Go, Cats. Go.

The Villanova University Wildcats received one of the four top seeds in the 2015 NCAA Men’s Basketball Tournament. They went 32-2 and won the Big East championship. Most prognosticators give them an excellent chance to make the Final Four and decent shot to win the national title. Oddly, this makes Villanova only the second or third best team in the tournament nicknamed the Wildcats (behind Kentucky and possibly Arizona). They are one of nine (soon to be ten) Division I schools with the same nickname. For Villanova, a Catholic school located in the suburbs of Philadelphia, the generic Wildcat nickname is a poor fit- perhaps as a result of the process in which it was selected.

The origins of Wildcats at Villanova dates back to a school-wide contest in 1926 and, likely, to a Chicago sportswriter covering a Big Ten football game in 1924.

Villanova adopted the Wildcats moniker after a contest for a suitable name was held and voted on by the student body. As explained in the May, 1926 issue of the Villanova student newspaper The Villanovan: “The name ‘Wildcats’ is meant to convey the fighting spirit, alertness and skill of the animal chosen in vanquishing its enemies. This is the spirit of the Villanova athletic teams…” The school newspaper credits the winning suggestion to one Edward Hunsinger, who is identified as the assistant coach of football. 

Perhaps, though, the story really begins in Chicago two years earlier. The 1924 Northwestern University football team was exceeding expectations. After an exciting game that saw Northwestern fall to the University of Chicago, a Chicago Tribune writer named Wallace Abbey lauded the efforts of the Northwestern squad: “It was the fourth quarter of the annual Chicago-Northwestern grid battle. Football players had not come down from Evanston; wildcats would be a name better suited to [Northwestern coach] Thistlethwaite’s boys.” According to Northwestern’s official website, Abbey’s article inspired Northwestern’s formal adoption of the Wildcat nickname.

Abbey’s article was published on November 16, 1924. The following Saturday, November 22nd, the University of Notre Dame traveled to Chicago to take on the newly minted Northwestern Wildcats. Coached by the legendary Knute Rockne, Notre Dame trotted out the famed “Four Horsemen” backfield. True football historians may also remember Notre Dame’s famed “Seven Mules” linemen. Among these linemen in 1924 was a senior end named Ed Hunsinger.

Did Hunsinger steal the Wildcats name from Northwestern? There is a circumstantial case to be made, but it is impossible to say for sure. For one thing, Northwestern cannot lay claim to being the first Wildcats, as Kentucky has used the name since 1909, Arizona since 1914, Kansas State since 1915, and Davidson University can date its use to 1917. It is not known if Hunsinger actually saw the Abbey article or knew that Northwestern had fully adopted the name. 

The point is not to suggest Hunsinger was dishonest (to be clear, he did nothing unethical), but instead to illustrate that the Wildcats nickname can never be ‘owned’ by Villanova. They were not the first to use the name, nor can it be reasonably argued that there is compelling historical relationship between Villanova and the wildcat. 

Villanova is not obligated to honor the student vote of 1926 forever. It was democratic, but the student body then was starkly different than today. The motivations of those students is a question to consider. Did they consider that the name would remain for going on 90 years? Was it contemplated that the nickname would expand beyond athletics? Did they want a unique, meaningful nickname or did they want one that resembled those of other successful teams?  

It is time for Villanova to consider a new, meaningful nickname that matches the uniqueness of the university. Tradition is tremendously valuable, but it must not be an excuse to resist positive changes. Villanova’s successes as the Wildcats will always remain part of its history. A new nickname can, if chosen carefully, better reflect tradition while offering something unique to the Villanova community. A few possibilities:

1. Villanova has a wonderful history of giving back to the community. Habitat for Humanity programs at Villanova are some of most impactful programs in the country. The Villanova University Hammers honors the young men and women who have answered the call to serve others, while providing a strong image the school’s athletic teams.
2. In the fall of 1968, Villanova became a fully co-educational university. The Villanova University 68s honors the first class of fully-integrated female students. It is a lasting testament that Villanova is made better every day because of its diversity.
3. Villanova was founded by the Order of St. Augustine and is committed to the Augustinian ideals of truth, unity and love. Augustine was ordained and became a Bishop in an area known as Hippo Regius (now part of present day Algeria) and is commonly referred to as Augustine of Hippo. The Villanova University Hippos is a unique name that holds deep meaning to the university.

_____________________
Link to Abbey's article: http://archives.chicagotribune.com/1924/11/16/page/25/article/maroons-beat-purple-by-dropkick

(note the article on the same page about Notre Dame and their starting players)

All MLB Team (one player per franchise)

Note: this one is for the baseball nerds...

The challenge:

Create the best possible twenty-five player baseball roster from current major league players by selection no more than one player from each MLB franchise.

Additional ground rules: 

1. The team selected will compete for the remainder of this season and three additional seasons.  
2. Each player selected will receive a contract until the end of this period at a rate approved by management.  At this point, all players will become unrestricted free agents and will give no preference to resigning with your team.  In other words, contracts don't matter, but these players will be gone after the third and final season.  
3. Your franchise will not be allowed to make any trades during this three year period.  
4. Any injured player will be replaced with a faceless replacement level player until the injured player can return.  
5. Your roster will be capped at 25 players.  There will be five MLB franchises who will not have any players represented on your team.  
6. The team will allowed to use a designated hitter.  

This is the team I put together...

Starters (9):

C: Buster Posey, San Francisco Giants, Age 26, Bats: R
The Giants had two very solid candidates to consider: Posey and Madison Bumgarner.  While I would love to have the stud lefty, I couldn't pass up adding the former MVP to my squad.  Posey can also play first base, which will be useful con
sidering how this team must deal with injuries.

1B: Paul Goldschmidt, Arizona Diamondbacks, 25, R
An easy pick as a rising star from a team without a lot of top-tier talent.  Patrick Corbin got some consideration after his insane start to this year, but Goldschmidt is simply too good at age 25 to pass up.

2B: Robinson Cano, New York Yankees, 30, L
Someone will pay Cano a ton of money this offseason and likely lock up his services until well past his prime.  Under these rules, however, Cano is a great pick with huge offensive production from a position where there isn't a ton of talent.  A few years ago, picking only one Yankee would have been agonizing.  Not today.

SS: Troy Tulowitzki, Colorado Rockies, 28, R
Tulowitzki is a great hitter at a premium position.  Picking Tulowitzki closes the door on adding Carlos Gonzalez, but that's a price I'm happy to pay to grab the best shortstop in the league. Tulowitzki was hurt for much of last season, but he is killing it so far this year.  There are many great outfielders in the league, but only one consistently great shortstop, so Tulowitzki is the choice.

3B: Evan Longoria, Tampa Bay Rays, 27, R
Miguel Cabrera is the best third baseman in the baseball, but since I'm giving myself a DH slot, I'm going to put the superior defensive player out in the field.  The price for picking Longoria is losing out on Rays' pitcher Matt Moore.  I also considered David Wright of the Mets here.  The choice came down to Longoria and Matt Harvey or Wright and Moore.  By a hair, I'm taking Longoria and Harvey.

LF: Mike Trout, Los Angeles Angels, 21, R
Another easy choice.  One of the top players in the game and, with the decline of Albert Pujols and the enigma that is Josh Hamilton, our obvious Angel.

CF: Andrew McCutchen, Pittsburgh Pirates, 26, R
McCutchen is easily the most talented player on the Pirates, and despite a relatively slow start, he should be just entering his prime.

RF: Bryce Harper, Washington Nationals, 20, L
Assuming he stops trying to knock down walls with his face, Harper should be one of the best hitters in the league for the foreseeable future.  Further, an outfield of Trout, McCutchen and Harper will not only be great defensively, but each of these guys is athletic enough to play any of the outfield spots.

DH: Miguel Cabrera, Detroit Tigers, 30, R
Tigers Prince Fielder and Justin Verlander are smart, savvy players.  I think both of them would agree that Miggy should be on this team.

Bench (5):

BN1: C- Joe Mauer, Minnesota Twins, 30, L
The left-handed side of my catcher platoon.  I imagine Mauer and Posey splitting the catcher duties to allow both of them to maximize their health.

BN2: 2B- Dustin Pedroia, Boston Red Sox, 29, R
The former MVP has been the most consistent player on the Red Sox over the past several years.  Ortiz is too old, Clay Buchholz has not had enough sustained success and Jacoby Ellsbury is simply not talented enough to be on this team.

BN3: SS- Jean Segura, Milwaukee Brewers, 23, R
This is a surprise even to myself, as I thought Ryan Braun would a lock before I crunched the numbers.    However, the team's depth at outfield and the need to protect against injuries necessitates a player who can backup the injury-prone Tulowitzki.  Additionally, Segura would provide great speed off the bench.

BN4: OF/IF- Chris Davis, Baltimore Orioles, 27, L
This was not an easy choice.  Adam Jones, who plays center for the Orioles, may very well be a superior all-around player.  That being said, Davis is slightly younger, can play first base and outfield (and has played third) and bats from the left side of the plate, which helps balance to what is a very right-handed lineup.

BN5: OF- Giancarlo Stanton, Miami Marlins, 22, R
A great spot for Stanton, who is having a hard time staying healthy for the Marlins.  As the fifth outfielder, this is a good place to roll the dice with someone with his level of talent.

Starting Pitchers (5):

SP1: Clayton Kershaw, Los Angeles Dodgers, 25, Throws: L
Easy.  With the injuries to Matt Kemp and Hanley Ramirez, the young Dodger ace is a no-brainer.

SP2: Felix Hernandez, Seattle Mariners, 27, R
Felix is still mowing kids down up in the Pacific Northwest.  Just twenty-seven years old, he's as safe a bet as anyone to continue to dominate for the next few seasons.

SP3: Yu Darvish, Texas Rangers, 26, R
For the Rangers, Adrian Beltre warranted some consideration, but Darvish has been spectacular in just his second season in MLB.

SP4: James Shields, Kansas City Royals, 31, R
The Rays were thoughtful enough to move one of their stud pitchers to Kansas City so that I could include a Royal in this exercise.  His past experience pitching "big games" solidifies his spot here.

SP5: Adam Wainwright, St. Louis Cardinals, 31, R
A difficult choice with Shelby Miller available, but Wainwright gets the slight edge due to his playoff experience.

Relief Pitchers (6)

RP1: Matt Harvey, New York Mets, 24, R
Injuries are going to happen to any pitching staff, so I'm going to stash at least two starters in the bullpen to work the middle innings while being ready to slide into the rotation if need be.  The Mets young ace certainly has the talent to do both.

RP2: Chris Sale, Chicago White Sox, 24, L
Seniority matters on this team, so the young guns get stocked in the bullpen until a spot opens up in the rotation or until one of the starters falters.  Sale has proven that last year was no fluke and has continued to dominate in 2013.

RP3: Jeff Samardzija, Chicago Cubs, 28, R
A former reliever, the intimidating Samardzija can regain that mindset and excel when called on in the middle innings. While there may be an adjustment for all of these starting pitchers moving to the pen, I think it's wise to add their superior skill set to the roster as opposed to picking middle relief specialists.

RP4: Aroldis Chapman, Cincinnati Reds, 25, L
Chapman becomes the lefty specialist.  No lefty hitter wants to see this guy come out of the pen.  His unique skill-set bumps Joey Votto off this team, which was one of the toughest omissions.

RP5: Craig Kimbrel, Atlanta Braves, 25, R
A true franchise closer- on this team he's the eighth inning guy.

RP6: Jonathan Papelbon, Philadelphia Phillies, 32, R
Our starting closer.  At 32, doesn't have the ceiling of either Chapman or Kimbrel, but is playoff tested and is still a very effective reliever.

Final roster:

Position players (14):
C: Posey/ Mauer
1B: Goldschmidt
2B: Cano/ Pedroia
SS: Tulowitzki/ Segura
3B: Cabrera/ Longoria
OF: Trout/ McCutchen/ Harper/ Davis/ Stanton

Starting Pitchers (5):
Kershaw/Hernandez/Darvish/Shields/Wainwright

Relief Pitchers (6):
Harvey/ Sale/ Samardzija/ Chapman/ Kimbrel/ Papelbon


Certainly there were some extremely difficult decisions and not all the selected players can lay claim to being the best players on their own teams.  Some of the hardest omissions were Joey Votto, Carlos Gonzalez, Ryan Braun, Matt Moore, Justin Upton, Carlos Santana, Prince Fielder, Justin Verlander, Shelby Miller, David Wright, Stephen Strasburg, Adrian Beltre, Adam Jones and Madison Bumgartner.

With twenty-five slots, five teams were not going to have any players on this team.   Cleveland, Houston, Oakland, San Diego, and Toronto are not represented.

Flip-Flopping on Soccer in America

Today, I had my first chance to watch some of the Euro2012 soccer matches.  When the stakes are high and national pride is on the line, soccer is a joy to watch.  The game is perfectly set up to build drama, test players' nerves, and (best of all) limit television commercial breaks.  Further, soccer does not face the headwinds that other major sports are facing, specifically player concussions and rampant steroid/performance enhancing drug problems.

In the US, professional soccer is clearly a second-class sport.  Unless the national team is making waves in the World Cup, the game is an afterthought.  Die-hard soccer fans cannot fathom how their game only captures the interest of Americans during the World Cup, though there are no shortage of theories:

1. Soccer is considered a foreign sport and we are drawn to more "American" sports.  Rightly or wrongly, this is a hurdle that the sport must overcome.  It has been my experience that American soccer fans are considered "elitist" unless they are immigrants or are first generation American. Meanwhile, soccer is played by a huge percentage of American youths and an even bigger percentage of kids around the world.  So, to follow the logic, you're an elitist if you follow the least elitist sport in the world unless you can prove that you are not, in fact, socially elite.  Americans are awesome sometimes.

2. Americans don't follow soccer because we just aren't very good at it.   I think there's an argument here, too.  We are spoiled by our professional leagues.  The NHL pulls in the best players from Canada and Russia; the NBA grabs the best European players; Major League Baseball attracts the most talented players from the Dominican and Central America; and the NFL employs the finest... um... Samoans. Our best national players need to go to Europe to experience playing against the best competition, giving the impression that American soccer is an inferior product.    

3. Soccer is boring.  No, it isn't. 

4. Too much flopping.  To me, this is the smoking gun. "Flopping" in soccer parlance is the art of dramatically throwing oneself on the ground and writhing in staged agony in an attempt to have a foul assessed on the opposition (typically to draw a penalty shot or a free kick). This is taken to point of absurdity, as players are put on stretchers and carried off the field screaming in agony, only to hop off the stretcher and immediately return to the game with no ill-effects.

American sports fans simply refuse to accept this. We revere athletes that play through injuries, conceal physical pain and never use an injury as an excuse (see Reed, Willis and Strug, Kerri).

As an example, the NBA has been rigorously defending its players against accusations of players flopping in the playoffs. In the recent past, basketball players from Europe and South America have been labeled unsportsmanlike for embellishing fouls. True or not, the insinuation is that players from "soccer countries" are not as physically or mentally tough as their American counterparts.     

European Floption

Americans like to project the image we want onto our athletes: tough, fair and honorable. Flopping represents everything we claim to disdain in our athletes.

If we collectively looked in a mirror (convex would be best), we would see that while we claim to reject flopping, we actually embrace it in other sports and in our every day lives.

American sports fans love when their team wins, of course, but only slightly less enjoyable is making excuses when their team loses- especially when a bad officiating call is to blame. To deride flopping is to rebel against controversy and complaining, which is the very essence of being a sports fan.

The flop is also a cultural norm. Our new favorite past-time (Reality Television) is all about the flop. You say something that might possibly be considered vaguely disrespectful to a non-specific person or persons and, boom, you have an episode of the Kardashians, the Jersey Shore or the entire Bravo! network.

Our politicians are world-class floppers, treating every offhanded comment and gesture as an personal insult and a condemnation of at least one major voting constituency. This is how innocuous comments turn into a "War on Women," a "War on Marriage," or a "War on Algebra" (give it a few months). As 2012 is an election year, expect the flopping to reach epic proportions as we get closer to November. Every time Obama or Romney expresses an opinion, expect to see the opposition writhing on the ground crying foul.

Eventually, I believe that soccer's appeal will take hold in the States. The catalyst may be an extremely strong showing in the World Cup by the American team, a crisis in one of the major US sports, or the entrance of an American team into one of the top European leagues (a New York team in the English Premier League, anyone?). I have no idea when this will happen, but I know that certain media members and fans will be unhappy. These folks will complain about the dramatics, moan about the perceived lack of sportsmanship, and decry the eroding of the American sports ideal... in other words, they'll flop like Americans:

Moonlight Graham

In difficult times like these, it's useful to step back and remember what is important in life.  In that vein, I've decided to take a moment to file a rant on a 1989 Kevin Costner movie.

Field of Dreams was a cultural and commercial success.  I saw in in the theatre, as my mom took advantage of a promotion whereby you got into the theatre for free if you brought a pillow.   My mom is good like that.

For those who haven't seen it or don't remember the details, Ray (played by Costner) and Terrance (played by James Earl Jones), go on an adventure prompted by Ray's talking corn-field.  Ray builds a baseball field in the corn-stalks on his farm and, again prompted by the talking corn, drives to Boston to take Terrance to a Red Sox game.  Did I mention that there are ghosts playing baseball on the field?  No?  Well, they are. 

Anyway, Ray finds Terrance, they go to a Sox game, and the Fenway Park scoreboard tells them to find a baseball player named Moonlight Graham, who played one game in 1922 and never got an at-bat: 

(Off topic, but this scene freaked me out when I first saw it.  Every time I looked at a scoreboard, I said a little prayer that it wouldn't show me an eerie message.  Being 10 years old is terrifying.)

So, Ray and Terrance drive to Minnesota and learn that Moonlight is not-so-much alive anymore.  This is of no matter to Ray, who promptly visits 1972 to have a chat with Moonlight (who is an elderly local doctor). 

Upon leaving Minnesota, they pick up a hitchhiker: a wide-eyed young baseball player named Moonlight Graham.  They bring him to Ray's cornfield, where famous dead professional baseballers are having a rousing game of ball.  Moonlight gets into the game, realizing his dream.  He comes up to bat and hits a sacrifice fly to center in his only plate appearance.  Immediately after, Ray's daughter chokes on a hot dog, Moonlight steps from the field, transforms back into the weathered doctor, saves Ray's daughter, then walks into the corn and disappears.  So, if you're scoring at home, Moonlight has gone from dead, to old, to young, to old, and back to dead in about an hour of screen-time. 

Now, I have no problem with any of this.  As the credits roll, Ray has saved his farm and gets to play catch with his deceased father- a rather solid ending.  The baseball scenes are authentic looking, the parts of the movie that are supposed to be funny are funny, and the actors do a great job in the movie (except maybe for Ray's wife, who is excruciating).  In fact, the movie got an Oscar nomination for best picture, and this was back before every movie got a nomination.

My issue is that they haven't addressed Moonlight's statistical deficiency.  As seen in the clip above, the scoreboard at Fenway  stated that Moonlight had one game, but no at bats.  Ray and Terrance clearly state their intention to remedy the fact that he has no at bats.  He comes to bat in the movie, and flies out to the outfield, scoring the runner from third base.  It's a sacrifice fly- get it? he sacrifices himself!- but a sacrifice fly is not counted as an official "at bat" under the official scoring rules of baseball!    This has driven me crazy since I first saw the movie. 

I've tried to reconcile this with the baseball rules.  Maybe a sacrifice fly counted as an at bat in 1922?  Nope.  Nor did it count as an at bat in 1989 (when the movie came out).  At certain points, the official rules did count this as an at bat, but those times were short-lived (prior to 1908 and between 1940-1954).  Since we're told that most of the players on the field were banned from baseball in 1919, it seems quite unlikely that they'd be playing using the rules of either era. 

The players in Ray's field were most likely not keeping any statistics outside of each team's run total, but since the characters expended so much effort to get Moonlight his one "at bat", this is a huge oversight. 

Next week I'll break down the jurisprudence of Night Court, to see if I can suck all the fun out of that too....