Showing posts with label Sandra Bullock. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sandra Bullock. Show all posts
Howdy. This weekend was certainly an interesting one, but not because anything in particular happened, but just that I finally realized something that I know I should probably I've picked up on years ago: My generation has grown up. More specifically I, along with all of my friends, have grown up.
I'll get back to you when I figure out when the hell that actually happened.
It just seems that every phone call I have, email I get, or correspondence in general, is far more real than anything has been previously. Every decision has lasting effects.
Which is why I am going to change gears today and write about something a little less serious (in the grand scheme at least - these people take it very seriously): Pac-10 expansion.
But first, congrats to Sandra Bullock, winner of Best Actress for her amazing performance in my favorite movie of the year, The Blind Side.
At the outset something very important should be noted: this has no bearing on the real world, whatsoever. While some may say that individual games and championships and such are incredibly important, they are wrong. I coached sports for years, worked in them as well. After a game ends, win or lose, it has no bearing on your life in any way. The next day, you will not be upset or overjoyed (unless you live in New Orleans...), but just go back to living the life you live. When talking about athletics at any level, I feel like it is important to take them in context: they aren't real.
But they are fun to talk about.
If you've been paying attention recently, you have heard that the Big Ten has been considering expansion. Now, confusing as it may seem, the Big Ten actually has 11 teams, hence the hidden number in the logo.
There is a rule that will not allow a football conference championship game if your league does not have 12 teams, which is why only half of the Big Six conferences have one (Big-12, SEC, ACC). The question then becomes, does the league add one, three or even five teams? Then who are they? Texas? Pitt? Nebraska? Surely they have all been considered.
What this leads to is the league I actually care about, the Pac-10, with the ball in their court to stop a power shift completely to the east side of the country. Which begs the question: should the Pac-10 expand?
Gut reaction? No.
First though, let me tell you why it should and who it should get.
The conference needs money, just like everyone else does. The fact is that USC is the only real money-maker, being in Los Angeles and also being good. The Seattle market is also a good one, but with UW being so bad the last few years, it can be tough. Hopefully, for the good of the conference, that changes. But right now the conference is not even close to some of the other power conferences in income.
[More]
I'll get back to you when I figure out when the hell that actually happened.
It just seems that every phone call I have, email I get, or correspondence in general, is far more real than anything has been previously. Every decision has lasting effects.
Which is why I am going to change gears today and write about something a little less serious (in the grand scheme at least - these people take it very seriously): Pac-10 expansion.
But first, congrats to Sandra Bullock, winner of Best Actress for her amazing performance in my favorite movie of the year, The Blind Side.
At the outset something very important should be noted: this has no bearing on the real world, whatsoever. While some may say that individual games and championships and such are incredibly important, they are wrong. I coached sports for years, worked in them as well. After a game ends, win or lose, it has no bearing on your life in any way. The next day, you will not be upset or overjoyed (unless you live in New Orleans...), but just go back to living the life you live. When talking about athletics at any level, I feel like it is important to take them in context: they aren't real.
But they are fun to talk about.
If you've been paying attention recently, you have heard that the Big Ten has been considering expansion. Now, confusing as it may seem, the Big Ten actually has 11 teams, hence the hidden number in the logo.
There is a rule that will not allow a football conference championship game if your league does not have 12 teams, which is why only half of the Big Six conferences have one (Big-12, SEC, ACC). The question then becomes, does the league add one, three or even five teams? Then who are they? Texas? Pitt? Nebraska? Surely they have all been considered.
What this leads to is the league I actually care about, the Pac-10, with the ball in their court to stop a power shift completely to the east side of the country. Which begs the question: should the Pac-10 expand?
Gut reaction? No.
First though, let me tell you why it should and who it should get.
The conference needs money, just like everyone else does. The fact is that USC is the only real money-maker, being in Los Angeles and also being good. The Seattle market is also a good one, but with UW being so bad the last few years, it can be tough. Hopefully, for the good of the conference, that changes. But right now the conference is not even close to some of the other power conferences in income.