As I sit here at work, I have noticed some stiffness in my legs when I stand up, especially the inner thigh/groin region. I did a quick inventory of my last couple of days and realize that I can trace it back to Tuesday, when I raked and picked up all of the leaves in the back yard. Yikes. I mean, I DID fill up three large garbage bags full of leaves, but I must need to step up my activity levels when that produces a little random soreness. Good thing that I'm not a professional athlete; I'd hate to be watching ESPN and see an injury report listing me "Out(yard work)".
Today is a time for family, and for reflecting on what we are thankful for. Stacie's parents had the opportunity to go to California to spend the holiday with their daughter, Stacie and Lexie had the opportunity to go to my 93-year old grandfather's house for dinner, and I had the opportunity to work today. We are thankful for all of the above and more: our family, our friends, our faith, our jobs, our country and everything that we have in our lives. This is a special time of the year...one that will be even more special in a few weeks when we receive another member into our family, and we are truly thankful that he is continuing to develop and grow (although Stacie's not as keen about the growth part). We can't wait for him to arrive and watch him grow. Lexie is thankful for her new baby brother, Turkey Day, and Banana Pie, although not necessarily in that order.
Have a wonderful Thanksgiving, everyone!
Thursday, November 27, 2008
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
The Crib "Makeover"
With less than a month (heck, less than four weeks) until our little one is here, we are trying to get everything ready here at home. We decided to paint the crib black (does this really surprise anyone?) and so we took it over to my dad's office to paint it in their warehouse. Dad built something that would allow us to hang the pieces up and spray them, then let them dry. So, now we know where to go if we need to do some auto body work!
It worked great, and after a primer coat and three full black coats, it was done. Thanks, Dad, for doing the majority of the painting and for letting it hang in your warehouse for a week. It looks great!
We worked in the baby's room off and on for a few days (Stacie spent most of one Saturday in there when I was at work), and with the crib set up, and most of the "stuff" that had accumulated in there over the past couple of years out of there, we are mostly ready for the big day. The closet is still a work in progress, but everything fits in his new dresser, so it's not really necessary right now. We're pretty excited!
Here's a slide show with a few pictures of the crib makeover, and some of the finished nursery:
It worked great, and after a primer coat and three full black coats, it was done. Thanks, Dad, for doing the majority of the painting and for letting it hang in your warehouse for a week. It looks great!
We worked in the baby's room off and on for a few days (Stacie spent most of one Saturday in there when I was at work), and with the crib set up, and most of the "stuff" that had accumulated in there over the past couple of years out of there, we are mostly ready for the big day. The closet is still a work in progress, but everything fits in his new dresser, so it's not really necessary right now. We're pretty excited!
Here's a slide show with a few pictures of the crib makeover, and some of the finished nursery:
Friday, November 21, 2008
Mark your calendar . . .December 19th, 2008
I received final confirmation this morning, my c-section has been scheduled for 7:30am, December 19th. At my doctors appointment Monday it was recommended that we don't wait past 39 weeks for the delivery of this baby. Delivery of diabetic women can be performed anytime after 38 weeks but generally never past 39 weeks. 39 weeks would be Dec. 27th and since they don't schedule c-sections on the weekend he wanted to schedule Dec. 26th as the date for delivery. I put up a bit of fight since I didn't want to have to celebrate a lifetime of birthday's on the day after Christmas. The recommended date then became Dec. 22nd which meant that I would have to spend Christmas Eve and Christmas Day in the hospital. Not really what I wanted to do either. So, the doctor proposed an option to schedule the c-section on Dec. 19th and perform an amniocentesis the day before to make sure the fetus is mature enough for delivery. It's only 1 day before 38 weeks, which is Dec. 20th, but again because of the weekend issue we would have to perform the test in order to ensure the delivery on the 19th would be ok. I'm not that excited about the amnio but do want to put the baby's safe delivery as a priority since the last thing we want is another baby stay in the NICU. Currently he is measuring a little big (80th percentile for growth) so hopefully his lungs will be developed enough for delivery. If the results come back negative then the c-section will be moved to Dec. 22nd or possibly later depending on the test results. It's amazing that so much can occur within 7 days, especially with a major holiday. To add another log to the fire my doctor won't even be in the state during any of these dates, he's off for the Holidays.
After much thought and prayer we decided to move forward with the 19th. So, for now we're preparing and planning on December 19th for the delivery of our new little one. Only 4 weeks to the date . . . getting so close so fast!
After much thought and prayer we decided to move forward with the 19th. So, for now we're preparing and planning on December 19th for the delivery of our new little one. Only 4 weeks to the date . . . getting so close so fast!
"The Holy War", a response
Warning: this post is length and graphic in nature.
Well, I got an early Christmas gift on Thursday. My brother Nate blew the dust off of his blog and posted a long entry entitled “A Few Reasons Why I Would Rather Be A Utah Fan” in anticipation of the big “Holy War” between BYU and Utah this Saturday. You can read his post here. He then proceeded to playfully throw down the gauntlet for BYU fans to respond, including a personal challenge to me in email form. Let's see...you're going to let me respond to your post and ratchet the intensity of this rivalry even higher, and at the same time increase the level of tension between me, my brother, and my father (who besides being my relatives are two of my very best friends)? Hey, Merry Christmas to you too, Nate!
But in the spirit of friendly rivalry, I decided to accept Nate's invitation to respond from a BYU fan's point of view. Let me point out one thing up front: Nate is an excellent writer; he is thorough, eloquent, and a true craftsman. I suspect that his post has undergone several drafts and much meditation and massaging. In turn, he has generously given me roughly 24 hours to respond to his masterpiece. I'm going to have to wing this one from the hip, so I can freely admit up front that my response will lack the polish and professionalism of Nate's. Fortunately, I have the truth on my side.
As he mentioned, Nate grew up a casual sports fan, and while he was always a Utah fan, he didn't become passionate about it until around junior high. In 2001, he approached me and our friend Rich about possibly “switching sides” before the first game of the Gary Crowton era (which seemed like a good idea at the time, especially after BYU thrashed Tulane 70-35). Who knew what turmoil the next several years would bring with the bottoming out of BYU's program? Nate has followed both programs closely, and tried to exist as a “sports bigamist”, to borrow a phrase from ESPN's Bill Simmons. But I know that he has remained a Utah fan deep down, and his place on the proverbial fence is now clearly on the crimson side. And I'm sorry for outing you Nate, about that whole switching sides thing. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
I'll address each one of Nate's points in rebuttal, and add anything left over at the end, time and space permitting.
Nate's point: Utah has been as nationally relevant as BYU over the past 17 years.
He argues this point by comparing records of the two teams since 1992, so I will address this first. The winning percentages are a near wash (.511 vs .500) although I would mention that this time frame includes Utah's magical two-year run and the worst 4-year stretch of BYU football in my lifetime. It also cuts off the ten years from 1982 to 1992 when BYU averaged 10 wins per season and established themselves nationally and Utah was abysmal. But within the time frame given, their overall records are very close. Although BYU managed 10 wins six times in that time frame, which was double that of Utah, including an NCAA record 14 wins in 1996, a record which probably cannot ever be broken.
Records cannot address national relevance, however. And in this aspect, BYU is clearly head and shoulders above Utah (and every Mountain West team). BYU's consistency for the past 30 years and their success on a national level makes them the conference's standard bearer. Back when they actually played on ESPN, their TV ratings were always consistent with the big boys. True, they have a built-in nationwide fan base, but that is also what makes them nationally relevant. The 1996 team didn't get to go to a bigger bowl, and they were constantly in the headlines. In 2002, the Bowl Coalition thumbed their noses at BYU, prompting a government investigation and the revamping of some of the criteria used for bowl qualification. Utah was certainly relevant during the Urban years, finally kicking down the BCS door that BYU had been beating in for ten years, but those were the only two years (along with this year) where their national cachet could match that of BYU.
Nate's point: Utah has a better bowl record since 1992.
It's hard to argue straight numbers, and Utah has been impressive in their bowls, winning their last seven in a row, while BYU's bowl efforts have almost always been substandard. Fortunately Nate started looking at bowl records since 1992, so we wouldn't have to worry about examining the 28 years before that when Utah didn't go to a bowl. Whew! A lesser man might mention the fact that the Pitt team Utah beat in the Fiesta Bowl is generally considered the worst team to ever appear in a BCS bowl game, or that the Georgia Tech team they played the next year (who were infuriated that they were snubbed by the BCS) turned in one of the least inspired performances that I have ever seen. But Utah can't pick who they play, and they have beaten whatever team lines up across from them year after year. Nate used this as his trump card for Utah's national prominence, but with like 30 bowls in December, a win in the Armed Forces Bowl (or the Las Vegas Bowl for that matter) gets lost in the shuffle, in my opinion.
Nate's point: Utah has won the Rivalry Game more often since 1992.
In using this as a reason why he would rather be a Ute fan, I suppose that I could accuse him of being a front running fan. But I understand that he is making a case for the Utes, so I see where he is coming from. Again, the time frame eliminates the 15-2 record BYU posted in the other 17 years of Nate's lifetime, but this game has become a true war in recent years. If I'm being truthful, I don't ever really enjoy watching this game. When BYU wins, I'm never really satisfied (I'll have to address BYU arrogance in a minute), and when they lose, it's a long year until they meet again. Utah always brings their A-game, and I don't feel like BYU reciprocates. Of course, Utah fans would argue that their team has something to do with that, and I would have to agree to an extent. Bottom line: this game is a battle, and Utah has more than held their own since Ronnie Mac was around.
Nate's point: Utah has the underdog vibe, BYU has the arrogance vibe.
I chuckled to read the line “That is not to say that Utah has more national interest...” when he spent seven previous paragraphs trying to prove that they had every bit as much national interest as BYU, but I understand his point about the underdog vibe. Nate has always liked to be a little bit against the grain. He liked music that other didn't like, read books that others didn't read, etc. So if he perceives Utah as an up-and-comer, then it would make sense that they appeal to him. Although I take umbrage with him classifying BYU as “the established former power that is perceived to trade on its slowly eroding tradition”. BYU has lost one conference game in three years, so they are certainly NOT a former power, and whatever tradition Gary Crowton tried to erode during his tenure has been brought back in spades by Bronco. And to answer the question about which team a casual observer would find interesting, I'd choose the higher profile team every time. For example, I love watching Stephen Curry and Davidson during March Madness because they are there each year and have had some success. Can't say which up-and-comer from the Southern Conference I like.
The rest of Nate's argument on this point addresses BYU's arrogance. I don't think that the moral argument is even relevant. BYU fans don't tell New Mexico fans that they are better than them because they don't drink coffee. Their arrogance is based on football, not how they live their lives. I've read plenty of message boards (Wyoming is a good example) where they constantly attack the LDS church. But they are anti-Mormon, and hate BYU fans for their association with the church, not because BYU fans are waving their “higher living” in their faces.
BYU fans have set pretty high standards for their program. Heck, I'm guilty of it. I haven't followed football this year with nearly as much fervor since they lost to TCU. But can you blame us? We have been blessed with a program that has been dominant for 30+ years. We have come to expect winning seasons every year, and consequently hold our heads high when it comes to the football team. We perceive slights, question everything that goes against us, and rub people the wrong way. I recognize this. And consequently, BYU is the the game that teams circle on their schedule year after year. TCU has been tackling a dummy in practice since January with a BYU helmet on it. Air Force players talked about how they were looked forward to this game all year. Wyoming despises BYU. Maybe this is my BYU arrogance talking, but I've seen plenty of teams tear down their goalposts after beating BYU (including Utah after they beat a BYU team with a losing record). Beating Utah is always a good win, but not a signature win.
I do want to mention one point to this: Utah fans have been banging this drum for years. They hate the arrogance of that “team down south”. But in the space of two years of success under Urban Meyer, Utah fans (and I'm painting with a broad brush here) became what they have always despised and equaled the arrogance that it took BYU decades to build. It was truly amazing to see such a transformation in such a short time. This has softened some over the past few years. But it is easy to see how success breeds overconfidence or arrogance.
Nate's point: Kyle Whittingham is more fun to have as a head coach than Bronco Mendenhall.
Kyle has learned from many years of sitting at the feet of the master, Ron McBride, about how to work the media. Ronnie Mac was very good at being the fun guy who wore his heart on his sleeve and was pals with everyone in the media. I really believe that this (along with some success against BYU) extended his career several years, as the media was hesitant to call for the head of their pal.
Bronco is stoic on the sidelines, and while he is generally cordial with the media (except for Tom Kirkland, who hosts the coach's show and who Bronco won't be in the same room with), he views the media as a necessary evil. LaVell Edwards was always like this. His scowl and even temper on the sidelines was legendary, and while he softened towards the media over his 34 years as head coach, he still never worked them like McBride.
It's pretty easy to see the effect of these different styles. Last year, when Utah was suffering through multiple injuries, it was plastered all over the newspapers and radio. Even when Brian Johnson came back, the media played up all of Utah's injuries. And on the defensive side of the ball, they were no worse off than BYU (the Cougars were starting four white walk-ons, for heaven's sake). But Bronco's philosophy is to downplay that to the media and not make it an issue. So, this year when Utah has been almost injury-free and BYU has been decimated by injury on the defensive side of the ball, how much have you heard about this? Not very much.
The end result of this is a congenial, happy-go-lucky coach on the hill, and a business-like, seemingly detached coach in Provo. To Nate, it seems like Kyle is the more fun coach. And I like Kyle, but Bronco is the perfect fit for the BYU program. He is an excellent coach, but he also embodies what the university represents. Gary Crowton sought to minimize (or eliminate) the church's effect on the football program, with disastrous results. The church is a part of what the football team is trying to do, like it or not. Bronco has embraced this, holding firesides and placing faith before even football. Plus, from everything that I have read, he has a great personality, and is very engaging. He just has no need to express this to the media, while Kyle embraces this.
Two more quick points on the coaches: Nate mentioned that Kyle's success has made him bulletproof. I disagree, as evidenced by the fallout after they lost to UNLV 27-0 last year. Kyle was VERY close to being sent packing, and most Utah fans were the ones lighting torches and carrying pitchforks. Utah has only lost one game since, so those issues have been quieted. Next year they graduate Brian Johnson, Louie Sakoda, and other key players. If they struggle a bit, we'll see how bulletproof he is. Lastly, Nate's point that BYU fans don't yell as much at Kyle because he played at BYU is laughable. Kyle is a Ute. His transformation is complete, and most BYU fans feel the exact same way. Can he come back? Sure, Steve Kafusi played at the Y, coached at Utah for several years, and now is back in Provo coaching the d-line. We didn't miss him when he was gone, but now we're happy to have him back.
I'm happy to call Kyle “Wolf”, however.
Nate's point: I would rather be nervous about the offense and confident in the defense than vice versa.
Nate didn't follow sports as closely in the 80's, when every WAC team tried to outscore each other, including Utah. This made for some wild games, and some fantastic finishes. Personally, I find this more entertaining to watch, plus having an offense that you can count on helps you get back into games. Utah's offense finding themselves for a couple of drives is the only reason that they beat Oregon State and TCU, and the reason that they aren't 9-2 right now. But I suppose that comes down to preference.
Nate's point: Red is a better uniform color for television than blue.
Red is the color of the devil. Of course it looks better on TV...the devil is full of pride.
Nate's point: Utah's mascot stinks, but at least it doesn't have Cosmo's terrifying face.
Look, I miss the old Cosmo face as much as anyone. But I've come to accept that all mascots nowadays look constipated animals. And if you don't think that this is terrifying, you're wrong.
The real issue here, is what a red-tailed hawk is doing on the sidelines of the Utah UTES. Where is the Indian on the sidelines? Why aren't the cheerleaders dressed up like Pocahontas? Florida State's mascot is the Seminoles and here is what they do in the pre-game. Plus, the crowd does the tomahawk chop and that whole “Ah...ah, ah, ah” chant. Imagine how confusing it must be for say, a German tourist on vacation in Salt Lake and watching a football game for the first time:
“Ah...American football. I've always wondered what it is like. What are these people in animal costumes doing? We don't have that in the Bundesliga. We only have beer, football, and riots. I suppose they are representatives of the teams. Apparently I am watching the Cougars in blue, and the Falcons in red. Or is that the Hawks? Or the Sparrows? Who are these Utes that they keep speaking of? (googles) Oh, the Utes are the mascot of this red team. So why do they have a big bird as their mascot? I am so confused. Perhaps they are wussing out by allowing the indigenous Ute tribe to select a native bird as their mascot and accepting yearly hush money in exchange for not making a stink about using their name in a politically correct time. I understand now.”
Nate's point: Singing “Utah Man” versus dancing the Haka.
I don't remember all of the hubbub about Urban Meyer trying to inject some long-overdue tradition into the program with the cutting-edge idea of singing the fight song after the game (wow...NOBODY does that), but I'll take Nate's word for it. Look, if you want to gather the team together after the game and sing a song set to the tune of the “Mickey Mouse Club March”, please be my guest.
Nate doesn't see the relevance of a BYU team performing the Haka before the game? Perhaps he should read the names on the roster. BYU was the first mainland team to set up a “Polynesian Pipeline” and farm the rich talent from Hawaii. Why do you think the Hawaii football fans hate BYU so much (hey another team that rips down the goalposts when they beat BYU)? Nowadays, most teams in the west, including all of the PAC-10 teams AND Utah fight for the island talent. The Haka comes from New Zealand, but all Polynesian, Tongans, any islander considers themselves blood brothers. Still not relevant enough? Bryce Mahuika, a player for BYU instituted the ritual a few years ago. Bryce's grandfather was a Maori tribal chief, and his father was a full-blooded Maori. When his father succumbed to cancer, he presented the Haka to the team as a tribute to his father as well as a way to prepare to go into battle. This made national headlines in New Zealand, and the BYU team was featured on television there as well. And yes, they still do the Haka before every game.
Now, sing after me: “Who's the leader of the club that's made for you and me...”
I've responded to Nate's arguments, and while this is quite long, I did want to throw in one of my own points.
Josh's point: BYU's stadium is a far superior venue to Utah's.
The most common thing I hear from Utah fans is that Lavell Edwards Stadium looks like it was it was made from an erector set, and that you could dismantle it with a socket set. It DOES have an industrial feel to it, due mostly to being built in the 1980's (it is ironic that my Utah fan father worked on the stadium during the expansion), but it is a huge 65,000 seat stadium that consistently fights with Husky Stadium in Washington as “Best setting for a college football game” when someone puts together a list. When it is filled to capacity (12 straight shutouts and counting), it is a loud, intimidating place to play.
Rice-Eccles Stadium is a different story. When you walk around the stadium, especially the north side, it feels like you're in the ghetto. There is a train that hurtles by only a few feet away, and the walkway is cramped. Trying to get something to eat during halftime is near impossible. Lines from the concession stand meld with the lines from the bathrooms, forming a gridlock that is stifling. I've never felt that in Provo, even with 20,000 more people in the stadium. Fortunately for Utah fans, Salt Lake got the Winter Olympic bid in 2002 and the deep pockets of the IOC dropped some major coin into renovating the stadium. Otherwise, it wouldn't have a huge new press box (which I've been inside, and it is very nice), probably still wouldn't have a Jumbotron, and the north end zone would still be a giant sloped asphalt hill with UTAH painted on it. Don't get me started on the mess that they make of getting people home AFTER the game, either. How they can make such a mess of things I'll never know.
Well, that's about it. This is entirely too long already, but I'm a little long-winded myself. I hope this makes sense...I threw this together in a couple of hours and didn't have too much time to think things through, but it was fun to do a little good-natured trash talking and fun poking. Thanks to Nate for the friendly “challenge”. It's sparked my interest in the game and gotten me excited to watch the game tomorrow.
As far as a prediction, I can see this game being very close, which favors Utah. They are at home, and I can't count on BYU being able to win a close game for the third year in a row. Utah has proven this year that they can find a way to win games that are all but lost. Sadly, my gut tells me that this is how it will play out. BYU's only chance is to play very well, and pull away. Since nothing in my body will allow me to pick a Utah win, I'll call it BYU 24, Utah 13. Although I'd certainly settle for a Louie Sakoda “doink” sequel.
Utah football fever...grab it!
Well, I got an early Christmas gift on Thursday. My brother Nate blew the dust off of his blog and posted a long entry entitled “A Few Reasons Why I Would Rather Be A Utah Fan” in anticipation of the big “Holy War” between BYU and Utah this Saturday. You can read his post here. He then proceeded to playfully throw down the gauntlet for BYU fans to respond, including a personal challenge to me in email form. Let's see...you're going to let me respond to your post and ratchet the intensity of this rivalry even higher, and at the same time increase the level of tension between me, my brother, and my father (who besides being my relatives are two of my very best friends)? Hey, Merry Christmas to you too, Nate!
But in the spirit of friendly rivalry, I decided to accept Nate's invitation to respond from a BYU fan's point of view. Let me point out one thing up front: Nate is an excellent writer; he is thorough, eloquent, and a true craftsman. I suspect that his post has undergone several drafts and much meditation and massaging. In turn, he has generously given me roughly 24 hours to respond to his masterpiece. I'm going to have to wing this one from the hip, so I can freely admit up front that my response will lack the polish and professionalism of Nate's. Fortunately, I have the truth on my side.
As he mentioned, Nate grew up a casual sports fan, and while he was always a Utah fan, he didn't become passionate about it until around junior high. In 2001, he approached me and our friend Rich about possibly “switching sides” before the first game of the Gary Crowton era (which seemed like a good idea at the time, especially after BYU thrashed Tulane 70-35). Who knew what turmoil the next several years would bring with the bottoming out of BYU's program? Nate has followed both programs closely, and tried to exist as a “sports bigamist”, to borrow a phrase from ESPN's Bill Simmons. But I know that he has remained a Utah fan deep down, and his place on the proverbial fence is now clearly on the crimson side. And I'm sorry for outing you Nate, about that whole switching sides thing. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
I'll address each one of Nate's points in rebuttal, and add anything left over at the end, time and space permitting.
Nate's point: Utah has been as nationally relevant as BYU over the past 17 years.
He argues this point by comparing records of the two teams since 1992, so I will address this first. The winning percentages are a near wash (.511 vs .500) although I would mention that this time frame includes Utah's magical two-year run and the worst 4-year stretch of BYU football in my lifetime. It also cuts off the ten years from 1982 to 1992 when BYU averaged 10 wins per season and established themselves nationally and Utah was abysmal. But within the time frame given, their overall records are very close. Although BYU managed 10 wins six times in that time frame, which was double that of Utah, including an NCAA record 14 wins in 1996, a record which probably cannot ever be broken.
Records cannot address national relevance, however. And in this aspect, BYU is clearly head and shoulders above Utah (and every Mountain West team). BYU's consistency for the past 30 years and their success on a national level makes them the conference's standard bearer. Back when they actually played on ESPN, their TV ratings were always consistent with the big boys. True, they have a built-in nationwide fan base, but that is also what makes them nationally relevant. The 1996 team didn't get to go to a bigger bowl, and they were constantly in the headlines. In 2002, the Bowl Coalition thumbed their noses at BYU, prompting a government investigation and the revamping of some of the criteria used for bowl qualification. Utah was certainly relevant during the Urban years, finally kicking down the BCS door that BYU had been beating in for ten years, but those were the only two years (along with this year) where their national cachet could match that of BYU.
Nate's point: Utah has a better bowl record since 1992.
It's hard to argue straight numbers, and Utah has been impressive in their bowls, winning their last seven in a row, while BYU's bowl efforts have almost always been substandard. Fortunately Nate started looking at bowl records since 1992, so we wouldn't have to worry about examining the 28 years before that when Utah didn't go to a bowl. Whew! A lesser man might mention the fact that the Pitt team Utah beat in the Fiesta Bowl is generally considered the worst team to ever appear in a BCS bowl game, or that the Georgia Tech team they played the next year (who were infuriated that they were snubbed by the BCS) turned in one of the least inspired performances that I have ever seen. But Utah can't pick who they play, and they have beaten whatever team lines up across from them year after year. Nate used this as his trump card for Utah's national prominence, but with like 30 bowls in December, a win in the Armed Forces Bowl (or the Las Vegas Bowl for that matter) gets lost in the shuffle, in my opinion.
Nate's point: Utah has won the Rivalry Game more often since 1992.
In using this as a reason why he would rather be a Ute fan, I suppose that I could accuse him of being a front running fan. But I understand that he is making a case for the Utes, so I see where he is coming from. Again, the time frame eliminates the 15-2 record BYU posted in the other 17 years of Nate's lifetime, but this game has become a true war in recent years. If I'm being truthful, I don't ever really enjoy watching this game. When BYU wins, I'm never really satisfied (I'll have to address BYU arrogance in a minute), and when they lose, it's a long year until they meet again. Utah always brings their A-game, and I don't feel like BYU reciprocates. Of course, Utah fans would argue that their team has something to do with that, and I would have to agree to an extent. Bottom line: this game is a battle, and Utah has more than held their own since Ronnie Mac was around.
Nate's point: Utah has the underdog vibe, BYU has the arrogance vibe.
I chuckled to read the line “That is not to say that Utah has more national interest...” when he spent seven previous paragraphs trying to prove that they had every bit as much national interest as BYU, but I understand his point about the underdog vibe. Nate has always liked to be a little bit against the grain. He liked music that other didn't like, read books that others didn't read, etc. So if he perceives Utah as an up-and-comer, then it would make sense that they appeal to him. Although I take umbrage with him classifying BYU as “the established former power that is perceived to trade on its slowly eroding tradition”. BYU has lost one conference game in three years, so they are certainly NOT a former power, and whatever tradition Gary Crowton tried to erode during his tenure has been brought back in spades by Bronco. And to answer the question about which team a casual observer would find interesting, I'd choose the higher profile team every time. For example, I love watching Stephen Curry and Davidson during March Madness because they are there each year and have had some success. Can't say which up-and-comer from the Southern Conference I like.
The rest of Nate's argument on this point addresses BYU's arrogance. I don't think that the moral argument is even relevant. BYU fans don't tell New Mexico fans that they are better than them because they don't drink coffee. Their arrogance is based on football, not how they live their lives. I've read plenty of message boards (Wyoming is a good example) where they constantly attack the LDS church. But they are anti-Mormon, and hate BYU fans for their association with the church, not because BYU fans are waving their “higher living” in their faces.
BYU fans have set pretty high standards for their program. Heck, I'm guilty of it. I haven't followed football this year with nearly as much fervor since they lost to TCU. But can you blame us? We have been blessed with a program that has been dominant for 30+ years. We have come to expect winning seasons every year, and consequently hold our heads high when it comes to the football team. We perceive slights, question everything that goes against us, and rub people the wrong way. I recognize this. And consequently, BYU is the the game that teams circle on their schedule year after year. TCU has been tackling a dummy in practice since January with a BYU helmet on it. Air Force players talked about how they were looked forward to this game all year. Wyoming despises BYU. Maybe this is my BYU arrogance talking, but I've seen plenty of teams tear down their goalposts after beating BYU (including Utah after they beat a BYU team with a losing record). Beating Utah is always a good win, but not a signature win.
I do want to mention one point to this: Utah fans have been banging this drum for years. They hate the arrogance of that “team down south”. But in the space of two years of success under Urban Meyer, Utah fans (and I'm painting with a broad brush here) became what they have always despised and equaled the arrogance that it took BYU decades to build. It was truly amazing to see such a transformation in such a short time. This has softened some over the past few years. But it is easy to see how success breeds overconfidence or arrogance.
Nate's point: Kyle Whittingham is more fun to have as a head coach than Bronco Mendenhall.
Kyle has learned from many years of sitting at the feet of the master, Ron McBride, about how to work the media. Ronnie Mac was very good at being the fun guy who wore his heart on his sleeve and was pals with everyone in the media. I really believe that this (along with some success against BYU) extended his career several years, as the media was hesitant to call for the head of their pal.
Bronco is stoic on the sidelines, and while he is generally cordial with the media (except for Tom Kirkland, who hosts the coach's show and who Bronco won't be in the same room with), he views the media as a necessary evil. LaVell Edwards was always like this. His scowl and even temper on the sidelines was legendary, and while he softened towards the media over his 34 years as head coach, he still never worked them like McBride.
It's pretty easy to see the effect of these different styles. Last year, when Utah was suffering through multiple injuries, it was plastered all over the newspapers and radio. Even when Brian Johnson came back, the media played up all of Utah's injuries. And on the defensive side of the ball, they were no worse off than BYU (the Cougars were starting four white walk-ons, for heaven's sake). But Bronco's philosophy is to downplay that to the media and not make it an issue. So, this year when Utah has been almost injury-free and BYU has been decimated by injury on the defensive side of the ball, how much have you heard about this? Not very much.
The end result of this is a congenial, happy-go-lucky coach on the hill, and a business-like, seemingly detached coach in Provo. To Nate, it seems like Kyle is the more fun coach. And I like Kyle, but Bronco is the perfect fit for the BYU program. He is an excellent coach, but he also embodies what the university represents. Gary Crowton sought to minimize (or eliminate) the church's effect on the football program, with disastrous results. The church is a part of what the football team is trying to do, like it or not. Bronco has embraced this, holding firesides and placing faith before even football. Plus, from everything that I have read, he has a great personality, and is very engaging. He just has no need to express this to the media, while Kyle embraces this.
Two more quick points on the coaches: Nate mentioned that Kyle's success has made him bulletproof. I disagree, as evidenced by the fallout after they lost to UNLV 27-0 last year. Kyle was VERY close to being sent packing, and most Utah fans were the ones lighting torches and carrying pitchforks. Utah has only lost one game since, so those issues have been quieted. Next year they graduate Brian Johnson, Louie Sakoda, and other key players. If they struggle a bit, we'll see how bulletproof he is. Lastly, Nate's point that BYU fans don't yell as much at Kyle because he played at BYU is laughable. Kyle is a Ute. His transformation is complete, and most BYU fans feel the exact same way. Can he come back? Sure, Steve Kafusi played at the Y, coached at Utah for several years, and now is back in Provo coaching the d-line. We didn't miss him when he was gone, but now we're happy to have him back.
I'm happy to call Kyle “Wolf”, however.
Nate's point: I would rather be nervous about the offense and confident in the defense than vice versa.
Nate didn't follow sports as closely in the 80's, when every WAC team tried to outscore each other, including Utah. This made for some wild games, and some fantastic finishes. Personally, I find this more entertaining to watch, plus having an offense that you can count on helps you get back into games. Utah's offense finding themselves for a couple of drives is the only reason that they beat Oregon State and TCU, and the reason that they aren't 9-2 right now. But I suppose that comes down to preference.
Nate's point: Red is a better uniform color for television than blue.
Red is the color of the devil. Of course it looks better on TV...the devil is full of pride.
Nate's point: Utah's mascot stinks, but at least it doesn't have Cosmo's terrifying face.
Look, I miss the old Cosmo face as much as anyone. But I've come to accept that all mascots nowadays look constipated animals. And if you don't think that this is terrifying, you're wrong.
The real issue here, is what a red-tailed hawk is doing on the sidelines of the Utah UTES. Where is the Indian on the sidelines? Why aren't the cheerleaders dressed up like Pocahontas? Florida State's mascot is the Seminoles and here is what they do in the pre-game. Plus, the crowd does the tomahawk chop and that whole “Ah...ah, ah, ah” chant. Imagine how confusing it must be for say, a German tourist on vacation in Salt Lake and watching a football game for the first time:
“Ah...American football. I've always wondered what it is like. What are these people in animal costumes doing? We don't have that in the Bundesliga. We only have beer, football, and riots. I suppose they are representatives of the teams. Apparently I am watching the Cougars in blue, and the Falcons in red. Or is that the Hawks? Or the Sparrows? Who are these Utes that they keep speaking of? (googles) Oh, the Utes are the mascot of this red team. So why do they have a big bird as their mascot? I am so confused. Perhaps they are wussing out by allowing the indigenous Ute tribe to select a native bird as their mascot and accepting yearly hush money in exchange for not making a stink about using their name in a politically correct time. I understand now.”
Nate's point: Singing “Utah Man” versus dancing the Haka.
I don't remember all of the hubbub about Urban Meyer trying to inject some long-overdue tradition into the program with the cutting-edge idea of singing the fight song after the game (wow...NOBODY does that), but I'll take Nate's word for it. Look, if you want to gather the team together after the game and sing a song set to the tune of the “Mickey Mouse Club March”, please be my guest.
Nate doesn't see the relevance of a BYU team performing the Haka before the game? Perhaps he should read the names on the roster. BYU was the first mainland team to set up a “Polynesian Pipeline” and farm the rich talent from Hawaii. Why do you think the Hawaii football fans hate BYU so much (hey another team that rips down the goalposts when they beat BYU)? Nowadays, most teams in the west, including all of the PAC-10 teams AND Utah fight for the island talent. The Haka comes from New Zealand, but all Polynesian, Tongans, any islander considers themselves blood brothers. Still not relevant enough? Bryce Mahuika, a player for BYU instituted the ritual a few years ago. Bryce's grandfather was a Maori tribal chief, and his father was a full-blooded Maori. When his father succumbed to cancer, he presented the Haka to the team as a tribute to his father as well as a way to prepare to go into battle. This made national headlines in New Zealand, and the BYU team was featured on television there as well. And yes, they still do the Haka before every game.
Now, sing after me: “Who's the leader of the club that's made for you and me...”
I've responded to Nate's arguments, and while this is quite long, I did want to throw in one of my own points.
Josh's point: BYU's stadium is a far superior venue to Utah's.
The most common thing I hear from Utah fans is that Lavell Edwards Stadium looks like it was it was made from an erector set, and that you could dismantle it with a socket set. It DOES have an industrial feel to it, due mostly to being built in the 1980's (it is ironic that my Utah fan father worked on the stadium during the expansion), but it is a huge 65,000 seat stadium that consistently fights with Husky Stadium in Washington as “Best setting for a college football game” when someone puts together a list. When it is filled to capacity (12 straight shutouts and counting), it is a loud, intimidating place to play.
Rice-Eccles Stadium is a different story. When you walk around the stadium, especially the north side, it feels like you're in the ghetto. There is a train that hurtles by only a few feet away, and the walkway is cramped. Trying to get something to eat during halftime is near impossible. Lines from the concession stand meld with the lines from the bathrooms, forming a gridlock that is stifling. I've never felt that in Provo, even with 20,000 more people in the stadium. Fortunately for Utah fans, Salt Lake got the Winter Olympic bid in 2002 and the deep pockets of the IOC dropped some major coin into renovating the stadium. Otherwise, it wouldn't have a huge new press box (which I've been inside, and it is very nice), probably still wouldn't have a Jumbotron, and the north end zone would still be a giant sloped asphalt hill with UTAH painted on it. Don't get me started on the mess that they make of getting people home AFTER the game, either. How they can make such a mess of things I'll never know.
Well, that's about it. This is entirely too long already, but I'm a little long-winded myself. I hope this makes sense...I threw this together in a couple of hours and didn't have too much time to think things through, but it was fun to do a little good-natured trash talking and fun poking. Thanks to Nate for the friendly “challenge”. It's sparked my interest in the game and gotten me excited to watch the game tomorrow.
As far as a prediction, I can see this game being very close, which favors Utah. They are at home, and I can't count on BYU being able to win a close game for the third year in a row. Utah has proven this year that they can find a way to win games that are all but lost. Sadly, my gut tells me that this is how it will play out. BYU's only chance is to play very well, and pull away. Since nothing in my body will allow me to pick a Utah win, I'll call it BYU 24, Utah 13. Although I'd certainly settle for a Louie Sakoda “doink” sequel.
Utah football fever...grab it!
Sunday, November 16, 2008
Quick thoughts: Sunday edition
Wow! Time is surely flying by as we near the end of this calendar year and the beginning of our little one's life. We are busily preparing for our new arrival, as well as all of the holiday season's commitments; Stacie worked most of the day yesterday on the baby's room and it looks great! There are still a few things left to be done, but we could realistically bring our baby home now and have a place for him. The crib of death is nearly transformed and we will post some pictures once it is assembled in the nursery. Hooray!
For today's Top 3, I went with a list of quiet, mellow songs (not all of these will be songs, BTW) seeing how I have to work today and it is indeed quiet and mellow here. I grew up listening to Gordon Lightfoot, a Canadian-born singer who plays acoustic guitar and sings about the Great White North, traveling, and ship wrecks, and his music is the perfect soundtrack for one of those days where you sit in your house, watching the snow fall outside. It's not snowing here today, but it still seems just right. Here is Gord's best:
1. Easily my favorite Gordon Lightfoot song. I love how it starts with the strong guitar chords...this is the song that I would want to learn first if I ever took up the guitar. Can't say that I understand how a woman is "lookin' like a queen in a sailor's dream" and for the longest time I didn't know that the chorus said "If I find you've been creepin' 'round my back stair" (Huh?). Must be a Canuck thing; maybe he hides his back bacon and maple syrup in the back stairs.
2. A great road trip song. I can think of several songs in which he mentions "wanderlust", including this one. Maybe he and Mrs. Lightfoot needed their space.
3. (How do you misspell Gordon?) Easily the best song about a maritime tragedy, outdistancing "My Heart Will Go On" by Celine Dion and "Rock The Boat" by the Hues Corporation. I have been able to sing this song word for word for many years, now.
Missing the cut:
(awesome song), "Me And Bobby McGee" (allegedly the first recorded version of this song, and a good way to understand what Janis Joplin was wailing about), "Minstrel Of The Dawn", "Ribbon Of Darkness". They all sound similar, but they all sound good!
For today's Top 3, I went with a list of quiet, mellow songs (not all of these will be songs, BTW) seeing how I have to work today and it is indeed quiet and mellow here. I grew up listening to Gordon Lightfoot, a Canadian-born singer who plays acoustic guitar and sings about the Great White North, traveling, and ship wrecks, and his music is the perfect soundtrack for one of those days where you sit in your house, watching the snow fall outside. It's not snowing here today, but it still seems just right. Here is Gord's best:
1. Easily my favorite Gordon Lightfoot song. I love how it starts with the strong guitar chords...this is the song that I would want to learn first if I ever took up the guitar. Can't say that I understand how a woman is "lookin' like a queen in a sailor's dream" and for the longest time I didn't know that the chorus said "If I find you've been creepin' 'round my back stair" (Huh?). Must be a Canuck thing; maybe he hides his back bacon and maple syrup in the back stairs.
2. A great road trip song. I can think of several songs in which he mentions "wanderlust", including this one. Maybe he and Mrs. Lightfoot needed their space.
3. (How do you misspell Gordon?) Easily the best song about a maritime tragedy, outdistancing "My Heart Will Go On" by Celine Dion and "Rock The Boat" by the Hues Corporation. I have been able to sing this song word for word for many years, now.
Missing the cut:
(awesome song), "Me And Bobby McGee" (allegedly the first recorded version of this song, and a good way to understand what Janis Joplin was wailing about), "Minstrel Of The Dawn", "Ribbon Of Darkness". They all sound similar, but they all sound good!
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Quick thoughts, Tuesday edition
This morning, after dropping Lexie off at preschool, I went to rock the vote, and when i turned on the radio in the car, I was greeted by Christmas music on FM 100. Sweet! I am a sucker for Christmas music, and I really do enjoy it. It puts me in the holiday spirit, and makes me realize just how close it is. I understand that this post coupled with the ABBA post from last week pretty much destroys the manly image that I have cultivated over the years, but that's life. If any of you want to join in, click here and click the "Listen Live" button.
In conjunction with this, I am going to unveil a new feature of our blog: Top 3 lists. I enjoy lists; I like reading them in magazines, on websites, wherever. They are usually informative, and because they are normally very subjective, they are highly debatable. Crafting a good Top 10, Top 25, whatever, takes a chunk of time to get just right. But a Top 3 list? Give me pretty much any topic, and I can fire a Top 3 list off the top of my head. For example: Top 3 Bounty Hunters? #1 Boba Fett, #2 Dog, #3 Ummm...okay bad example. Here then, is my Top 3 Christmas Songs On The Radio:
1. "It's The Most Wonderful Time Of The Year", Andy Williams version.
This song always makes me think of going Christmas shopping and seeing lights everywhere. It's a fun, upbeat Christmas song. Plus ESPN usually uses it for their Bowl Week commercials, so that makes it better. And I love the part when he says "...be of good cheer" and the backgrounds singers go "AH AH AH".
2. "O, Holy Night", Josh Groban version
There are a million versions of this song, and this one is one of the best. My criteria on this song: towards the end of the song (3:45 in, or so) the song hits it's crescendo with a "NOEL!!!" glory note. If this makes the hair on the back of my neck stand up, it's a keeper. The Il Divo version is awesome, and Nat King Cole's is a classic. The Jewel version? Not so much.
3. "White Christmas", Bing Crosby version
Pretty tough to go wrong with Der Bingle. Plus, with my family's obsession with this movie, this is a no-brainer.
Just missed the cut: "Mary, Did You Know?", Kenny Rogers version
Great "modern" Christmas song. Stay far away from the Donny Osmond version, another staple in heavy rotation on FM 100.
Our Halloween video will be up soon!
In conjunction with this, I am going to unveil a new feature of our blog: Top 3 lists. I enjoy lists; I like reading them in magazines, on websites, wherever. They are usually informative, and because they are normally very subjective, they are highly debatable. Crafting a good Top 10, Top 25, whatever, takes a chunk of time to get just right. But a Top 3 list? Give me pretty much any topic, and I can fire a Top 3 list off the top of my head. For example: Top 3 Bounty Hunters? #1 Boba Fett, #2 Dog, #3 Ummm...okay bad example. Here then, is my Top 3 Christmas Songs On The Radio:
1. "It's The Most Wonderful Time Of The Year", Andy Williams version.
This song always makes me think of going Christmas shopping and seeing lights everywhere. It's a fun, upbeat Christmas song. Plus ESPN usually uses it for their Bowl Week commercials, so that makes it better. And I love the part when he says "...be of good cheer" and the backgrounds singers go "AH AH AH".
2. "O, Holy Night", Josh Groban version
There are a million versions of this song, and this one is one of the best. My criteria on this song: towards the end of the song (3:45 in, or so) the song hits it's crescendo with a "NOEL!!!" glory note. If this makes the hair on the back of my neck stand up, it's a keeper. The Il Divo version is awesome, and Nat King Cole's is a classic. The Jewel version? Not so much.
3. "White Christmas", Bing Crosby version
Pretty tough to go wrong with Der Bingle. Plus, with my family's obsession with this movie, this is a no-brainer.
Just missed the cut: "Mary, Did You Know?", Kenny Rogers version
Great "modern" Christmas song. Stay far away from the Donny Osmond version, another staple in heavy rotation on FM 100.
Our Halloween video will be up soon!
Monday, November 3, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
