these mascots have. If we went into that, we would have many, many more FAILs and partial FAILs. The moral of the story is that marketing departments are filled with idiots.Labels: baseball, mascot, MLB, rant
12:37 AM
Monday, December 25, 2006
ran
This is truly disgusting.
The fact that, at the end of the game, I was sitting there saying things like, "But we COULD HAVE WON if only it had been Roy of the Williamses in that corner of the endzone, instead of Mike of the Williamses and his useless, useless hands," is a reflection on my own personal level of derangement, not on any actual skill on the part of the team. This is a terrible football team. A TERRIBLE FOOTBALL TEAM. This is not a point that can be emphasized enough. A bunch of dudes (even the word 'team' is giving them too much credit) who are INCREDIBLY TERRIBLE at playing the game of football.
Jon Kitna is a miserable human being. He perpetually looks like someone held his head to a giant grindstone, shearing all the flesh off of it, and it's only just finished growing back in a cruel, agonizing parody of humanity. He looks even more like this after he's had his face planted in the turf by the opposing team for the 8 THOUSANDTH TIME IN A GAME. Seriously, how horribly familiar are we all with the image of some fat blob of an opponent lumbering forward unchecked, grabbing Kitna around the ankles, causing him to pitch forward comically as though a giant zip-tie has just cinched his lower legs together? And then BAM, facemask filled with bits of grass and discarded dignity.
EVEN SO, things might be different if the Lions receivers were capable of catching any pass other than a perfect spiral delivered softly and directly into the palms of their waiting hands. THEY ARE NOT. And sometimes they even miss those! Do they ever sit in the lockerroom and wonder how other teams do it? How other groups of receivers manage to catch less-than-110%-perfectly-thrown footballs on a semi-regular basis? Does this not INTRIGUE them? Because I can't shake the feeling that they just shrug their shoulders and assume that the rest of the league is filled with strange, magical creatures that they, as mere mortals, cannot be expected to emulate. IT ISN'T TRUE, RECEIVERS. YOU TOO CAN BE PRECIOUS LITTLE PEGASUSES.
Why did I even watch this? Why do I continue to watch this trainwreck of a pisspoor excuse for a football team???
It's like an abusive relationship, and the Lions are the hideous, abusive boyfriend who beats you (the fan) up every Sunday without fail. But he doesn't even whisper misleading sweet nothings in your ear the rest of the week to make up for it and keep you chained to him by the cruel rope of undeserved love! No! You are so far gone that the cajoling words of love are ONLY IN YOUR OWN HEAD, and the abusive guy calls you a nasty slut and goes out to a strip club with his friends instead of returning your calls and you STILL STICK WITH HIM, why? Why???? IT'S NOT LOVE. You don't know! He never treats you right and he sleeps with other girls (and probably other guys too, we know about your sick "friendship" with Brett Favre, Lions!) and hits you about the face betweentimes, but you CAN'T TEAR YOURSELF AWAY, because THAT'S HOW IT IS IN AN ABUSIVE RELATIONSHIP and THAT'S WHAT IT'S LIKE TO BE A LIONS FAN RIGHT NOW.
What about the offensive line? WHAT OFFENSIVE LINE? Rick DeMulling makes me VOMIT UP MY SPLEEN. I need that spleen, DeMulling! Why do you do this? WHY??
Clint Stickdorn? WHAT THE HELL IS A CLINT STICKDORN????? Is this a real football player who is really on our real roster or is he A FIGMENT OF MY FEVERED, ABUSED IMAGINATION?
Why aren't we playing Dan Orlovsky???? Jon Kitna has nothing to offer us. We would need a quarterback who cries Grey Goose vodka tears and pisses liquified gold to make the kittenish paws of our receiving core receptive to the football; we need a quarterback who is half man, half MANTICORE; that isn't Jon Kitna. It isn't Orlovsky either but who cares?? WE HAVE NOTHING TO LOSE EXCEPT FOR OUR DIGNITY. OH WAIT.
At this point in the season people in other cities talk about running games, and I stare at them like they're claiming a goddamn Tyrannosaurus rex is running around their backyard eating complacent suburban squirrels. In Detroit this mystical creature is long since extinct. The University of Michigan is heading some really groundbreaking archaeological expeditions to exhume the fossilized bones of the running game. They've found petrified mud with cleat tracks in the banks of the Detroit River. There are rumors that such a creature once roamed the earth and breathed the air, but right now it's just academic speculation. I DON'T REMEMBER WHAT A RUNNING GAME LOOKS LIKE.
Also!
MIKE WILLIAMS IS TERRIBLE AT FOOTBALL AND AT LIFE.
MERRY FREAKIN' CHRISTMAS!Labels: Clint Stickdorn, football, Jon Kitna, Lions, loss, Mike Williams, NFL, rant, Rick DeMulling, terrible
12:16 AM
Monday, November 06, 2006
That Patroits game was supremely frustrating. My hatred of Peyton Manning and his pantheon of advertisements grows daily. Plus it was painful for my brain to handle all of the former-Wolverine-on-former-Wolverine action when Tom Brady went up against Cato June. Oh, and seeing Adam Vinatieri in that blue and white was a great deal more agonizing than I had thought it was going to be. So let's move on.
First off:
Forward down the field,
A charging team that will not yield,
And when the Blue and Silver wave,
Stand and cheer the brave!
Rah! Rah! Rah!
Go hard, win the game.
With honor you will keep your fame.
Down the field and gain
A Lions Victory!
GOOOOOOO LIONS!
Don't get to write THAT very often.
This was especially enjoyable, given the fact that the last time I had seen the Lions play the Falcons was Thanksgiving of last season, where Michael Vick ran all over the field, dancing here, trotting there, hither and indeed yon, making out with Jim Mora Jr. on the sidelines, doing whatsoever he pleased, so on and so forth. So it was very, very, VERY nice to see the Lions manage to come out on top. All you need to win is a team that has a passable defense and some small modicum of belief in their ability to play football, and a coach whose head is not actually encased within the humid confines of his own lower large intestine while on the field. Who knew?
And so I am proud of the Blue Cats. I am proud of Jon Kitna for playing with what looked like a giant red slug eating his face (and I have no idea when he sustained that; I was dropping my friend off at the airport for part of the game, but I happily DID get to hear the vaguely uncomfortable comments by the announcers about how 'welt-y' it looked near the end). I am proud of the defense for stepping it up and holding on even without their best player. I am proud of Kevin Jones for trying to be a little bit more like Mike Hart every day. I am proud of Mike Furrey for EXISISTING-- in fact, this is a whole separate future entry on its own.
I am not proud of Dre Bly for still insisting on trying to make tackles by slapping at opposing players with his open palms instead of, you know, actually throwing his body at them.
My ire is really reserved for a perhaps unlikely target. I know he's a good player; I know he has potential to be an Amazingly Great Football Player Who Catches the Football Amazingly Well with His Amazing Good Hands. I know he's only 24. I know his arm socks give him extra ball-catching p0w3rzzZZZz and Attitude Points (disclaimer: not an actual stat).
But GODDAMMIT Roy Williams, STOP CELEBRATING AFTER FIRST DOWNS.
You score a touchdown, FINE. You're young, you're exciteable, the Lions are not exactly the biggest offensive powerhouse out there. A touchdown is a time for celebration, within reason. But a first down is (supposed to be) a commonplace occurrence in this game which you are playing, you know, American football, with American football rules, where first downs happen all the time, YOU KNOW THIS ROY.
So when you make a first down, stand up, PULL AN IMAGINARY ARROW FROM AN IMAGINARY HOLSTER ON YOUR BACK, AND FIRE IT DOWN THE FIELD FROM AN IMAGINARY BOW, you are saying one of two things.
Roy Williams' intended message possibility #1:
My team is so freakin' pathetic that we have to sarcastically celebrate first downs, because we will have no other occasions to celebrate during this game. We are barely even a real football team.
Roy Williams' intended message possibility #2:
Hey opposing team, I am showing you up after this relatively low-impact play, because I am an immature cloacaface. Eat my Honolulu Blue and Silver jock.
Quite frankly, neither one of these are messages that Roy should want to be conveying. And this is not first time he's celebrated after a first down either... this time it was just even MORE worth bringing up because he went so far as to FIRE AN IMAGINARY ARROW DOWN THE FIELD. Holy FREAKIN' cats, Roy. Chad Johnson watched you do that, shook his head, and said to himself, "Damn, that kid's a little too excited out there."
That pissed me off at the time, and the more I think about it, the worse it looks. I really don't know why the refs haven't hit him up for excessive celebration already, except I guess it's possible he's catching even the refs off guard... who expects excessive celebration after a first down conversion? Maybe they're too busy laughing at how pathetic it is.
Still. The Falcons aren't a nothing of a team. It's not like we beat the Cardinals (also known as the only team in football worse than the Lions are right now), or even a team keeping badness pace with us, like the Steelers (HA!). And we HAVE had a lot of near-miss games, although that's a little misleading, since usually the games turn into near-misses because the Lions manage to shoot themselves in the paw before the end.
The surprising part about this win was not so much that the Lions played well; it was more the fact that the Lions DIDN'T forget that they have to play all 4 quarters somewhat cleanly.
Anyways. Two-and-six. The season of dreams is NOW!Labels: football, Lions, NFL, rant, Roy Williams, win
12:28 PM
Monday, September 04, 2006
I can't even say anything. I still don't have internet or TV in my apartment, I'm pissed off in about 8 separate ways at about 8 separate things. So I come to the Union (along with everyone else on campus apparently who can't get Comcast to deal with them; there are a lot of kids here, most of them with their computers), because, believe it or not, I have to give a 10 minute presentation tomorrow and I need the magical internets to do research for it. This is because the art school is, collectively, a 3-month old decaying goat carcass.
No internet. No TV. No microwave. Researching before classes even start. So many logistical things to work out that I won't even get into. Held hostage in the apartment for 7 hours by Comcast today, only to finally learn that Comcast is not coming today. Great, Comcast, but I'M IN CLASSES DURING YOUR HOURS OF OPERATION TOMORROW WHEN AM I GOING TO GET THIS SHIT HOOKED UP.
You can imagine my mental state.
So you can perhaps also imagine how utterly, pathetically grateful I was to get on the University internet here in the Union, and how even more pathetically grateful I was to the wonderful people who invented MLB.tv. It was buffering like a dream and I was watching LIVE BASEBALL for the first time in MANY LONG, STRESS-FILLED DAYS. And, almost as soon as I turned it on, there was MIKE LOWELL, patron Saint of the Double, doubling in a run to tie the game. Good on every level. Red Sox, check, Tigers, check, Mike Lowell, check.
And who should come up in the bottom of the next inning but Carlos Pena. Former Tiger Carlos Pena, Massachusetts native Carlos Pena, Red Sox fan Carlos Pena. And what does Carlos Pena do? He only HITS A FREAKIN' WALKOFF HOMERUN.
I may have made a noise.
I know that the Red Sox have fallen apart like a bloody seeding dandelion in a high wind, but right now, today, surrounded by reams of wood panelling, irritable students in their pajamas, and the sounds of the Miami/FSU game...
This is a feel-good game. And Carlos Pena is my feel-good player of the week. Because this is the only baseball game of any description I've seen since, jeez, I don't even know. Last Wednesday, maybe. And it felt so good that it was ridiculous.
Why do we love this game so much? I don't know; or rather, I'm not getting into it the night before my first day of classes when I've still got research to do. But we do, and I do, and there's something about it that can make even the worst few days disappear, even if it's only for a little while.
Seriously. One day I'll meet whoever got this MLB.tv thing going, and I'm going to hug them so hard ribs'll crack.Labels: baseball, MLB, MLB.tv, rant
11:00 PM
Tuesday, May 09, 2006
To everyone who complained about the Damon booing, and who will, with this upcoming series, continue to complain about Sox fans' treatment of him:
We're not Italian soccer fans. No one's thrown FLAMING FLARES at him. Until such time as this or a comparable event occurs, no one is allowed to say that Red Sox fans are overreacting. Because the Yankees are our rivals. RIVALS. Yes, SHOCKING. We are bloody lucky to be in the midst of one of the best rivalries in sports instead of trying to halfheartedly get our dander up for matchups with some mediocre team we're vaguely aware we're supposed to dislike. Can people stop pretending that the fans are not supposed to care about the rivalry? It's occasionally irrational and always passionate and it makes the sport WORTHWHILE AND INTERESTING instead of THE FLORIDA MARLINS.
Johnny Damon played well for the Red Sox. The people loved him. Johnny Damon was quoted as saying he would never play in New York. Johnny Damon signed with New York. The Yankees are rivals of the Red Sox. He was not traded to the Yankees, he signed with them of his own accord. The people hate him. I don't think that's unreasonable. I also don't think you can say a person deserves praise because of their past if they've done something nasty in the nearer present.
"But all he did was sign with New York! And back in Boston he won you a World Series! What a fickle city!" Indeed. And if he'd signed with, say, Toronto, we'd still be cheering him. He knows as well as anyone what the Red Sox/Yankee rivalry is, and he should know as well as anyone that Red Sox fans root for the laundry more than anything else. He made a decision, now he can marinate in it.
We're not overreacting. We're reacting exactly as we should. Anything less would be an insult to the rivalry and one of the most exciting aspects of the game; a game that, in much of the country, needs all the excitement it can get, quite frankly.
Anything more, and we'd be Italian soccer fans.Labels: baseball, Johnny Damon, MLB, rant, Red Sox, rivalry, Yankees
4:44 PM
Monday, April 24, 2006
Not dead! Honest! It's just that move-out is scant few days away (not to mention the final, and my last outing to the prison), and I deal with almost nothing so poorly as I do move-out and move-in. The worst times of the year here in BCRS land are move-out and move-in. I am not good with transitory periods.
I also haven't been seeing much in the way of Red Sox lately. Indeed, the closest I came was that game on I think the 21st, where Papi, Manny (finally!), and Tek all homered, and we STILL CONSPIRED TO LOSE, because Mike Timlin COULDN'T HOLD ONTO HIS GODDAMN BALLS (he's got 3, you know) and he MADE LIKE A BOMB AND EXPLODED.
What happened was that I was watching the Cubs/Cardinals game, idly waiting for the first David Eckstein=scrappy reference of the day, when who should phone but Beth, rambling excitedly about Manny and Papi hugging, or something, and homeruns, or something, and she's at the house of someone named Julia, and they have TiVO which is like the shining Holy Grail of electronics, or something, and OH MY GOD WHAT IS MIKE TIMLIN DOING.
Oh look, I thought idly to myself. Michael Barrett is beating himself up over letting that ball get by him. Ho hum. Wait. Timlin? What?
I fired up Gameday, which is slow as the molasses that once consumed Boston (100% of FACT!) but still better than nothing, and I stared in horror at the little graphics as Mike Timlin slowly but surely imploded before our very eyes like a timelapse video of an apple rotting down to a wizened little brownish core.
"There's nobody warming," Beth hyperventilated. "WHY DON'T THEY HAVE ANYONE WARMING HE'S ALREADY GIVEN UP A HOMERUN."
"Um." I eloquently replied. There's nothing quite like knowing apocalyptic baseball is going on right down the phoneline from you, but you can't see it. I checked the boxscore of the previous game. Wake had gone 8 innings, Tavarez had sucked copious polluted wind for a whole 0 outs, and Foulke had come in to put a quick end to the misery. So the bullpen should have been, if not well-rested, at least not decimated. "I dunno" was about all I could offer Beth, who by now sounded as though she was thrashing about in an epic battle with the Giant Squid of Exquisite Agony, from what I could tell over the phone.
Eventually the phone got handed off to Julia Whose House They Were At, and I rambled incoherently at her for a bit (hi Julia! I had a crippling cold and hadn't slept in like 2 days!), and then Beth took the phone back and said I was not allowed to make fun of her for Keith Foulke anymore because of the "flipbook" of photos I had taken of Brandon Inge on Opening Day. To which I respond: whatever, madam. Our seats were situated so that we HAD to be looking at Mr. Inge all game long. And he's cuter than Foulke. And has knees. And actually likes baseball. ("Oh, so that's how it is!" Beth responded to that last) Plus he wears high socks. Are you all with me, people?
So I'm pleased to note that we won today (yesterday), that Papi is getting into full-on "fear my jovial wrath" mode, that Youks is still hitting pretty darn well, that Clement got a nice little ego-boosting win despite not pitching spectacularly, that Papelbon continues to Save, making the pressure on him to not blow one just that much more ridiculously strong.
And can we talk about his mohawk for just a second? As near as I can tell, he reached a certain number of saves, and this somehow meant he lost a bet with Youks, and thus had to have the mohawk, um, created. Does that not seem to fishy to anyone else? He WON the bet by performing up to a certain level, and his reward is letting Kevin Youkilis, who LOST the bet by not performing up to whatever level they had set for him (a certain number of homers etc. I think), do whatever he wishes to his (Papelbon's) hair. In what Bizarro universe does that make sense?
The moral of the story, I'm pretty certain, is just to not bet with Kevin Youkilis, ever.
So, the schedule as it stands right now. Wood studio, packing, studying, panicking, and last day of teaching at the prison on Monday. Lunch with next year's roommate, shipping of several boxes, packing, studying, and panicking Tuesday. Biospsych final and probably all-nighter of packing Wednesday. Move-out on Thursday. Chilling in Southfield and nighttime Tigers game on Friday. Drive back to MA on Saturday. Attain coma-like state on Sunday. And then I'm back in the land of WEEI and NESN, and you'll all have to suffer a more oft-updated blog.Labels: baseball, Mike Timlin, MLB, rant, terrible
4:34 AM
|
|
