Saturday, July 30, 2011

After further review, baseball needs expanded replay policy

Unless you've been living under a rock or Arkansas for the last week, you probably know of the latest controversial blown call by an umpire in a Major League Baseball game. If you don't know what I'm talking about, let me reset it for you:

Pittsburgh is in Atlanta and it's the bottom of the 19th inning (yes, 19th inning) with the score tied 3-3. Julio Lugo draw a one-out walk for the Braves and advances to third on Jordan Schafer's single to center. Schafer then took second on the next pitch making it second and third with only one out. Atlanta was out of position players on the bench, so reliever Scott Proctor stepped up to the plate to hit for himself. Proctor smacks a grounder to third and with Lugo going on contact, looks to be dead to rights as Pirate third baseman Pedro Alvarez tosses it to the catcher Michael McKenry. The ball beats Lugo by a mile. But Lugo being the cagey vet that he is, stops short on his slide forcing McKenry to do a swipe tag and then Lugo steps around McKenry to touch on the plate. Plate umpire Jerry Meals (not a spring chicken, dude's been in the league for over a decade) calls Lugo safe saying McKenry "ole'd" (his word, not mine) on the swipe and Lugo was safe. Game over. Or should it be? After numerous replays after the fact, you could see that Lugo was hit on the leg. Heck, even Lugo was amazed he was called safe. The game should have continued. Oh, and another thing, if you haven't watched the entire replay, check out Proctor after he hits it. He takes about three steps and completely wipes out just after reaching the grass, once again showing the world why pitchers shouldn't hit.

One thing that has really annoyed me in the aftermath of this play is that everybody is saying the game should have gone to the 20th inning. Let's not forget that had Lugo been called out, that would have been the second out of the inning. McKenry after the tag wasn't even thinking about going to first for the potential DP after Proctor scraped himself up and scampered to the bag. This would have made it first and third with two outs and Martin Prado coming up with a chance to win it again in the 19th for Atlanta. Granted, Prado was having possibly the worst day of his career as he was 0-9, but hey, dude was due. He could have gotten a knock, been the hero and totally redeemed himself.

So now you know the backstory leading me up to the point that I'm trying to get to: Major League Baseball needs to expand it's review policy. Since 2008, MLB has allowed instant replay to be used only on homers, whether they cleared the wall, there was fan interference or if the ball was fair or fall. That's it. Nothing else. They have two main arguments against expanding it. 1) They think it would make the game too long. Games are already close to three hours on average as is. What's another five minutes for a replay or two? 2) The human element has always been a part of the game. Of course it has, but with the technology we have today, human error shouldn't determine the outcome as much as it does now. It cracks me up when announcers or umpires or league officials say the important thing is to "get the call right" but when they miss it, not being able to go back and fix it if they didn't.

So anyways, without further adieu, here's my plan for expanded replay reviews in MLB:

1) It's a challenge system. The manager gets one challenge a game. I've heard people talk about throwing a flag like in football but that's unnecessary. Baseball is pretty much the only sport where managers/coaches are allowed to run onto the playing surface after a play to debate or argue a call. Play's done, the manager can simply run (or waddle as Sweet Lou Piniella used to do) onto the field and inform the crew chief that he is challenging that play. The crew chief then goes to the phone/monitor setup that each park has and then has three minutes to make the ruling with the help of the guys in New York and make any necessary changes after the play has been reviewed. The decision can't be made in three minutes, then there probably wasn't "substantial evidence" to overturn the call and the manager loses his challenge.

2) If the challenge is upheld, the manager of the challenging team gets an additional one. This can continue until a challenge fails and then they can't challenge anymore.

3) Once the pitcher toes the rubber in a normal manner to begin the process of taking signs for the next pitch, the previous play can't be challenged. This would prevent managers from waiting till the last second and running onto the field to challenge a play as a pitcher is starting his wind-up or delivery. I hate it when football coaches call timeout to "ice the kicker" at the end of a game. This would prevent that from being an issue in baseball.

4) Challenges by managers that are done as stall tactics or ways to make a mockery of the game can be shot down by the crew chief. Let's say it's the bottom of the last inning and the starting pitcher is still in the game with a shutout intact. He runs into some trouble with a guy reaching that was obviously safe. The manager, wanting to give his reliever a little more time to prepare, challenges the play even though the batter-runner was out by five steps. Obvious stall tactic, crew chief denies the challenge and the game continues. Now I know what you're thinking. If the manager comes out there to talk to the crew chief he's still getting extra time for his reliever to warm-up which is basically doing the same thing. True, but he's not getting the extra three minutes and if he doesn't leave the field in a timely fashion after his challenge has been denied, he could be ejected.

5) All plays are reviewable. It's dumb that they only use it now for home runs when those account for such a small part of the game. The plays you'd see challenged the most would almost undoubtedly be safe/out calls at first on bang-bang plays. I was listening to some talking heads on the radio this week and they were advocating replays of all plays at the plate where there might be some doubt. I don't like that. Let's say a guy hits a ball down the right field line and is ruled fair when it should have been called foul (a call umpires rarely miss, but we're going to use if for this example) and the batter-runner gets a three-bagger out of it. Next guy hits a clean single scoring the run. No replay would have been used under that proposed idea, but the run still shouldn't have scored because he should have still been in the box after the errant fair/foul call. Get the call right.

6) Absolutely no reviews of called strikes, balls or checked swings. You want that so-called "human element" to remain? Well here you go. The only pitches that are reviewable are swinging strikes where there was possible contact for a foul ball or catcher's interference. Also, it could be used to determine if a batter was hit by a pitch. I think this would be used very rarely, but at lease you'd have the option if need be.

7) All challenges and rulings by the umpires must be communicated to the fans via an announcement by the crew chief just as the referee does in football games. I haven't seen or heard too many people bring this up, but I think it would be a nice wrinkle to add in there to help keep the fans informed and maybe give them a little better understanding of what's going on out there.

Under my plan, you still have the human element with the balls and strikes and you'd still have it if teams were out of challenges. Another reason I think this system would be better for baseball is it give managers something else to do before the 7th inning when they start fiddling around with match-ups and making calls for situational hitting. Up till that point, they're basically sitting there spitting their seeds and scratching themselves while the game unfolds.

Just think how things could possibly be different if MLB used this new system instead. The Royals might not have won the 1985 World Series (more on that in October as I have a blog planned for that debate). Armando Gallaraga would have gotten his perfect game instead of a one-hitter after Jim Joyce's botched call in the ninth and Gallaraga's career might not have gone in the tank afterwards. The Pirates (definitely in the playoff picture) might not have lost that game and in the race they're in, every W counts.

If the most important thing to get it right, we need to use the tools we have to get the job done. Now's the perfect time to start before it's too late and another missed call makes history.

Monday, July 18, 2011

Let's kick soccer outta here!

Another year of World Cup soccer has come and gone. Dozens of real American soccer fans and millions of bandwagon jumpers will now have to find something to do to kill the time till the next one comes in a few years. I guess our women did well. I was told they finished second, losing to Japan, a team they'd never lost to in 26 matches. Don't get me wrong, I want to see the US win everything. Doesn't matter if it's basketball or tiddlywinks, I'd rather us win than somebody else. I'm just not going to lose any sleep over somebody else winning the Women's World Cup. I know people are going to say that the success of the US women will help propel soccer's popularity in the US, but I just don't see it ever gaining a major foothold. Get it? Foothold! Soccer humor.

It's common knowledge that myself, and most of the members of my family, hate soccer. Okay, hate is probably the wrong word. What I should have said was despise soccer. We may even abhor, detest and/or loathe it (gotta love the Thesaurus). One of the greatest fears that I have is that Caffrey will be a soccer girl. I dodged a bullet the other day. Every morning, Laura wakes up Caffrey, feeds her and then puts her in bed with me as she's going to work. When we both wake up again, we go in the living room and watch SportsCenter while I eat my cereal and she gets her mid-morning booby milk (from a bottle, not me). I finished my breakfast and was getting ready to go to the bathroom shortly before SportsCenter was about to be over. I put Caffrey in her little bouncy chair on the floor and positioned her so that she could see this week's edition of "Not Top Ten" because that stuff is usually hilarious. Well, I got done doing my business and started walking back to the living room. As I entered the room, I glanced at the TV and it wasn't SportsCenter anymore. They had switched over to their coverage of the Women's World Cup! At that moment, time slowed down. I let out a gutteral shout of "NOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!" I dove onto the couch and reached for the remote. As I hit the cushions, I rolled and pointed the remote, and hit the "Last" button, ala Axel Foley capping Victor Maitland in Beverly Hills Cop (was on HBO the other day and hadn't see it in years.) The TV was sent back to The Today Show. Unfortunately, they were in the Kathie Lee Gifford and Hoda Kotb portion of the show which isn't much better than soccer. The whole event couldn't have lasted more than a couple of seconds, but it felt like an eternity. After everything settled back down, we flipped it over to ESPNews to regain some semblance of normalcy. Whew, close one.

So, you might be asking yourself why I have this disdain and other words that mean that towards soccer. Oh soccer, how do I hate thee? Let me count the no particular order.

1) I'm an American and I like to see sports where there are teams that score. When I first began doing the research for this blog, I was going to fill it with all kinds of fantastic statistical analysis such as in the 2010 FIFA World Cup, there were only 145 goals scored in 64 total games which equals 2.3 goals/game which was the lowest ever since going to a 64 game format. After I dug up that jewel in about two minutes, I decided I didn't need or want to look up anymore soccer stuff because there's only one thing more boring than watching soccer and that's reading about soccer (unless it's my blog ripping on it). Seriously, I dare you to watch soccer highlights on TV. You'll never see another sport that shows misses more than soccer. I don't want to see misses, I want to see makes! If I wanted to watch teams miss shots I'd pull out of my game films from when I was in high school. Definitely not much scoring going on there ;)

2) Soccer players are the most overdramatic bunch of goofballs in the world. It's like watching a soap opera sometimes with the acting so bad. You watch some of these schmucks running around on the field (I refuse to call it the "pitch" because that's a term for a real sport called baseball) and they get a little bump and you'd think somebody snuck a sniper rifle into the stadium and was picking people off. Get up and prance around kicking your little ball again, loser.

3) Soccer players with one name. Pele, Marta, Ronaldo, etc. I'm sure your parents gave you more than one name. Use them both.

4) Soccer is the only sport I know in which the clock runs the wrong way. You get 45minutes to play a half. Why in the heck start at 0:00 and run the clock up instead of starting it at 45:00 and counting down like most people do in real life? Oh, that's because you might have to add on...

5) Stoppage time! One of the most ridiculous things about soccer is that when a player goes down like a cheap hooker and lays on the ground for a couple of minutes before almost getting strapped down to a stretcher but then miraculously healing and continuing to play is that the clock keeps on running and the referee just estimates how much time they need to add on at the end. This is extremely arbitrary and nobody really knows for sure when the match is going to end. Hey ref, stop the clock until the douche with one name scrapes himself up from the field and when the action resumes, restart the clock until the next overdramatic "injury" takes place. And repeat.

6) Goalies wear different jerseys than the rest of the players. I know the reason is that Goalies are the only players smart enough to use their hands and it makes it easier for the ref to tell who's the Goalie and who's the cheater trying to use his hands. Wouldn't the gloves kind of give that away, too?

7) I know this one here has been beaten like a dead horse (another activity more fun than soccer) and that's how they determine the winner after ties. Normally, a game ends with the score tied, it's declared a draw. But when you get into "Knockout" play at the World Cup and the score after the second half is tied, you go in "Extra Time" which is a 30-minute non-sudden death period. Game still tied after Extra Time? It would make sense that you keep on playing until somebody scores and a winner is determined. Nope, not in soccer. We're going to Penalty Kicks! That's right. You're going to determine the champion of the tournament that you hold once every four years by doing something so stupid it defies logic. This would be like having the gold medal basketball game in the Olympics go into overtime, stay tied and then playing free throw knockout to decide the winner. This is asinine. Here's an idea that I stole from every other legitimate sport in the world: play the game while it's tied like you did the rest of the time until somebody wins it the right way. Hockey is kind of like this. During the regular season, game's tied, you play five minutes. Still tied, go to the shootout to determine the winner because they did away with ties/draws because those are stupid. They only do this in the regular season though. Playoff time, we're putting twenty minutes on the clock, first to score wins. That's not enough, we do it again, and again, and again until somebody wins. Now that's legit.

So anyway's it's over and people can stop pretending they love soccer, I won't have to risk life and limb to make sure CC doesn't get corrupted by it and ESPN can finally get back to showing more important sports like Poker and the Spelling Bee. Life can finally go back to normal, just the way I like it.

Monday, July 11, 2011

All-Star Game: Exhibition or Competition?

When it comes to controversial arguments, I'm pretty decisive. It doesn't matter if it's abortion, religion, illegal immigration or whether Kevin Costner's "For Love of the Game" is a sports movie or chick flick (more on that in the future), I have my stance and I'm not budging. There is one thing that has me on both sides of the fence and it deals with the MLB's All-Star Game and since we're at the break now, I think it's time for me to pick a side.

As most of you probably know, the winner of the ASG gets home-field advantage in the World Series. This was the result of the 2002 ASG that ended in a tie after 11 innings because both teams ran out of pitchers and they just stopped playing. So the following year, they ditched the former tradition of home-field alternating each year and went with the winner gets it. I was on board from the beginning. I thought it really went from making the game purely an exhibition to being a legitimate sporting competition. It made it more like a real game and teams did what they could to try and win because they might reap the benefit of their labor if they make it to the World Series. Also, to try and make sure that teams didn't run out of players, they expanded the rosters to 34 each and have limited re-entry for Catchers and one position guy so running out of players is highly unlikely now.

One of the best baseball games I've ever seen in my life was the 2008 ASG classic at old Yankee Stadium which went on for 15 innings and almost five hours with the AL taking the W. Plays at the plate, clutch strike-outs, big hits. That game had it all, including Dan Uggla with the worst performance in MLB history (only player to ever commit three errors, strike out three times and ground into a DP in the same game).

Lately though, my opinion is starting to change. Home-field advantage is a big thing and now it's being decided by many players that won't have a real chance of being in the World Series. Most of the best players that are voted in by the fans will go out there, get their one, maybe two, at-bats and then hit the showers. That leaves us with are the "lesser" All-Stars in the game at the end during nut-cutting time. What would people think if Aaron Crow was facing Starlin Castro in extra innings with the bases loaded and a tie game? Those are two guys whose teams aren't going anywhere, yet in their hands they hold the World Series hopes of the good teams that will make the post-season. Just doesn't seem right.

One of the other major things now is that it bothers me how many players are skipping the ASG now. The Yankees have a real shot of being the World Series, yet they have three eligible players that aren't going to play. A-Roid just elected to have knee surgery, so he's off the hook. But Mo Rivera isn't on the DL and he said he's not playing. Same for Derek Jeter, who although was healhy enough to go 5 for 5and get his 3000th hit Saturday, is too hurt to play a few innings Tuesday. Gimme a break. There's also the rule that if you're a starting pitcher and you start on Sunday, you're ineligible to pitch in the ASG. That's going to prevent the AL from using one of the most dominant guys in the league, Justin Verlander. With all the replacements for players that are declining to play or are actually injured, we now have 84 so-called "All-Stars" instead of the 68 which they should. There are guys making the ASG that some of the fans watching might not even have heard of before. Do we really want them affecting what goes on in October?

So anyways, I have decided that the novelty of home-field advantage in the World Series has worn off and probably the fans have, too. Last year's ASG was the lowest rated one ever. Take home-field out of the equation and make it an exhibition again. Here are some possible solutions for the home-field advantage quandry:

1) Go back to alternating it every year like it was before 2003. That worked for a hundred years and would probably work for a hundred more. The NL would get it this year if that were the case.

2) Give it to the league that has the best overall record in Interleague play. The issue here is that you're once again basing home-field and how teams that don't make the play-offs do. Imagine the Phillies losing out on in because the Cubs dropped two-of-three in KC. I don't see this one happening but it might be kind of cool to try it out and see what happens.

3) I saved the best (and most common sensical) for last. Give it to the World Series TEAM with the best record during the regular season. That would be the ultimate incentive to keep trying to win even after a play-off spot is locked up in September.

So anyways, there's my little rant on the ASG. I'll watch it as I always do. I'll tune in to watch Castro have a routine grounder and launch the throw into the 5th row and I'll tune in so that I can watch Crow not get in the game. Now it's time for me to start my own little All-Star break.

Thursday, July 7, 2011

7/7: Lucky day for some, but not for all

July 7th is a big day for me and my family. It was on this day four years ago that the world celebrated the lucky day of 7/7/07. The famous, or infamous ("more than famous") day was when two major events unfolded. One positive, one not-so-much.

First, let's start with the good. Today is my brother's anniversary. As he posted on Facebook this morning, "Four years ago today, on 7/7/07, I married my one true love." That one true love is his amazing wife, Wendy. Two wonderful families, the Heinzman's and the Courter's, were united for all of eternity. It was truly a special occasion. Family and friends were brought together and great times were had by all. Uncle Ron and Aunt Barb even made the journey from South Carolina to be on hand. Four years later, Rich and Wendy are still going strong with no signs of letting up and that has made me very happy. Love you both.

Now, that day wasn't all sunshine and rainbows, for it was on that fateful day that I had something that has followed me ever since. It was my first battle with gout. For those of you that don't know much about gout, let me go all Doogie Howser on you.
Gout is a kind of arthritis formed when you have too much uric acid in your blood. That uric acid then can form hard crystals in your joints and it's most common in the big toe but can happen in any joint. One of the biggest causes of gout (and probably my greatest culprit) is from eating too much red meat. It's also passed down through heredity and Dad has had it for most of his life, so I got it from him, too. Thanks, DAD! :( The pain is unlike anything you'd ever have. It's even been so bad that both Dad and myself have had times when you couldn't even stand to have a sheet on the affected area because it hurt so bad.

I remember that first flare-up like it was yesterday. I woke up that morning with a pain I've never felt before in my right ankle. I just figured that I slept with it tucked in weird or something. For the next 2.5 hours, I was on a bus with my Lexington basketball team heading to Bolivar for a one-day high school shootout. The longer the day went, the worse the pain became. Coach Meyer (my former assistant that is now the head coach at Lexington) knew that I was in some serious pain because I sat on the bench for most of the games and when I did stand up, I just stood there. No pacing or storming up and down the sideline. After the first three games, Laura picked me up to take me to Nevada (the town, not the state) for the wedding. Coach Meyer finished up the tournament in the afternoon and escorted the boys back on the bus to Lexington. Laura gave me some Ibuprofen which helped a little, but I was still pretty gimpy when I got to the wedding. I told Mom and Dad about the pain and Dad said, "Sounds like the gout to me." That hit me like a ton a bricks because gout is something old people have, not a strapping young stud like me. It was also the first time I had ever heard it referred to as "The Gout" like it was "The Plague."

A couple of days later, I was sitting in a doctor's office in Lexington waiting to see Doc Chandra. You just have to know this guy for this to be funny. He comes in, takes a look at it, and tells me how we're going to treat it. When I asked him about getting rid of the inflamation and pain, he tells me "Well, I'm gonna give ya a shot in the ass." Sure helped though.

So anyways, I had another flare-up that December right before flying out to Colorado to go skiing. I was in Springfield, so the doctor that Laura's sister worked for (Dr. Baurichter) got me in, gave me a shot and some meds and sent me on the way. I'd say that I've had a half-dozen other cases since then.

For a while, I was on Allopurinol to prevent other flare-ups. A couple of years ago, it was brought to my attention by a specialist that Allopurinol has been linked to male infertility so I got off it. Sure wish we'd have known about that sooner, but that's another topic for another day. I was doing great for a long time until a couple of weeks ago. I had a minor issue in my right knee during basketball season, but not nearly as bad as I've had before. After working six days of basketball camps at Missouri State, I had a bad, bad case. It was maybe the worst I've ever had. It was in my right ankle and big toe. And this is right before we went to Central Methodist for camp. Great timing. What would normally take me two minutes to walk was taking me ten. It was so bad that for two weeks I couldn't even put a shoe on. I was having to coach in flip-flops. One of the kids I took asked me if I "injured myself driving." After camp, I was put on an anti-inflamatory and when I finished that, I was to start my Allopurinol again. Wouldn't you know, the last day of my anti-inflamatory treatment, I wake up unable to bend my left knee and throughout the day, it dropped into my big toe. So once again, "I have flippin' gout." Getting old sucks.

So anyways, I haven't been able to walk right for about the last three weeks now and I'm taking pills every day for the rest of my life. Or as Laura likes to say, she's "married to an 80-year-old." Hopefully, I'll be able to control future bouts of it through medication and diet, but I'm not giving up my red meat. No way I'm letting gout take that away from me without a fight.

Tuesday, July 5, 2011

Jerseys: To wear or not to wear. What was the question?

Summertime is here and as the late, great Harry Caray would often say, "You can't beat fun at the old ballpark." It's a beautiful day and you have the wonderful opportunity to take in a game. You clean yourself up and you're just about ready to leave. But before you place atop your head that slick new 5950 that you dropped about four sawbucks on at Lids, you decide that since you're going to the game, why not look like one of the boys. After all, the best way to support your team is to sport their on-field look. That's right, you're wearing a jersey! The question is now, which one to wear?

Before we get into the crucial decision-making process of which jersey is okay to wear, let's take a step back and look at rise of the jersey-wearer. I've been going to professional and collegiate sporting events most of my life now. Back when I was a kid (way back in the early and mid-1980's) you didn't see the number of people wearing jerseys like you see today. Back when my folks were kids and even up until their teens and maybe even twenties, people dressed up in their Sunday best to go out to a game. Thankfully, for most people, that tradition has gone by the wayside. Can you imagine sitting at the K in the middle of August in a suit and tie? Only if you're one of the rich dudes in the suites. I think I'll stay with my khaki shorts, t-shirt and flip-flops. Anyways, it really wasn't until the early 1990's that the fan jersey was commonplace in the stadium. Honestly, jerseys aren't the most comfortable or cheap thing to wear, so they started marketing the player t-shirts. You know these things, the cotton t-shirt replica that looks like a jersey complete with name and number on the back, but at a fraction of the cost and ten times the comfort. You can get them made to look like your favorite player or you can even have your own name and number put on them. Now you go to a game and you can't spit a sunflower seed without hitting somebody wearing either the real deal or the knock-off.

It's always entertaining when you get to the park to see the jerseys that people will wear. Some old, some new. Some of players that will be HOFers (that's the fancy abbreviation for Hall of Famer) and then some of players that don't even deserve to have their names on their driver's license. (I actually saw a Ken Harvey jersey at a game the other day, had to be a family member or something).

My brother, Richard, and I have had this conversation about jersey-wearing a couple of times. I put in a phone call to my brother-in-law, Dennis, to discuss the topic as well. After all these conversations, I've put together my rules for proper jersey etiquette with some help from the aforementioned duo. So next time you want to head out to a ballgame, please follow these rules:

1) Only wear the jersey of players currently in the organization. If you're a Royals fan, that means no more Zack Greinke jerseys. A player could be in the Minors and it would still be acceptable to wear his jersey. A few years ago, the Royals gave out nice replica button-up Billy Butler jerseys and then a month later he was in Omaha. They're in the system, it's permissible.

2) It's okay to wear a former player's jersey only after they have retired or are completely out of the game. If they're still in the game, then you're supporting the enemy. If a former player returns before retiring, you're okay to wear again. That's why it's important in this day and age of free agency to not ditch your old jerseys because what was once old, may someday become new again (glad I kept my Kerry Wood shirts).

3) For retired players, wear only the jerseys of players that made a positive contribution to said team. Wearing a Mike Sweeney jersey to the game = perfectly acceptable; wearing an Albie Lopez jersey = unacceptable and you should be booed mercilessly from the stadium. When Greinke retires, you guys can take his jersey down off the rack or out of the box in the basement and wear it. Dude won a Cy Young and that's positive enough for me.

4) Cooperstown Collection jerseys by Mitchell & Ness are always acceptable. For starters, you have to have been a stud from back in the day to be immortalized with one. Secondly, if you're going to drop three hundos on a jersey, you should be allowed to wear it.

5) For personalized jerseys, go with your last name. Nicknames on the back are a tricky question. If you do put a nickname on the back, make sure it's clean and family-friendly. Nobody wants to see you with a jersey that says "Rugmuncher" on the back. Also, putting 69 as your number, not original or funny anymore. Go with something else. Okay, it might still be a little funny.

6) Unless you're wearing matching game pants and belt, don't tuck it in. That's just lame. People will point and laugh at you.

I know all of this issue has dealt with baseball, but the same rules apply in all other sports except soccer, because honestly, who cares? There is one other exception and it deals with women and hockey jerseys. They can wear whoever, whatever, whenever, because a good-looking gal + hockey jersey = very sexy.

Ok, time for me to go fill up some boxes to take to Goodwill.

Sunday, July 3, 2011

My first attempt at blogging

I like to think that I'm somebody that has stayed caught up with the times when it comes to technology and the wonderful world of social media. I was on Facebook (and who could forget MySpace) well before most of my friends were. I was a little late to join the cult of Twitter, but I'm there now and I'm hooked. But starting a blog was something I had thought about and was like, ehh, not interested. I'd read some and say I don't have the time for that garbage. However, I've been checking out more and more of them. I have friends that blog and if they can do it, it surely can't be that difficult (looking at you, Skip). I have lots of different opinions and ideas on a wide variety of items, most of which have no bearing on anything resembling important. However, I'd like to share some of those brilliant, and not-so-brilliant, tidbits of intellectual whimsy with the rest of the world (actually just our MyFamily members, Facebook friends and Twitter followers). 

Nothing will be off-limits. Probably going to be a lot of sports, movies and music on here. We'll also delve into the realms of politics, education, parenting and who knows what else.  Many of the topics I'll be discussing come from discussions that I have had with family and friends and random observations that I may have occasionally. I'd also like for readers to chime in with suggestions for future topics. 

I think the goal of all social media-philes is to make a lasting impact with the audience and give them something they can use. Honestly, it would be nice for some of what I say or write about to be used to make the world a better place, but above all, I just really hope you don't think it sucks.