Being a die-hard Braves fan, it is exciting for me to look forward to the up-coming season. The pitching staff is as solid as ever – Huddy is back and Lowe looks to have found his old form. The infield is stout all the way around, Brian McCann is behind the plate, and the outfield will finally have some pop in their bats and speed on the bases.
One reason the outfield looks to be so improved is the possible addition of MLB’s #1 prospect, Jason Heyward. He is twenty years old and has the demeanor and maturity of a seasoned veteran. Balls explode off of his bat such that the sound made when he connects has been compared to that of The Hammer (Hank Aaron, for those who somehow don’t know). He can steal bases and has a cannon for an arm. With any luck, the home-grown Brave will stay in an Atlanta uniform for years and years.
Analysts everywhere rave about the “kid.” Great. The ravings only fuel my excitement. He has been compared to Darryl Strawberry, Willie McCovey, Fred McGriff, Willie Stargell, and, yes, The Hammer. And herein lies my complaint. Jason Heyward is black. Can he only be compared to other, great black baseball players? Does the color of his skin so override the potential in the man’s throwing arm, ability to swipe bases, and power to hit for extra bases? Why can’t he be compared to Mickey Mantle, for instance? Okay, Mantle might very well have been the greatest to ever lace ‘em up; but, why not a comparison to Carl Yastrzemski or even Jim Edmonds?
While ESPN has shown itself to carry a left-wing tilt like the MSM, even the MLB Network makes these very same, color-based comparisons. For most Americans, I will wager, baseball players are just that. They don’t step onto the field representing a certain ethnicity or minority group; they wear the uniform of their team. Heyward is an Atlanta Brave to me, not a black athlete who happens to play for the Braves.
So, to all commentators and analysts who want to lavish praise upon Heyward, I say this: don’t denigrate the great players of years past or Jason Heyward by restricting his potential greatness to a certain demographic of players. Try a little color-blindness the next time you step in front of the camera, microphone, or even the Hall of Fame podium. The boys of summer don’t play the game to fill your progressive-minded quotas – they play the game to win . . . and out of love for it.
Which brings me to college football. So, a couple senators from states where the leading football programs didn’t receive invites to the big dance want Congress to step in and take over yet another private program. And they just so happen to have R’s next to their names. Politically, these senators are gambling that the issue of the federal government assuming control over more of America’s private doings – which has clearly been shown to be anything but popular with Americans under Obama’s socialist agenda – will be overlooked by the folks in Idaho and Texas. They hope that their constituents care more about football than politics come the next election.
It is unclear how far the Senate will be able to run with the issue. The aim, though, is to institute a playoff system. An aim which Obama claimed to support and one in which he’d be happy to “throw his weight around” to effect his own personal desire. Reading the comments on ESPN’s website, posted by football fans, it is clear that government intrusion is overwhelmingly unwanted. While most of these fans would prefer a playoff, they, at least, know enough to want Congress to mind its own business. Perhaps Congress might want to address the twelve billion dollar national debt, for instance, rather than worrying over a national football playoff.
I personally like the current BCS format. Losing the tradition of the historic bowl games, rivalries, and regular season schedules would be a shame. But, if the fans’ comments on ESPN are any indication, I think that the BCS is safe for now and that the senators from Texas and Idaho have lost some votes.
No comments:
Post a Comment