I am amazed at the commercial aspect of college sports in the US. College football and basketball have such a large fan following and is a multi-million-dollar commercial venture! It's a profit-making system for almost everyone --- EXCEPT the players, who are putting on the show and providing the entertainment! I understand that they receive a free education, and the really good players go on to get lucrative contracts in the professional league. But I feel it is sure "madness" that so many people are making money on a bunch of college students who are actually putting on the show.
A lot of college athletes make themselves available to the PRO league long before they complete their education. I don't really blame them, because that's where the money is, and what if they acquire a career-ending injury while playing that extra year in college when they could have made millions playing pro?
It is, however, nice to see the importance college programs give to sports. Back in India, college sports is only considered a hobby. When I represented my college in the Inter-collegiate Badminton tournament within the University of Mumbai, I could not even get reimbursed for travel to/from the tournament venue. It was near impossible to get money to buy equipment for the game; we had to buy our own shuttlecocks during practice.
Saturday, March 31, 2007
without
One of my favourite poems is Robert Frost's Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening:
I first read (or heard) the poem when I was a kid, even before it was part of my curriculum in the 7th or 8th grade (thanks to my elder brothers having recited it several times when they were studying the poem in school). The poem is so serene, yet metaphoric, but as a kid I guess I just enjoyed the rhyme, and the famous last 4 lines. Given that the poem is really short I could recite it easily. Growing up in a crowded and temperate city like Bombay , I never really experienced a "snowy evening" or even "stopping by the woods".
Also, I found it very interesting, that the word "without" could mean "absence of" or it could also mean "outside" (opposite of within); both these meanings would be relevant in this poem. Did Frost suggest that the horse thinks it strange to stop with no farmhouse close by, or that it was strange to stop outside the farmhouse when it was snowing? In fact, we had two English professors teach this poem to us in school, and one of them said it meant 'absence of' and the other suggested it meant 'outside'. I think it means outside in this case, esp. because it would be queer for a horse only if it knows that there is a farmhouse near by.
PS: Isn't the English language is rather strange?! Shouldn't you be frugal at spending if you are a spendthrift! Here is an explanation why it is not.
Whose woods these are I think I know,
His house is in the village though.
He will not see me stopping here,
To watch his woods fill up with snow.
My little horse must think it queer,
To stop without a farmhouse near,
Between the woods and frozen lake,
The darkest evening of the year.
He gives his harness bells a shake,
To ask if there is some mistake.
The only other sound's the sweep,
Of easy wind and downy flake.
The woods are lovely, dark and deep,
But I have promises to keep,
And miles to go before I sleep,
And miles to go before I sleep.
I first read (or heard) the poem when I was a kid, even before it was part of my curriculum in the 7th or 8th grade (thanks to my elder brothers having recited it several times when they were studying the poem in school). The poem is so serene, yet metaphoric, but as a kid I guess I just enjoyed the rhyme, and the famous last 4 lines. Given that the poem is really short I could recite it easily. Growing up in a crowded and temperate city like Bombay , I never really experienced a "snowy evening" or even "stopping by the woods".
Also, I found it very interesting, that the word "without" could mean "absence of" or it could also mean "outside" (opposite of within); both these meanings would be relevant in this poem. Did Frost suggest that the horse thinks it strange to stop with no farmhouse close by, or that it was strange to stop outside the farmhouse when it was snowing? In fact, we had two English professors teach this poem to us in school, and one of them said it meant 'absence of' and the other suggested it meant 'outside'. I think it means outside in this case, esp. because it would be queer for a horse only if it knows that there is a farmhouse near by.
PS: Isn't the English language is rather strange?! Shouldn't you be frugal at spending if you are a spendthrift! Here is an explanation why it is not.
Monday, March 26, 2007
Blame it on the rain... blame it on the stars...
So India is officially out of the 2007 Cricket World Cup! It is a foregone conclusion that this World Cup will be financially affected by India and Pakistan's early exit. A lot of the excitement that the sub-continent giants provide will also be missing in the Super 8's. Instead of blaming the cricketers and their lackluster display in 2 out of the 3 games, I am going to go ahead and blame the format. The entire schedule of this edition of the Cup was "designed" to allow the 8 regular Test playing nations to make it to the 2nd round after they walloped the so-called "minnows" of the tournament. The real cricket was then supposed to start, with each team playing the remaining 6 teams that qualified from the other groups. The team would also carry forward only those 1st round points (and net run rate) of the team that qualified for the 2nd round, thereby eliminating the effect of any big wins over the minnows. In fact, many months before the tournament began, the official world cup website had the top 8 teams slated to meet each other, allowing people to book their tickets for the India-Pakistan clash on April 15. Those ardent cricket fans will now get to witness an Ireland vs. Bangladesh match, which will be the most insignificant match of the Super-8's.
As it stands before the start of the next round, Sri Lanka are sitting pretty with a huge NRR thanks to their big win over Bangladesh.
In retrospect, the tournament organizers will rue their decision to eliminate 8 teams out of the tournament after playing just 3 games each.
OR Perhaps this is just the rumblings of an Indian-cricket enthusiast, having wanted to watch his team play for one more fortnight, given that he has bought the World Cup streaming video online!
As it stands before the start of the next round, Sri Lanka are sitting pretty with a huge NRR thanks to their big win over Bangladesh.
In retrospect, the tournament organizers will rue their decision to eliminate 8 teams out of the tournament after playing just 3 games each.
OR Perhaps this is just the rumblings of an Indian-cricket enthusiast, having wanted to watch his team play for one more fortnight, given that he has bought the World Cup streaming video online!
Thursday, March 22, 2007
deathly effigies
It is a common practice in the Indian sub-continent to burn effigies of cricket players when the team performs badly. Recently, after the India-Bangladesh World Cup game, the effigy of Mahindra Singh Dhoni was burned and his home was damaged. If India gets eliminated from the tournament tomorrow, I won't be surprised if more effigies are burnt and cricket-crazy fanatics mob the players families and homes.
Wikipedia defines effigy as follows:
Cricket does need a reality-check, but I hope it does not come in the way of an India loss tomorrow. I have a selfish motive of wanting to be entertained for another few weeks by the Indian cricket team.
P.S.: Who makes these effigies? Is there a business model behind the manufacture of effigies? It sure must be a lucrative business; people must be working overtime these days to create effigies of the Indian cricketers. It does not even have to be a good piece of art... it is going to be burned if India loses! If India wins the World Cup, the effigy makers can then work overtime to spruce up their products... the effigies have to look good when garlanded!!
Wikipedia defines effigy as follows:
"A different type of effigy is used in some religious rituals to represent an undesired person or spirit. The effigy is burned as a sign of the participants' shared intent to banish the represented element from their lives."Given the recent confirmation that Pakistani cricket coach Bob Woolmer's death was murder by "manual strangulation", it seems that burning effigies may no longer be the modus operandi of disgruntled fanatics. Why burn a card-board, full-length figure of the person when you can actually eliminate the real-life form!
Cricket does need a reality-check, but I hope it does not come in the way of an India loss tomorrow. I have a selfish motive of wanting to be entertained for another few weeks by the Indian cricket team.
P.S.: Who makes these effigies? Is there a business model behind the manufacture of effigies? It sure must be a lucrative business; people must be working overtime these days to create effigies of the Indian cricketers. It does not even have to be a good piece of art... it is going to be burned if India loses! If India wins the World Cup, the effigy makers can then work overtime to spruce up their products... the effigies have to look good when garlanded!!
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
fixing cricket matches
Given that Sri Lanka thrashed Bangladesh today in the 2007 Cricket World Cup, the India vs. Sri Lanka game becomes a virtual Super-8 game. Of course, India has to win to advance. Sri Lanka has played really well in the last 2 games, which may suggest that they are due for an "off" day. If India does win, I am sure there will be plenty of conspiracy theories and match fixing allegations. After all, India is currently the big cricket powerhouse, and a loss for India would mean a large loss in advertising revenue for the rest of the tournament.
I have always found it hard to understand the concept of "match fixing" as it relates to losing a cricket match. Unless several (at least 4-5) members of the team are together involved, it would be very hard to "fix" a match. I don't disagree that match fixing was a real disease in the 90's, but I wonder how much did it really affect the outcome of the games. I think that the fixing happened with individual players who were given big bucks to limit how much they score or how many wickets they take. If 1 team member is paid to "fix" the match, he could possibly get out early if he is a batsmen or try to not take a wicket if he is a bowler. But so many players have "off" days even without the intent of fixing the match. Agarkar would be a case in point. He bowls at least 3 "hit-me" balls in every over. Hmm... I wonder if Agarkar has been fixing matches throughout his career!! :-) But we have won matches inspite of routine failures from many of the top players. Keep in mind that the players cannot fix every match, because they have to maintain a high average and maintain a place in the team.
I do hope India wins on Friday... else they will be "fixing" their homes that will be destroyed by the Indian cricket "fans".
I have always found it hard to understand the concept of "match fixing" as it relates to losing a cricket match. Unless several (at least 4-5) members of the team are together involved, it would be very hard to "fix" a match. I don't disagree that match fixing was a real disease in the 90's, but I wonder how much did it really affect the outcome of the games. I think that the fixing happened with individual players who were given big bucks to limit how much they score or how many wickets they take. If 1 team member is paid to "fix" the match, he could possibly get out early if he is a batsmen or try to not take a wicket if he is a bowler. But so many players have "off" days even without the intent of fixing the match. Agarkar would be a case in point. He bowls at least 3 "hit-me" balls in every over. Hmm... I wonder if Agarkar has been fixing matches throughout his career!! :-) But we have won matches inspite of routine failures from many of the top players. Keep in mind that the players cannot fix every match, because they have to maintain a high average and maintain a place in the team.
I do hope India wins on Friday... else they will be "fixing" their homes that will be destroyed by the Indian cricket "fans".
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
Wool mer(der)
Just saw the news that Bob Woolmer may have been murdered!! That is BIG news. The Jamaican police said earlier that initial post-mortem results were inconclusive which suggested that something was amiss. I initially thought (when I heard the news over the weekend that he was dead), that perhaps he committed suicide. But that was hard to fathom... he surely was a stronger man than that!
I wonder what is going to come out of all of this. Could betting/match fixing have played a role?? Or religious fanaticism. After all, cricket is a religion in the sub-continent.
I wonder what is going to come out of all of this. Could betting/match fixing have played a role?? Or religious fanaticism. After all, cricket is a religion in the sub-continent.
O'Reilly vs. Jon Stewart
I had the misfortune this evening to see Bill O'Reilly interview the Mayor of Salt Lake City, Utah (Mayor Rocky Anderson). This was regarding the Mayor's opinion that was voiced over the weekend to impeach Pres. Bush and Dick Cheney regarding the false information provided by the administration that led to the Iraq war. Keep in mind that this was the 4th anniversary of the beginning of the war, and the Mayor's speech over the weekend was at an anti-war demonstration. Bill was obnoxious during the interview; he did not give a chance to the Mayor to complete his sentences, and upon repeated attempts by a very calm Mayor to finish his point of view, Bill resorted to calling him names and insulting him. It was very sad to watch. There was absolutely no respect for the Mayor. Unless you agree with Bill's point of view, please do not ever get on the show. This surely was NO debate. The Mayor had interesting stuff to say, or at least it seemed that way, until Bill barged in every time the Mayor began speaking. Bill alluded to the Mayor blogging for the extreme left wing, to which the Mayor (who was rather surprised) responded that some speeches of his were put in those blogs. Does that suggest that the Mayor is actually blogging for the left wing??? And it was so very ironical since Bill's initial 'talking points' memo was about his problems with New York Times publishing "factually incorrect" statements. Bill wasn't even interested in hearing the Mayor's opinions on the impeachment of our President. Shame on you Bill!!!
On the other hand, on the same night, Jon Stewart interviewed John Bolton (US Ambassador to the UN) on the Tonight Show. John Bolton is a well-known "loyal Bushie". What a stark contrast between him and O'Reilly!!!! Remember, Jon had the advantage of having a live audience, who applauded after every comment of Jon and even sarcastically laughed on a comment or two from Bolton. Jon could have easily shut up Bolton every time he opened his mount and disagreed. But of out respect for the Ambassador, Jon let Bolton complete every point he wanted to make, even though he disagreed with the POV. Jon even ended it by thanking the Ambassador for coming to the show and debating on topics on which they had completely different POVs.
I do watch O'Reilly once in a while just to get a sense of what the 'right wing' media and news is all about. I don't agree with a lot of his opinions, but I don't feel it necessary to hurl abuses at him. But today, O'Reilly was obnoxious, and does not deserve to be on Air and given such importance.
PS: During the interview, the Mayor finally got 15 secs to speak without Bill interrupting, and it looked so obvious that Fox News cut the Mayor off so that Bill could ask him another ridiculous question. Sick!!
On the other hand, on the same night, Jon Stewart interviewed John Bolton (US Ambassador to the UN) on the Tonight Show. John Bolton is a well-known "loyal Bushie". What a stark contrast between him and O'Reilly!!!! Remember, Jon had the advantage of having a live audience, who applauded after every comment of Jon and even sarcastically laughed on a comment or two from Bolton. Jon could have easily shut up Bolton every time he opened his mount and disagreed. But of out respect for the Ambassador, Jon let Bolton complete every point he wanted to make, even though he disagreed with the POV. Jon even ended it by thanking the Ambassador for coming to the show and debating on topics on which they had completely different POVs.
I do watch O'Reilly once in a while just to get a sense of what the 'right wing' media and news is all about. I don't agree with a lot of his opinions, but I don't feel it necessary to hurl abuses at him. But today, O'Reilly was obnoxious, and does not deserve to be on Air and given such importance.
PS: During the interview, the Mayor finally got 15 secs to speak without Bill interrupting, and it looked so obvious that Fox News cut the Mayor off so that Bill could ask him another ridiculous question. Sick!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)