NCAA March Madness

Its that time of the year again...2nd best time other than Christmas, MARCH MADNESS!

What is so intriguing about this tournament though? Is it the pressure of single elimination? The hopes of "your team" winning it all? The high level competition of the best teams duking it out? In comparison, the NBA has more talent, but everyone knows it isn't real basketball. The season goes waaay too long and the playoffs last about 3 months. Meanwhile, this simple tournament lasts one month-and every game is a surprise. Everyone remembers the Gonzaga v. UCLA game last year(Morrison's tears coming out before the game was over) or the George Mason Cinderella run. It is as if the unscripted play makes it all so appealing. How a higher seed can get ousted by a lesser team and how that one lowly team defeats Goliath time and time again. Who is this year's cinderella team? Is there even one? Duke is one game above 500 in conference play, and they are a powerhouse team? Will Ohio st's freshman lead them to a championship?

All these questions and doubts make the tournament so exciting and interesting to watch. Heck, isn't the unscripted play the main reason humans watch sports?

The Draft

First of all, nothing pisses me off more than the NFL draft. so much build up for two days...just like the whole season. so much build up for one game a week. but anyways, it has made me think...why is the draft so big? There have been tons of articles comparing Russel to Quinn or Lynch to Peterson. But how does one know who is better? We briefly talked in class about tools of a player versus his or her athleticism. Which would you choose?

As well, I find it interesting how in basketball and football, the drafted players can make suich a huge impact right away. While in baseball, its a draft to hone and train players even further. For example, Kevin Durant "is the best player in college right now" and will make an immediate impact on his team. And yet, Jeff Samardzija is getting paid 10 million to not even play pro ball at the moment. Should one that isn't playing at the highest level be paid that much? It just doesn't seem fair.

We Were Kings

Basically...Muhammed Ali is a badass.

I found it funny that McMahon said he is, not by her opinion solely, but is the greatest athelete of our time. I found it funny because even though I could easily argue and disagree with her, i agreed. There are plenty of athletes that are technically "better" than him, but as We Were Kings said generations from now, people will still know the story of Muhammed Ali. He made such an impact that it is impossible to ignore.

I wrote about him for my high school application essay. I said that I found him to be a hero of mine. Can he truly be my hero if there was no interaction? I find him admirable and I am amazed by him.

So my question is: Is Ali the greatest? Can one athlete be considered the greatest over all others even in other sports?

Ali's answer would probably be Yes.

Sport is a game

After this weeks reading, it occured to me: Sport really is just a game. Ok, that sounds stupid and obvious but how often do people forget it? It seems that most people criticize one that claims sport is just a game if he or she is an athlete. But it is ok for a spectator to claim it is just a game. For an athlete, sport must be life, but for a fan sport must be a game. How often do we laugh at those RedSoxNation fans who commit everything they have to a game? And yet, we respect them for their loyalty. What makes the game of sport so different from all other games that is ok for a man to be belligerent and wild for 1-3 hours a week of his life?

I love sports: watching and playing them. But, when it comes down to it, sport is just a game. Why can't i get as dedicated or committed to playing tag or the other mimicry games of childhood? Is there less sense of competition (probably as we get older) but what makes the sports of baseball, basketball and football so enriching and mesmerizing that they don't appear to be games?

Art vs. Sport

First of all, I think it is ridiculous to compare the two (art and sport). I admit that I am probably the first to call a play beautiful or watch a certain player for beauty or the way he or she plays the game. However, I use it just as an expression. In no way do i believe you can compare sport and art as the same thing. It just doesn't make sense. If that is the case, shouldn't we do the same for almost every expression? "Serious as a heart attack!" do we really mean the event that just took place is similar to a heart attack? I don't think so...unless the event is a heart attack or something of the sort.

But in any such case, calling a play or watching a sport for its beauty is not art. It is entertaining and it simply comes down to appreciation. I appreciate sport for when it is played right, because when it is played right, it is beautiful. Other people appreciate art for its aesthetics, style, etc. because when those come together in the right form, it is beautiful. So maybe they are similar?

I could, and we have, argued about this for the past 2 class sessions, and it gets no where. The main point is that it comes down to matter of opinion and personal enjoyment. So why bother arguing when those that want to go to the Field Museum instead of watching the Superbowl do so? Just let them go. they'll miss a good game

Pressure

I can't remember who said it, but an athlete once said: "you are lucky to be in situations of pressure." Why would pressure ever be good to have? But then again, I can somewhat agree. When the pressure is put on someone, those are often the best games or matches and produce the sport heroes we remember. In terms of spectating, the games filled with the most pressure and the close games are the best to watch.

However, what about when we are actually playing the game? Would one rather have a big blowout win or a close game throughout? That is a tough scenario. The blowout win is nice because, well obviously, you win. But the close game seems to be better-for pride and the sense of real competition. But there are always times when the team feels like they just squeaked out a win which isn't any better either. The pressure can either cause a team to rise up to its potential, or it can crack a team that has never seen a challenge before. Is pressure good or bad in sports?

Sport vs. instinct

first things first, i retract my statement of wisconsin being pure domination over northwestern. if any of you went to the game, you know it was actually very close-surprisingly.

Next up, as i've been talking to my friends over the past couple of days, I can't help but think of the mental aspect of sport. How important is it? In my opinion, it is very important. But some people suggest that it is highly overrated. Can a sport be played on pure instinct without thinking it through? Does a player trash-talking have any affect in that sense? Does that make sense?

When it comes to sports like football and basketball, i feel those can be played more on instinct and passion. But when there are more mental games like golf or tennis, mental aspects of the game are very clear. You can not let yourself beat you up. That can even be argued for basketball, football, or baseball. When things go bad, it seems to keep going bad-and why is that? My guess is purely mental. If one believes he or she can't, he or she can't.
My coach once said to me that sports are 80% mental, 15% skill, and 5% luck. Now these might not be the exact percentages, but how accurate is it to say that sports really are mental?