| Home -> March 1997 -> March Madness |
When the brackets came out for this year's NCAA men's basketball tournament, I instantly thought about what great fun it would be to attack the selection committee. I imagined tearing into them for picking too many teams from the Big Ten and Atlantic Ten conference and neglecting the smaller or midrange leagues that generally only receive one ticket to the big dance.
After all, I thought, why reward teams like Indiana for mediocre seasons while shutting out a second place team like Southwest Missouri State, who had a hunger all season and a reason to play hard in the first round. The Iowas and Purdues of the tourney have as much chance of elimination in a first round as Eastern Michigan, but it is more fun to watch The Eagles lose a close game, or manage an upset. Let them in.
Before I sat down to write all that, though, I realized that the country is stocked with half-wits writing columns in sports pages and speaking over the nation's airwaves complaining for one reason or another about which teams were left out of the field of 64. Why join in that chorus of mediocrity when I could be making fun of it?
In particular, I want to call your attention to the nonsense spouted by many of the game announcers and color commentary people.
I am tired of hearing about the scrappy young upstarts from UX-Hyphen in their David and Goliath battle against the perennial power Big State.
These people are playing a game, they do not got to war or do battle, so please stop referring to grizzled veterans and green recruits. For that matter, coaches are not generals, although many probably suffer from some sort of Napoleon complex.
While I am on the subject of coaches, I will concede that they do a tremendous amount of work teaching, designing plays, and scouting the opposition. There is strategy involved, and that strategy almost certainly changes depending on what the other side does. However, no matter what sport you are watching I guarantee it is not chess. It definitely is not a real chess-match, but that trite pairing is what one hears over and over from broadcasters. "This is a real chess-match," they proclaim. Well, I don't like the term "chess-match" at all, but couldn't they say "veritable chess-match" or "gridiron chess-match" for once? Please, open up your vocabulary and use it. Which brings me to the next section.
The English language is a wonderful, dynamic body of words that is free to borrow foreign terms when apropos and adopt new expressions when the current database is lacking. This richness dictates that cliches (like those above) are easy to avoid, that there are ample ways to describe any activity, and that there is no need to invent words when one is already available.
Knowing that there are so many words to detail action, I start to foam at the mouth when I hear announcers use the word "athleticism" as a crutch for their poor oratory skills. If a quarterback eludes linebackers, then lowers his center of mass to keep balance before rising to hurl the ball downfield, please tell me so. Saying, "his athleticicsm got him out of that sack" informs me of nothing. Obviously athletics played a part; he is not dazzling a corner blitz with lyrical virtousity. Tell me how he displayed athleticism, and we won't need that word.
Now on to words that do not exist. More than once in the past year, I have heard sports journalist say that a play or individual was "well defensed". What? I guess some actions are so special that the past participle of "defend" is not good enough. Chris "Boomer" Berman of ESPN used this once during "NFL Primetime". For shame, Berman, for shame.
How about "spurtability"? We'll let this one speak for itself, a la The Spice Girls. Although, explosiveness comes to mind as a good substitute, and a real word. It sounds more competitive than spurtability, as well. This is about sports after all, and not Sarah Jane Hamilton.
Lastly, as I have said before, utilize is just a longer word for "use". Quit it with the use of utilization.
I like statistics. They are interesting, and sometimes they can even help judge the likelihood of an event in sports. Batting average, for example, is a good ratio, sampled over literally hundreds of events that makes for a somewhat reliable number for judging future events.
Before the NCAA tournament, however, I learned from CBS that no team had won the men's basketabll NCAA title when entering the games with only one loss. This meant "the odds are against Kansas," according to those at the scorer's table. This means nothing to me, or to Kansas, for that matter.
As odd as this fact is, it is only that: odd. A curiosity of the small sample of tournaments that have been held by the NCAA. Does anyone actually believe that entering the finals with one loss all year decreases the probability of winning it all? Laughable.
So take heart and laugh the next time you hear the odds are against these gritty kids beacuse their foes are undefeated on Sundays this year. I'll laugh along with you.
I did laugh when a friend sent me his sports announcer pet peeves.
Last Updated: 27 April 1997
Rant Back!