CyberToothedTiger.com

I attended my high school Homecoming football game yesterday. There was no particular reason for me to go, other than that my mother called and invited me, and I had no other plans for the day. The last time I had been to a football game at my old high school was probably about fifteen years ago.

I grew up in Pennsylvania, only a couple hours drive from the metropolitan areas of Philadelphia and Baltimore, in a rural school district that still has a healthy dose of farm families. The population has not changed much since I moved away some 30 years ago.

The Saturday afternoon crowd at the football game was largely a mix of the general residents of the town and surrounding countryside that make up the school district — students, parents and children, grandparents, and just plain folk who enjoy watching local sports. To be clear, our little public school is not a football hotbed by any stretch of the imagination. It’s nothing like the fanatical high school football programs like you may have heard about in the South and Midwest. High school football and basketball games are social events, win or lose. My parents no longer have any grandchildren at this school, but they still attend high school sports together, and they still cheer for our alma mater. Sitting next to us on Saturday was a man and wife, around my parents’ age. When my dad introduced me, I realized that the man had been one of my Little League baseball coaches, and their son had been a teammate and classmate of mine.

But what really struck me was the appearance of the students at the game. Remarkably, that hasn’t changed much, either. Teeshirt and jeans or shorts was the normal attire. I didn’t see one student with spiked hair. I didn’t see any non-human hair colors. I didn’t see any body piercings. I didn’t see any exposed boxer shorts. I didn’t see any baggy black trousers with chains and zippers. Admittedly, a football game may not be completely representative of the student body at large, but it was certainly different from the variety of high school students I see in my daily life.

And in case you’re wondering… our team lost the game, 46-0. So the placekicker never made it onto the field, except at halftime, when she was escorted by her father as part of the Homecoming court.

Tags: Opinion by BrokenClaw
No Comments »

In case you hadn’t noticed, the FIFA Women’s World Cup tournament is in full swing in China. We all know that football is the most popular sport in the world. That’s soccer to those of us in the USA, and since this article is about the USA, I will call it soccer. Last month I wrote an article about youth soccer, but this time I’m thinking about soccer as a spectator sport.

I remember listening to a sports talk radio program during the men’s World Cup. The host was interviewing a spokesperson from the local Major League Soccer team. Naturally the conversation turned immediately to the topic of why soccer has never caught on as a spectator sport in the US, and will probably never be able to compete with football. The spokesperson said that people need to see the game and learn about each player’s strengths, in the same way that fans of football know the difference between a defensive lineman and a running back. By knowing more about individual players, the fan can appreciate the subtleties of individual play. Hmmm… that makes sense, but who’s going to sit through a bunch of games to try and do that? Sorry, not me.

Then the host brought up the issue with scoring. Sports fans in the US love to see scoring, he said, and soccer just doesn’t have enough scoring to get fans excited. You could tell that the soccer spokesperson was tired of answering that question. He responding in a slightly sarcastic tone with something like, “If we made a goal worth seven points, would that make it more exciting?” And then he added, “A 3-2 game in soccer has just as much scoring as a 21-14 game of football.” Well… not quite.

Technically, a 7-point touchdown consists of two separate plays — the touchdown and the extra point. So a 21-14 football game has at least ten scoring plays. And that’s the real difference. On every single play in football, either team can score. There is always the possibility of the defense intercepting a pass or recovering a fumble and scoring themselves. Every play. In soccer, when the ball is at one end of the field, there’s no way a guy is going to kick it into the other goal. The goalie might as well be having a snack. In football, every player is involved in every play.

So I sat down and actually watched a whole game from the World Cup. What a surprise, the score ended nil-nil. That’s zero-zero. No goals. Nada. Zilch. In fact, there were three games played that day. Two of them ended 0-0, and the other one ended 1-0. The only goal scored that day was scored on a penalty kick. Gee, I wish I had watched that game instead. I imagine there were quite a few exciting close calls, too, with corner kicks and such. Are the goalies that good?

So what’s with the goalie thing anyway. In a sport which touts itself as true football, why is the most prominent player on the field, with his colorful costume, allowed to use his hands? Doesn’t that make it handball? And another thing, what’s up with the flops that players take whenever someone bumps them? It seems like it’s part of the game, to pretend someone made you fall down on the grass. What’s up with that? In football, if you get knocked down and don’t get up, your team gets penalized.

But let’s get back to that facetious suggestion of making a goal worth more points. It might not be such a bad idea. Not just to make it worth more, but to have varying points based on how the goal is scored. For example, if a goal is scored from outside the penalty box, make it 3 points. That would include corner kicks that go in untouched by another offensive player. That would be cool. For goals scored from within the penalty box, you get 2 points. And penalty kicks would be 1 point. Hey, it’s beginning to sound like basketball. Then you’d have some excitement.

Imagine a team with a 2 point lead in the closing minutes of play. The opposing team could still take the lead with a long goal. The leading team can’t just play keep-away like they do now. If the opponent gets the ball deep, should they commit an intentional foul and give the opponent a penalty kick? Hey, I’m beginning to like this soccer thing… oh, wait, it’s imaginary soccer.

While doing a little (very little) research for this article, I typed www.worldcupsoccer.com into my browser. Sure enough, there’s an unofficial fan site there with pictures and links and stories. The headline reads, “Brazil Champions!” Uhhh… wasn’t that 2002? Isn’t Italy the reigning champion since 2006? Yeah… apparently even the soccer fans lose interest.

Earlier this year, ESPN started a campaign to advertise their coverage of Major League Soccer. They used the slogan, “You’re a fan, you just don’t know it yet.” Sorry, I’m not, and I know it.

Tags: Humor, Sports by BrokenClaw
No Comments »

Okay, so there are thousands of websites and blog posts which discuss, or argue, the rivalry between Microsoft Windows and Apple Macintosh computers. The problem with all of these arguments is that there is no point of argument. By that I don’t mean that there is no purpose (point) in arguing, but rather that there is no common assertion (point) to be debated. Windows is an operating system that can be installed and run on a wide variety of manufacturers’ hardware. A Macintosh is a computer built by the Apple company which only runs Apple’s own operating system (currently OS X), natively. In other words, a Macintosh (hereafter called a Mac) is a closed system, and Windows is a completely open system.

So what exactly is the point to be argued?

1. That the Macintosh has better hardware than a Dell, a Gateway, a Hewlett-Packard, an Acer, an eMachine, a Falcon Northwest, a Lenovo, a Voodoo, an Alienware, a Sony? Which one? Or are we arguing…
2. That Windows is a better operating system than OS X? How can you compare two systems that have completely opposite goals? Windows is designed to run on any of the above-named systems or on anything else you can throw together from parts off the shelf. OS X only runs on Apple systems. Or are we arguing…
3. That a computer user would be better off with a Mac than with a computer running Windows? There are a lot of variables to factor into that decision which can change the answer.

Mac users tend to be very passionate about their computer choice. What I mean is that some of them are very vocal in defending the qualities of their Mac. They’ll use the word love to describe their relationship with their computer. Just put “love my Mac” in Google and you’ll get about a hundred thousand results. Those same people, usually male in gender, tend to be faithful to the Apple logo as well, hence, the term Apple fanboy. They will purchase any product which has an Apple logo, and they dismiss any criticism of those products as coming from an Apple-hater. The fallacy of that attitude is that there are no Apple-haters. Why would anyone care enough about a piece of hardware to invoke hate of the company who makes it? Only a self-proclaimed Apple-lover can imagine the existence an Apple-hater.

It is often said that the opposiste of love is apathay, not hate, and the same is true here.

The vast majority of Windows users tend to be less passionate. They tend not to get involved in this debate because, quite frankly, they don’t view their computer choice as a vote for Microsoft. It’s just the computer they bought at the store. They have no particular allegiance to Microsoft and probably couldn’t even name another Microsoft product.

A co-worker of mine once came to me and expressed her desire to have “Microsoft” put on her computer, which, of course, was already running on Microsoft Windows XP. After some further questioning, I realized that what she wanted was the Microsoft Office suite.

Most home users have probably never even seen a Mac, because Apple doesn’t sell Macs in home electronics departments, and none of their family members have a Mac. If the computer at the store came with Linux, they’d probably not notice that there was no Windows logo on the box, and if they saw a big LINUX sticker, they wouldn’t know what it meant anyway.

At one time, Apple ruled the personal computer market. They practically gave them away to schools so that kids’ first computer experience was an Apple computer. But, like youth soccer in America, they were never able to catch on to the adult market. Apple chose to remain a closed system while the IBM personal computer, running Microsoft’s operating system, became so open that anyone could build one, which meant they would also run Microsoft’s operating system. As a result, a Microsoft system was much less expensive than an Apple system. And cost drives the mass market.

I remember when a friend of mine was sending his son to college to study engineering. His son told him he had to have a Mac, which at the time cost about $5000. That same year IBM-compatible computers were selling for about $1200.

Today the Mac’s pricetag has become more competitive. It’s still a premium machine, but there are more expensive Windows machines, especially those built for video games. But that’s really the point. The normal consumer sees Windows machines in the store starting at about $400. They don’t know what they want, and they don’t know what they need. They just go by the price. Only computer-savvy buyers go online and customize a Windows machine with high-end components that drive the price up.

Windows runs about 90% of the computers sold in the US. Apple computers no longer fill the classrooms. Most business software is written for Windows, so Macs have a hard time making mass sales to large businesses. Historically, Macs have found their niche in the multimedia arena — music, photos, audio and video editing. Macs are overwhelmingly the choice for those professionals. That’s why you’ll see an inordinate number of Macs and Apple logos in movies and on TV. It is still one of their main selling points to consumers as well.

While Mac users passionately extoll the virtues of their Mac, deep down, they don’t want you to become a Mac user. If you did, and Macs became as pervasive as Windows PCs, then the Mac would lose its place on the pedestal. Mac users would lose their identity…

“You have a Mac? Yeah, my grandmother uses one to check her email.”

Tags: Operating System, Opinion, Tech Comment by Smilodon
No Comments »