The dust has settled.
The rivalry is at its end.
And KU - Mizzou has split the season. No better way to end it for both programs, in my opinion. Yes, people will always argue about the officiating in both games, but really, nothing can be done about it now. I thought calls in both games were questionable. However, at the end of the day, the first game was decided by 3 points and the second game was decided by 1. So salute to Mizzou for a great season. Best of luck in the SEC.
But the rivalry has ended? Wow. It's difficult to think of that happening. It's really over? That's like saying the Green Goblin from Spiderman decided to move to Gotham City or something (from KU's perspective). But is the rivalry ending a good thing? Here's my take on the matter:
Mizzou has left for the SEC, which is an interesting move to say the least. After leaving, Mizzou asked KU if we could still schedule non-conference games against each other to continue the rivalry. We (essentially) gave them a polite, "Hell no." While I thought our response was a little more firm than I had anticipated, it got me thinking about what it meant for both schools. In the beginning, I was embarrassed that KU would just say no like that. But after considering the options, it's the best thing for us. The problem is that ESPN writers were GOING TO TOWN on this, making an enemy out of KU. The ESPN people are ticked that we're not continuing the rivalry because the rivalry is heated enough to provide good television and news. Dana O'Neil said the following about KU:
“Don’t get me wrong. I get it. You’re angry. You feel
jilted. You’re the teenage girl with the pretty party dress, the
mani-pedi, updo and the date who ditched you for the rich girl in
town. Why should you be the bigger university? Why should you fix the mess Missouri created by bolting to the SEC? All legitimate questions. I have another one: What do you gain by discontinuing this rivalry other than a hefty plate of spite?”
YOU'RE MISSING THE POINT.
YES. While I love watching KU and Mizzou beat the tar our of each other,
the end has come and I think that we're both going off to bigger and
better things. Realistically, KU doesn't need Mizzou to have its
basketball program reach the highlight reels on Sportcenter. Look at our
pre-conference play schedule. We played 3 (count 'em) top 10 teams
(Kentucky, Duke, and Ohio State). We are getting ourselves out there and
really giving some great college basketball games before Big 12 play
starts. Congrats to Mizzou, you're leaving the Big 12 conference for the SEC (another great conference). Unfortunately for you, the rivalry against KU was the ONLY thing in there that was making your athletic program even relevant. The only pre-conference games you had that were against ranked teams were California (now unranked and 23-7) and Illinois (now unranked and 17-12). So really, leaving the conference is one of the worst decisions for the athletic program. As if they weren't struggling for relevance already. Did you know that Mizzou is the ONLY school in the Big 12 that has yet to win a conference championship in male sports . . . IN ANY SPORT? Another question, is there any other school that has gone 15 years (1997-2012) in any conference with such an abysmal record? So congrats Mizzou, I guess the saying is true: If you can't beat em' . . . leave 'em. Just don't let the door hit you on your way out. We don't want tiger butt-prints on our new fancy Missouri-free Big 12 door.
So Mizzou is leaving and they want to continue the rivalry? Of course; it's the only thing that made them relevant. It's clear how Mizzou benefits from the continuation. It's like the North Carolina - NC State rivalry . . . well, kinda. NC State actually has Final Fours and National Championships which validate their existence. Mizzou . . . well, Mizzou is like Auburn-Alabama before Cam Newton. It's just sad.
Mizzou benefits from the rivalry in one major way: living vicariously through KU losses. Whether they're at the hands of Mizzou or someone completely different, Mizzou seems to relish in any defeat that KU is handed. In an interview with the Mizzou players before the game in Columbia this year, they all said that it doesn't really matter how well they do during the year; if they beat KU, then the year is a success. . . . It's sad to think that the PLAYERS define success in their season by beating KU. We define victories by national championships. So after the tourny is over in March-April, Mizzou fans will run to the t-shirt racks and get the VCU, Bucknell, and Bradley shirts all they like. I don't care. We have these 5 pretty national championship banners hanging in Allen Fieldhouse that say that we know what we're doing. Mizzou hasn't even made it to ONE Final Four.
So how does KU benefit from the rivalry? We don't! Pre-conference games are played in Allen for a guaranteed payday for the university we're playing. When a team comes to Allen to play, they get a lot of money (and great experience). We sell tickets to make up for the money spent to bring the other team here and for playing against them. It's Allen Fieldhouse . . . ya know, the 12th best venue to watch ANY spot . . . . IN THE WORLD. We always pack it; whether it's for Texas, University of South Florida, or St. Mary's School for the Blind. So really, when the little teams come to KU and get smacked around, they're actually making their school a boat-load of money. Why would we waste one of these pre-conference games on Mizzou when we can help out other teams?
"But Mizzou is a great program! We always bring the heat and fight for the share of the conference title!!" . . . . Really? The norm is KU fighting for a conference championship against some team
not named Mizzou: e.g., Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St, Iowa St. The 16th
year of the Big 12, a conference in which KU has now won nine outright
titles (probably) and shared three, is the first year that the Jayhawks’
primary competition has been from the state of Missouri.
Joe Posnanski, a sports writer for the Kansas City Star turned ESPN writer, had this to say about the "heat" that Mizzou has brought in the past: “The games weren’t always close. In Lawrence, to be honest, they were
almost never close. Kansas won by 32 in 2002, by 33 in 2006, by double
digits 12 times since 1995. It was usually more entertaining and tense
in Columbia.”
The series is at a STAGGERING 172-95, Self is 15-4 against Mizzou, and Mizzou hasn't won in Allen Fieldhouse since 1999. I was in 5th grade when that happened. I'm now 24. So why should KU put its neck on the line to make Mizzou relevant? Why shouldn't we let it slip into oblivion? And no, "Because it's the rivalry and you're giving up on it!!!" is not an acceptable answer. I've explained that we have nothing to gain from it. It's only you.
HOWEVER, I will say kudos to Mizzou's team this year. You put out the gutsiest performances in Allen I've ever seen and the second most exciting game I've ever been to. Yes, the series is split this year. KU should have held on to their lead in Columbia and Mizzou should have held on to their lead in Lawrence. It didn't happen and the home teams made incredible comebacks. If all of the games were this good, we might actually have reason to keep things going. But that's just not the case. When your star players say "the season would be successful if they lost every other game, but beat KU," it doesn't make you look like a good team; it makes you look desperate.
In closing, I do wish Mizzou the best of luck in the SEC. I don't have any hard feelings against them and enjoyed the rivalry while it lasted. Hopefully, Mizzou can hold on to its recent success and give the SEC one helluva ride.
JoPo said it best so I'll quote him on this: " There were a lot of signs at
Saturday’s Kansas-Missouri basketball game, of course, but one sign in
particular stood out. A college kid was holding it above his head
throughout the game. I kept looking over at him. There was something
that I really wanted to tell him. . . . He was across the court, so it was difficult for me to see him, but
from what I can tell he looked to be maybe 18 or 19, and he was decked
out in Kansas colors. His sign said: “KU Won’t MIZZ-you.” And you
know, it was relatively clever, as far as signs go. But something about
it bothered me. I did want to walk over to him and whisper in his ear:
“Yeah, you will, kid. You will miss Missouri. You will miss all this
more than you can ever know.”
We won't see a rivalry like this again.
Hugs and kisses,
Chip
Monday, February 27, 2012
Thursday, February 23, 2012
What Do You Get A Website?
Dear Readers,
Today is the 5th birthday of the Phish Pond. Thank you, again, for reading, leaving me comments, and such. I hope the next year will bring more fun for the site, which may include embarrassing stories of me. Who knows?
I leave you with this video. It links to the post I made a little bit ago about Happy Endings. Enjoy.
5 Years of Hugs and kisses,
Chip
Today is the 5th birthday of the Phish Pond. Thank you, again, for reading, leaving me comments, and such. I hope the next year will bring more fun for the site, which may include embarrassing stories of me. Who knows?
I leave you with this video. It links to the post I made a little bit ago about Happy Endings. Enjoy.
5 Years of Hugs and kisses,
Chip
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
Knighthood
There have been many times where I've heard the idea or thought the idea that chivalry is dead in the male population. Chivalry is an interesting concept, but I don't feel that it has much traction in today's world. I have an interesting counter-argument that I just thought I'd share:
Chivalry, as defined in the traditional sense, is "the traditional code of conduct associated with the medieval institution of knighthood. It was originally conceived of as an aristocratic warrior code — the term derives from the French term for horseman — involving individual training and service to others. Over time its meaning has been refined to emphasize more ideals such as knightly virtues, honor and courtly love, and less the martial aspects of the tradition."
So is chivalry dead? You bet! There is a reason that we don't have chivalry anymore. We have technologically moved on since the era of knights and crap like that to more modern, more realistic approach to society. Do we even have warriors anymore? You could make an argument towards the death of the "warrior" and the birth of the "soldier" and when those two periods took place, but that's another argument altogether.
However, in the modern sense, chivalry is used (mostly by girls) to verbalize the desired actions of their male companions. Specifically, this terminology is used in the description of courtship practices. While the practice of courtship has changed over the centuries, we still can draw some parallels between the two civilizations. I mean, really, back in the day, knights would get in suits of armor, ride horses, grab a shield and pretty much a flagpole, and try to knock each other off their horse. . . . which may have split (in an off-the-wall way) into roshambo and demolition derbies or something. And why did they do this? For a large part of it, it was recognition. The way Hollywood prefers to depict it, jousting was done to defend a lady's honor or to court her or something . . . wow. Not sure what to say about that one. I don't know if it's true; can't say I've ever ventured to the middle ages during my vacation days. Either way, I can't imagine two gentlemen kicking each other in the privates in order to win a lady's favor.
Well, in reality, let's look at it this way; the practice of chivalric acts was done in a time VERY different from today. Back then, women were treated, for the most part, like pieces of art (pretty to stare at, very delicate, and incapable of taking care of themselves). It was assumed that, if a woman did not find a man, she was doomed to a fate worse than death, or something. Really, it's almost like women were considered more like a house-cat. So the rationale behind chivalry was very different than the rationale behind the courtship practices today. The sad thing is that whenever I hear a girl complain of how chivalry is dead, I worry that the ideals that are set in place are NOT set by social convention at all, but rather by what we would like to think the middle ages were about.
In my opinion, chivalry is dead . . . I know it's hard to hear. However, the concepts behind the courtship aspects (which is what most girls would define as "chivalric behavior" in the first place) is timeless. However, it goes without saying that chivalry may be dead, but it's not as though it just sat in that way. Just like the death of the warrior and the birth of the soldier, chivalry has evolved through time to create a new idea for what is socially acceptable for our time. That's just the path of life. Something will only live as long as it can evolve to fit its environment. Chivalry died long ago, but was replaced by a new social convention which is worth realizing. It may not have a name and it may not be *cough* perfect *cough*, but we, as males, are trying. I know, just as any other person in society, that males doing nice things for females is something that is timeless, despite the tragic passing of chivalry.
To close, repairs are in order. Social convention is defined by those that follow it. Realistically speaking, if enough people follow an idea, as stupid or inane as it may be, it will replace the old, outdated convention. So, ladies, if you had to write the laws of social convention, how would you prefer for the chapter on courtship to be? What is it that we don't do that would please your want for "chivalry" to make a retro-style comeback? And males, if you had to write the laws of social convention, how would you prefer the chapter on courtship to be? I know that 99% of the courtship responsibilities falls on the male, but it's always worth asking. Just a thought.
Hugs and kisses,
Chip
Chivalry, as defined in the traditional sense, is "the traditional code of conduct associated with the medieval institution of knighthood. It was originally conceived of as an aristocratic warrior code — the term derives from the French term for horseman — involving individual training and service to others. Over time its meaning has been refined to emphasize more ideals such as knightly virtues, honor and courtly love, and less the martial aspects of the tradition."
So is chivalry dead? You bet! There is a reason that we don't have chivalry anymore. We have technologically moved on since the era of knights and crap like that to more modern, more realistic approach to society. Do we even have warriors anymore? You could make an argument towards the death of the "warrior" and the birth of the "soldier" and when those two periods took place, but that's another argument altogether.
However, in the modern sense, chivalry is used (mostly by girls) to verbalize the desired actions of their male companions. Specifically, this terminology is used in the description of courtship practices. While the practice of courtship has changed over the centuries, we still can draw some parallels between the two civilizations. I mean, really, back in the day, knights would get in suits of armor, ride horses, grab a shield and pretty much a flagpole, and try to knock each other off their horse. . . . which may have split (in an off-the-wall way) into roshambo and demolition derbies or something. And why did they do this? For a large part of it, it was recognition. The way Hollywood prefers to depict it, jousting was done to defend a lady's honor or to court her or something . . . wow. Not sure what to say about that one. I don't know if it's true; can't say I've ever ventured to the middle ages during my vacation days. Either way, I can't imagine two gentlemen kicking each other in the privates in order to win a lady's favor.
Well, in reality, let's look at it this way; the practice of chivalric acts was done in a time VERY different from today. Back then, women were treated, for the most part, like pieces of art (pretty to stare at, very delicate, and incapable of taking care of themselves). It was assumed that, if a woman did not find a man, she was doomed to a fate worse than death, or something. Really, it's almost like women were considered more like a house-cat. So the rationale behind chivalry was very different than the rationale behind the courtship practices today. The sad thing is that whenever I hear a girl complain of how chivalry is dead, I worry that the ideals that are set in place are NOT set by social convention at all, but rather by what we would like to think the middle ages were about.
In my opinion, chivalry is dead . . . I know it's hard to hear. However, the concepts behind the courtship aspects (which is what most girls would define as "chivalric behavior" in the first place) is timeless. However, it goes without saying that chivalry may be dead, but it's not as though it just sat in that way. Just like the death of the warrior and the birth of the soldier, chivalry has evolved through time to create a new idea for what is socially acceptable for our time. That's just the path of life. Something will only live as long as it can evolve to fit its environment. Chivalry died long ago, but was replaced by a new social convention which is worth realizing. It may not have a name and it may not be *cough* perfect *cough*, but we, as males, are trying. I know, just as any other person in society, that males doing nice things for females is something that is timeless, despite the tragic passing of chivalry.
To close, repairs are in order. Social convention is defined by those that follow it. Realistically speaking, if enough people follow an idea, as stupid or inane as it may be, it will replace the old, outdated convention. So, ladies, if you had to write the laws of social convention, how would you prefer for the chapter on courtship to be? What is it that we don't do that would please your want for "chivalry" to make a retro-style comeback? And males, if you had to write the laws of social convention, how would you prefer the chapter on courtship to be? I know that 99% of the courtship responsibilities falls on the male, but it's always worth asking. Just a thought.
Hugs and kisses,
Chip
Friday, February 17, 2012
Grand Finale?
I've always wondered why there is so much emphasis on the concept of a "happy ending" to a story. I mean, don't get me wrong, I like a happy ending to a story as much as anyone else. I feel, though, that focusing on the end of the story is depressing. The end to a story happens in movies, books, theater, and music, really. It is in those specific forms of the humanities that there is a distinct beginning and end. Before the beginning, there is NOTHING; no Indiana Jones, no Luke Skywalker, and no Harry Potter. After the end of the story, there is no answer as to where they go with their lives. In movies with the colossal build-up, once the action is over, that's the way for a writer to say that nothing else happens worth mentioning.
So why do we focus so much on the happy ending with our lives? People don't live "happily ever after." I know that sounds obscenely depressing, but it's true. I know I NEVER want to live happily ever after. I want things to happen in my life that are worth telling. I want the story to continue as long as humanly possible. In the end, I would rather say that I've had a great life, surrounded by amazing people, and have cool stories to tell rather than to say that I lived "happily ever after." But therein lies the problem: we want to think that our lives will be complete with one addition (or subtraction). We can't focus on the endgame. We can't sit there and think that our life is the build-up to that ONE moment where our lives are complete because they never really are. If all things focused on the end and nothing else, then theater would just have the actors/actresses come out for the final line and the curtain call. The world's greatest symphonies would just be a final note. Because after all, why would we waste time with the rest of the symphony if all we came out for was that final note?
It's odd to think about it, but we have been conditioned to live for the finale our entire lives. We have elementary school. After that we have middle school. After that we have college. We can get a job or go to grad school. Eventually, when we get jobs, we are enticed by a promotion so we work our butts off for that. After this, we find out about another promotion and we work towards that. And then, presumably, one day, we'll be sitting at our big office with the promotion that we wanted wondering where the last "X" amount of years went. So after thinking about this, it's easy to see why the concept of a finale is so appealing.
So think about how you're living your life. Don't live for the end.
"Life moves pretty fast. If you don't stop and look around once in awhile, you might miss it." - Ferris Bueller
Hugs and kisses,
Chip
So why do we focus so much on the happy ending with our lives? People don't live "happily ever after." I know that sounds obscenely depressing, but it's true. I know I NEVER want to live happily ever after. I want things to happen in my life that are worth telling. I want the story to continue as long as humanly possible. In the end, I would rather say that I've had a great life, surrounded by amazing people, and have cool stories to tell rather than to say that I lived "happily ever after." But therein lies the problem: we want to think that our lives will be complete with one addition (or subtraction). We can't focus on the endgame. We can't sit there and think that our life is the build-up to that ONE moment where our lives are complete because they never really are. If all things focused on the end and nothing else, then theater would just have the actors/actresses come out for the final line and the curtain call. The world's greatest symphonies would just be a final note. Because after all, why would we waste time with the rest of the symphony if all we came out for was that final note?
It's odd to think about it, but we have been conditioned to live for the finale our entire lives. We have elementary school. After that we have middle school. After that we have college. We can get a job or go to grad school. Eventually, when we get jobs, we are enticed by a promotion so we work our butts off for that. After this, we find out about another promotion and we work towards that. And then, presumably, one day, we'll be sitting at our big office with the promotion that we wanted wondering where the last "X" amount of years went. So after thinking about this, it's easy to see why the concept of a finale is so appealing.
So think about how you're living your life. Don't live for the end.
"Life moves pretty fast. If you don't stop and look around once in awhile, you might miss it." - Ferris Bueller
Hugs and kisses,
Chip
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
Valentines Day 2012
So I wrote a post a few days ago about something I heard on the radio that upset me. At the end of said post was a picture,
Shortly after this post was written, a friend sent this to me. Thought it was worth sharing:
Hahahaha. Happy Valentines Day!
Hugs and kisses,
Chip
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
