I'm sure you can tell from my last post that I am in baseball mode again (just wait till I start playing softball too - it will get even worse!) So I have been watching a few Cubs games so far this season (not too many, no need to add to my stress level until at least late August). However, while watching these games something has struck me and I can't believe that it's never really dawned on me before - the ridiculousness of managers also wearing a uniform.
First of all most of the managers are middle-aged to pushing elderly and rarely even in shape, so just from a fashion perspective the uniform is not a good look for them (Lou Pinella even though they are vertical stripes they are not slimming!). The second and most glaring point - none of the other professional sports managers/coaches wear the uniform of their team while coaching - have you ever seen Bill Belichick sporting pads and short pants (must qualify here that this is equally bad as his current cut-off sweatshirts) or how about Charlie Weiss, maybe if he wore a uniform he could sneak into the game as a lineman. Phil Jackson - do we see him in the extra, baggy Lakers uniform complete with sweatband ? No! We don't - they wear suits or at least khakis and some sort of team logo shirt/pullover. They need to dress differently than the players 1) because they aren't players 2) because their team looks to them for direction and I don't care if you discount the power of the clothes/leadership connection, if someone is wearing a suit they will command your attention and respect more than someone in warm up pants (at least until they say something asinine). I personally would love a movement back to the 60s and have everyone decked out in suits and hats! Love the Tom Landry look - call me strange.
I think that baseball could also benefit from a little more disciplined coaching as well if managers had to step up their wardrobe a bit, would you sit idly and spit sunflower seeds in the 7th if you were wearing Armani - I think not!
Bud Selig - you can expect my memo on this shortly.
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
Sunday, May 13, 2007
Chicago, fickle? Never.
Recently me and my S.O. were having a heated discussion about a recent Bill Simmons article (if you're not aware of Bill Simmons, go to espn.com right now - he is their sports columnist and is amazingly funny and knowledgeable about all things sports and pop culture related - if he wasn't married I would contemplate running away with him).
At any rate, the discussion (over whether or not fans actually like Roger Clemens) basically disintegrated into a conversation about Chicago fans, he claiming that they we are worse than New York or Boston fans and me exclaiming that we are far better than either of them. His argument was that Chicago fans are fickle, turning on any 'star' on the team as soon as they stop performing and then relentlessly heckling them, citing Sammy and Rex as examples of such behavior. The rationale for the "worse than New York and Boston fans" argument was that although New York fans are known for being harsh and critical, that at least their team gets results (but that's not really fair - we can control the spending habits of Chicago sports management) and while Boston fans were more pathetic, sticking with a sinking player for a long time, at least they earned some credibility in his eyes for not turning so quickly on their players (although now, with a World Series win under their belt I'd say that this too is changing).
Being the nice midwesterner that I am, I couldn't stand for a comparison that made us seem worse than New York and Boston (two of the rudest cities alive - second only to anywhere in New Jersey, don't get me started on New Jersey), so I argue that Chicago fans obviously better than either of the two. Sure, we may get upset and turn on star players but that's only because they aren't performing, not because we're angry that the owner dropped a lot of cash to stock the team - although perhaps we'll be throwing loose change at Soriano by the season's end if he doesn't perform. Keep in mind that the losing cross we bear is now the longest and the loneliest (at least in baseball) so we are far more suffering than any Boston fan can ever be, so if we appear anything but supportive it's because we're dealing with decades of loss, who can be expected to keep a consistently positive attitude when faced with years of experience that say otherwise - we're not fickle, we're realistic.
Bottom line, when your baseball stadium is the world's biggest bar and your football stadium is an outdoor one stuck in some of the most brutal winter weather there is it's impossible not to appear fickle to those that don't understand. Trying to consume as much beer as possible before the 7th inning cutoff can make the nicest person seem hostile and sitting in 10 degree weather watching your quarterback get sacked yet again might make you utter things that sound like a fairweather fan, but believe me, if you are at a Bears game in January, it really is anything but fairweather.
At any rate, the discussion (over whether or not fans actually like Roger Clemens) basically disintegrated into a conversation about Chicago fans, he claiming that they we are worse than New York or Boston fans and me exclaiming that we are far better than either of them. His argument was that Chicago fans are fickle, turning on any 'star' on the team as soon as they stop performing and then relentlessly heckling them, citing Sammy and Rex as examples of such behavior. The rationale for the "worse than New York and Boston fans" argument was that although New York fans are known for being harsh and critical, that at least their team gets results (but that's not really fair - we can control the spending habits of Chicago sports management) and while Boston fans were more pathetic, sticking with a sinking player for a long time, at least they earned some credibility in his eyes for not turning so quickly on their players (although now, with a World Series win under their belt I'd say that this too is changing).
Being the nice midwesterner that I am, I couldn't stand for a comparison that made us seem worse than New York and Boston (two of the rudest cities alive - second only to anywhere in New Jersey, don't get me started on New Jersey), so I argue that Chicago fans obviously better than either of the two. Sure, we may get upset and turn on star players but that's only because they aren't performing, not because we're angry that the owner dropped a lot of cash to stock the team - although perhaps we'll be throwing loose change at Soriano by the season's end if he doesn't perform. Keep in mind that the losing cross we bear is now the longest and the loneliest (at least in baseball) so we are far more suffering than any Boston fan can ever be, so if we appear anything but supportive it's because we're dealing with decades of loss, who can be expected to keep a consistently positive attitude when faced with years of experience that say otherwise - we're not fickle, we're realistic.
Bottom line, when your baseball stadium is the world's biggest bar and your football stadium is an outdoor one stuck in some of the most brutal winter weather there is it's impossible not to appear fickle to those that don't understand. Trying to consume as much beer as possible before the 7th inning cutoff can make the nicest person seem hostile and sitting in 10 degree weather watching your quarterback get sacked yet again might make you utter things that sound like a fairweather fan, but believe me, if you are at a Bears game in January, it really is anything but fairweather.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)