Every day as the enemy

In case you hadn't heard, there's a fairly significant anniversary tomorrow, and much like the Red Sox amazingly always seem to be home on one of Boston's two fake holidays (the other being the amazingly lucky circumstance that makes St. Patrick's Day a holiday) they miraculously get to play at Fenway on the 100th anniversary of the ballpark opening, against the very same team.

Well ... at least the current incarnation of that team, as the Yankees were the New York Highlanders back in those days.

So, for the next three days, the lifelong Red Sox fans since 2004 can put aside their disgust at what the team has become and focus on their one true enemy.

Yes, you read that right, I took a shot at the "wonderful," "passionate" Red Sox fans who probably think there have always been seats on top of the Green Monster and that Red Sox Nation is actually its own free and independent nation-state.

I did so knowing that many of them hold me, a Yankees fan who lives 15 miles from Boston, in the same minimum high regard.

To be fair, most of my interaction with Red Sox fans takes the form of friendly banter, since the ones I deal with most are friends. (One of my college roommates, who lives in the Boston area, loves to tell the story of how there wasn't a lot of tension between us because both the Yankees and Red Sox were terrible during that time. I then burst his bubble ... again ... by reminding him that he was a Cubs fan at the time.)

But every now and then, things happen

The main one is the "Yankee fans exist?" look. When I tell people, they get that look in their eyes like they're seeing something that they had heard rumors about, but didn't actually believe existed. They then have to get to understand this semi-mythical creature, so they have to ask questions. Although it may not be word-for-word correct, I once had a conversation very much like this with a co-worker:

"You're a Yankees fan?"
"Yup."
"Why?"
"Because I'm from New York and my entire family is Yankees fans, so I grew up as one."
"OK, I can respect that."

Now I know he was coming from the right place, so I couldn't get too miffed at him, and the co-worker who blithely suggested I just switch because that's what she (a New Jersey native) did is just lucky I liked her.


I also once had the "pleasure" of riding on a train coming out of Boston (where I was visiting a friend in the hospital) on the day Pedro threw Don Zimmer on the ground and hearing some idiot chirp into her phone about how awesome it was. Fortunately, I'm a peaceful man who does not believe in hitting women, because otherwise I would have been tempted to choke her.

Speaking of my generally peaceful nature, it's the only thing (that and him being about 70 years old) that kept me from slugging the most-obnoxious Red Sox fan I encountered, ironically, not in Boston, but in Hartford, CT.

My in-laws live outside Hartford, which is basically the demarcation line between Red Sox and Yankees territory, and we were peacefully eating lunch one afternoon when a "gentleman" walking by our table took notice of my Yankees Universe shirt.

(Nodding his head in the general direction of my shirt) "You're not a good person."
(Me, somewhat incredulous that I heard what I think I just heard) "Excuse me?"
"You're not a good person. You should root for the Red Sox."
"Ummm, great, thanks."

And he wasn't joking.

So forgive me if I don't get all caught up in the nostalgia of the event. Good for them and their fans, but I'm hoping to see them go home unhappy after every game.

Ozzie Guillen and the three dreaded words

Imagine, for a minute, that your job is to have opinions about sports. (Who knows? Maybe this blog has drawn the attention of someone whose job it is to have opinions about sports.)

Your job is to follow the news of the day, learn about it, talk to people who can increase your understanding of it, all in preparation for the time when you have to provide your views on a big story ... something like Ozzie Guillen saying he "loves" Fidel Castro.

But as you're getting ready, three words keep crossing your mind.

No, not "I love Castro."

I don't know.

You don't know if what he said merits firing or not. Pretty much everyone knows that praising Hitler is an absolute no-no (and it should be), but does Castro fall into that category? What Guillen said was stupid, profoundly stupid, and if he didn't mean it that way, he should have been more careful about his words, but if he didn't work in Miami, would we all care? After all, he said something like this before, along with a few other things.

Yet even as you struggle with your indecision, Steve Rushin's words rattle around your brain.

It is a guiding principle of most columns, presidential debates, political ads, bumper stickers, comment sections and cable news punditry that the only thing in the middle of the road is roadkill. So say what's on your mind, even if your mind has nothing to say. This makes your mouth a ventriloquist's dummy for your brain, but so what? It will also make your call-in radio show -- or your call to a call-in radio show -- sing.

I haven't written anything about Guillen because I don't know what to think beyond that saying anything nice about Castro isn't a good idea, especially in Miami. But I have the luxury of this blog being a hobby. I don't have to post about anything and everything. I can post when I feel like I have something to say.

My gut tells me Ozzie shouldn't go, that the suspension is enough, especially if he really tries to change his ways and was sincere in his apology. But then again, I'm not Cuban, and since I don't claim any particular nationality (I'm your basic boring white guy of generic European heritage), there's nothing anyone can say about it that offends me.

However, even though I basically don't think Ozzie should be fired, I did think Don Imus should have been fired over what he said about the Rutgers women's basketball team a few years ago. I wondered why it took so long, given his history, but my wife has been wondering why Ozzie basically got a slap on the wrist for what he said about Jay Mariotti. 

It's a good point, actually.

At the end of the day, there aren't too many rules about how we should react to situations like this, other than, again, no praising Hitler, and racism probably isn't a good idea, either. As for sexism and homophobia ... ahhh, it depends. (I'm against both, but in a lot of circles, the go-to insult is to call a man a woman or a woman a man ... or both at the same time.)

Is it as simple as whether we like or dislike someone? After all, remember the founding principle of this blog.

Not everyone agrees on the rules, but everyone has to have an opinion, even though ...

We don't know.

Is it the Kentucky players we're mad about?

On his Twitter feed this morning, Jay Bilas recommended an article by William C. Rhoden of the New York Times about the "outrage" (Rhoden's word) over the impending departures of University of Kentucky basketball players for the NBA, the latest John Calipari players to leave after just a year or two in college.

Rhoden has a guess as to why.

If the core of the Kentucky team had been made up of white players with phenomenal athleticism and acumen at every position — operating in the context of a largely black sport — we would not be hearing the complaining. Their success would not be seen as a debasement. The team would be celebrated and feted — as Butler was, as Gonzaga used to be.

Last week, I asked Tom Izzo, the basketball coach at Michigan State, if he thought a highly talented, highly athletic team of white players would be viewed differently.

“I want to answer that as honestly as I can,” Izzo said. “I think it would be different. I hate to say that.”

The perception is that these five black players are not serious students and don’t belong at the university. If they were white, there would be more acceptance that they belong at the university.

Rhoden's piece actually has a fairly interesting anecdote about Izzo encouraging Zach Randolph to go the NBA after his freshman year, even though he didn't think Randolph was mentally ready for it.

  

“When Zach Randolph wanted to go, I thought he should go,” Izzo said. “I thought he was one of the poorest kids I ever recruited. I thought he was a good enough player that he could survive. I did not fight him at all.”

Randolph entered the 2001 N.B.A. draft. After the 2004 season, he signed a six-year, $84 million extension; last April, he agreed to a four-year extension with the Memphis Grizzlies worth a guaranteed $66 million. 

“His mother was 100 percent for him staying at the time,” Izzo said, “although I’m sure she feels pretty good about it now.”

I think Rhoden's point about race has some basis in fact. As a matter of fact, I think it may have had a role in the sudden concern people had about the NBA's free agency system when LeBron James and Carmelo Anthony were playing out their free-agent dramas.

But I think Rhoden is missing one potential reason why people are so up in arms over what's going on at Kentucky.

The white guy.

Calipari.

Let's just say that Calipari has a bit of a history with the folks at the NCAA ... if you consider two vacated Final Fours to be "a bit of a history." I know, I know, he personally was never actually implicated; it was just a giant coincidence that all this stuff was going on at UMass and Memphis while he was there.

Combine Calipari's penchant for coincidence, his ability to restock his teams with top recruits at will and the Wildcats' seemingly having no academic issues despite all the one-and-dones even as other teams are being thrown out of future tournaments (by the way, if I read the article right, it seems like the APR would encourage schools to have their players leave early), and there's one thought that comes to mind pretty quickly.

The guy's getting away with something.

In fact, people are so convinced that Calipari's just biding his time until this year's title is stripped, that Dick Vitale brought it up in conjunction with the news that Baylor is possibly facing sanctions over excessive phone calls and text messages, leading to this exchange with Richard Deitsch of Sports Illustrated.

@dickiev Ppl in BBN - just saying if Baylor situation was about the Cats there would be a wild frenzy attacking Calipari. Read correctly b4 u react.

@richarddeitsch Given UK are the champs, of course there would be more frenzy. But this straw man take makes you come off like a Cal apologist.

@dickiev Apologist 4 what - check NCAA - HAS never been charged-what school in USA would not play Rose if NCAA said he is eligible.

I'm with Deitsch on this one, and had my own response, one which I think Gary Parrish might have agreed with.   

@lasthonestsport Or would people say, "Is that all?"

I have yet to get a reply.