A fan again...again

I wasn't planning on getting overly personal in this blog, but since i got so many comments on my last post with questions, I guess it's going in that direction anyway.

Objectivity is, unfortunately, a subjective idea. People can view something as objective or find some bias in it. Mainly because true, perfect objectivity doesn't exist. No matter what or how you write, your voice comes through.

Journalistic writing just asks more of than other forms of writing. It's easier for me, but then again, I could never write fiction the way Kim does.

"Do you find yourself objective in more things outside of the paper now? Just curious..." - Kristi

Not really. I rarely write news pieces, so every day events jump out at me as something that requires the same objectivity as a UMass sports game. When I see political news on TV, i still root for my side of the 'debate' or what have you. However, I can seem to see the other side of issues a little better.

"Do you feel that you are really objective inside when discussing a team you like, or you do just portray it outside in order to do your job well? . . . I am just curious how writing has changed your enjoyment of sports" - Nicole

When I discuss the Patriots, I can basically view them through both lenses. It's not a matter of one or the other. I'm one of those crazy screaming fans when I watch them with my family (who are also both crazy and screaming), but I can look at a game and be thrilled that they won, but also look at how I might report the story. The things I'd tell a buddy calling me asking how it went are completely different from what I would write in a 800-1,000 word game wrap.

I'd tell my friend the Pats kicked their asses up and down the field, but I'd write that the Patriots won the small battles against a tough opponent who was equally matched. Kind of means the same thing I suppose (?)

So it's not a matter of really being objective inside. No one is objective inside. It's a matter of whether you can be objective.

The last thing is Kim's question. . .

Here is the story she linked me to get my thoughts on it.

That really puts a whole new spin on masculinity and sports. It's certainly something that effects me and I can't imagine what it has to Christine Daniels.

My favorite sport has always been football, the most brutish, manly sport of brutish manly sports. But I don't consider myself a particularly overly masculine guy. It stems a lot from the clashing of my two biggest interests, sports and music.

I've played bass for seven or eight years, something like that. I also haven't missed a Patriots game since 1993. People who know me for one are astonished to see me in the other role. I'll jam with someone, and they'll say, "Wow, I figured you were more of a jock."

I really really love football. The demand on a player to be part of a team and physically abuse his whole body for the sake of 52 other guys is fascinating. You don't see that in baseball or any other sport. Trust me, you don't.

But how do you talk football with a guy you meet without making the women in the room bored as hell and think you have a one-track mind for violent sports, quickly transition to women's rights in the workplace or the last episode of House? (sorry, trying to think on the fly here)

Christine has a long road in front of her. Her identity as a sportswriter is going to come in direct conflict with her transexual identity. Not that she's a woman. There are plenty of women in the world of sports media. But being a former man is going to create the image that she's a very effeminate male, which is much harder to deal with nowadays.

It sounds like the people close in her life handled is well, which is a great sign, but her readers are another thing. Most people might see the new byline and just think it's a different writer, but for those who don't she may lose some of them.

Hopefully it goes well.


Oh, and Fillmore, it's objectivity not objectivism. As an editor, I feel obligated to tell you that.

A fan again?

I watched at least part of all three Red Sox/Yankees games this weekend. And for the first time, I realized exactly why it's a sportswriters buffet whenever the two teams meet. You don't need to hype the game. It's existence alone is enough hype to put two of the three games on national television.

It's one of the few rivalries where people outside the home cities (Boston and NY) actually want to see who comes out on top. It's just too easy. Say "Red Sox, Ya.." and before you can finish saying Yankees, the tickets are sold out and there's someone on Yawkey way trying to buy one at the last minunte, while EBAY has them going at a thousand bucks a pop.

I also realized how much journalism can change how you look at things. I planned on actually watching the Sunday Night's game (the whole thing, not two innings), but until the end of the game, the potential sweep of the Yankees was just something that might happen. The gravity of it - for a Red Sox fan - didn't strike me until Jonathan Papelbon was finished blowing away the top of the Yankees order to close the ninth.

Then I was psyched.

It's hard to dance in between fan and objective reporter, even when you don't have to. The only time I've completely let go and cheered to a maniac was during the Patriots' playoff run this past winter (I'm more of a Pats fan than a Red Sox one).

I accidentally cheered for the UMass hockey team early in the season - sometime in October. It was pretty embarassing. I hadn't even been to many hockey games before that. It was just habit for me to root for the home team. But since then, I've been leaning far the other way, holding back even when it wasn't necessary. And I've been trying to break myself of the typical sports fan habit of saying "we" instead of "they" when referring to teams we like.

I say we won the Super Bowl, meaning the Patriots. But now, UMass went to the NCAA Regional Championship in hockey. I had nothing to do with it.

That's true, but the latter is not as fun to say. At least not til you see it in print the next day.

I thought I had this whole subjectivity-objectivity thing worked out. But then the Red Sox swept the Yankees at home for the first time in 17 years, and I almost missed how cool it was. I had pulled myself too far in the opposite direction.

And somehow, it took the Red Sox sweeping the Yankees to make me realize it.

NFL Draft Outsider

I love the NFL Draft so much.

It's the ultimate speculation event in the ultimate spectator sport. Mock drafts are never correct and no one has any idea who's going to pick who on Draft Day. And in the past few years, it's even been tough to pick out the top pick in the draft.

The funny part is, most guys in the first round don't even pan out anyway. Marques Colston, a 7th round pick out of Hoftstra (a guy who embarassed UMass in his senior season playing Division 1-AA ball) was easily the best rookie wide receiver.

The Patriots are the perfect example of how weird the draft can be. They drafted running back Laurence Maroney last year late in the first round. It was a great pick. Maroney fell a little farther than he should have - just a little - and the Pats jumped on him. Now he's the franchise back after Corey "I'd run but I'm too old, so I'll just walk kinda fast and awkward" Dillon has left town.

However, in the second round, everyone thought the Patriots had struck gold. In the first round, the top two priorities were running back and wide receiver. There were two of each on the board that Bill Belichick and Co. were considering, and they definitely picked the best one.

However, Florida WR Chad Jackson was still on the board early in the second round. So the Pats, trumping the Broncos once again (Denver wanted both Maroney and Jackson, though they got their QB in Jay Culter so they're not complaining), traded up to the Packers' spot and snatched Jackson.

Somehow, the Pats grabbed both a first-round RB and a first-round WR without having to give up much at all. What a great draft. Add to that tight end Dave Thomas from Texas (the guy who made the best catch of the year against Jacksonville) and that's a very solid first day of drafting.

However, Jackson pulled a hammy early in training camp (somewhere around the second day), and never saw the field much all year. He missed so much time before the season that he was well behind the free agents New England signed, and spent most of the season as No. 4 on the depth chart.

To say he underachieved is unfair, yet. Injuries happen, and by all rights he could have a breakout year in 2007, but they Patriots thought they hit the jackpot by landing both Maroney and Jackson. They were featured together in all the preseason reports and touted as the new wave of offensive weapons for Tom Brady.

As the season progressed, the only things written about Jackson were how he was struggling along.

So from April to April, Jackson went from a first round talent to a guy who slipped into the second. Then he was a total steal for the Pats. When Deion Branch left, some thought he'd have to step up early and be the No. 1 guy. Then he got hurt, faded into the background, and three wide receiver signings later, is not better off than he was last year.

And the Patriots - who are annually one of the five best drafting teams in the league - are once again looking at taking a wide receiver on Day One of the draft.

Guess even Mel Kiper Jr. doesn't know it all...

Jon Quick off to the Pros

If you followed the hockey team's historic season at all this year. You know who Jon Quick is. The team's MVP had one of the best seasons ever for a UMass goalie in the team's best season ever (first-ever NCAA Tournament appearance).

Well if you were wondering how good he and the Mass Attack will be next year, you can now count Quick out. He bolted for the pros this past week, signing an offer sheet from the NHL's Los Angeles Kings, the team that drafted him before he began his collegiate careeer.

Most reports are saying he was offered the standard three-year entry level contract, with a $250,000 signing bonus. He will join the Kings' Manchester, N.H. minor league affiliate in the AHL for the rest of this season.

I can imagine how hard it is to turn down money like that. Big-time hockey execs walk right up to you, and throw a check for $250K right in your lap, lay a contract in front of you and say, "The money is yours. No more classes. No living in a dorm room. You can move up to the ritzy part of New Hampshire, play pro hockey, and have no worries about money again."

They pump you up, tell you you're amazing, then give you the least amount of dollars they can to get you to play backup for some minor league team no one watches. He could have taken UMass even farther next year. And where would the money be after that?

Waiting for him in Los Angeles. Quick was the No. 3 prospect in the country when UMass recruited him. That's a big fish to catch for what has been a small-time hockey program in recent past. And he helped bring the team higher than ever (along with head coach Don 'Toot' Cahoon).

The team is only getting better, and is still young. Quick had two more years to play at the college level, where he could finish school, not have to live in the real world, with bills and taxes, and actual worries, and have almost no responsibility, except to get to practice and meetings on time.

I know its easy to chastise an athlete for not finishing school, when the only point of school is to increase your earning potential (he's done that), but what will he do in Manchester that he couldn't do in Amherst?

He likely would win more games, and more significant ones- more people pay attention to NCAA Frozen Four than they do AHL playoffs, and the fan base could not be more devoted. I was in the press box during the home playoff games against Maine. When the Black Bears players were announced the "SUCKS!"I heard all around me made me jump - and I had heard that before every game, so I was used to it. You're not going to get that from fans in Manchester.

Additionally, there's the matter of maturity. Covering the team all year, I've talked to Jon a number of times. I listened to him speak after win and losses in press conferences. I've seen how he acts around the locker room after practice. I've even seen him around campus - in the dining halls for instance.

In my humble opinion, I don't think he's ready to move on yet. He's not mature enough. And I have heard I am not the only one around this team that feels that way.

Maybe there's a part of me that selfishly wants him to stay. I'll be covering the team next year too, and I was looking forward to covering more NCAA tourney games. They may get there anyway, but it would have looked a lot easier with Mr. Quick between the pipes.