Time Out

 It may seem that I am obsessed with US politics, given the preponderance of posts in this year about the ongoing fail of our form of government.  It is not the case--like most of us, I have plenty of other considerations in play in my life, all the time. 

In my case, travel--arranging it and doing it--is a principal activity.  We have acquired a new apartment, in the tiny town of Bagnone, province of Massa/Carrara, NW corner of Tuscany (Italy), and making it into a home (second? first? TBD) is what we are doing right now. Italy's politics remain interesting to me, as a bystander of long duration, and I will opine on that at the right time.  One has to keep a close eye on the economy, domestic and global:  I will have something to say about AI, but suffice for now to say that, contrary to what the public and the reigning Dickhead think, the state of the economy has a lot less to do with the political environment than the mindset and behavior of the massive US consumer markets.  I want to comment on the reviving, but fractured, music scene, and definitely on movies, which seem finally to be shaking off the limiting superhero genre as their only viable product, this fall's serious output being the current evidence. 

Now, though, it's a good time to address sports. This time of year is one of the most interesting, to me anyway, with the baseball playoffs heading toward their climax, the football season (both kinds) getting into gear, and the basketball season getting underway. Of course there are a lot of other sports active in this season. Here, we've been seeing incredibly good early fall weather here; we had a cycling rally and a running one last weekend here in the area which attracted hundreds of participants around these small towns. I hear the marathon run in Boston was a big hit, and the one in New York is coming up (right before the election there, another worthy diversion from the national mess). My wife asks me to remind everyone of the Winter Olympics coming up in February, in northern Italy.  But let's focus--here, on the big three (or four). 

Football, American Style

I've been watching the game as it has emerged as the dominant sport in the US over the decades, but it would not be accurate to say I'm a fan. There are many aspects of it I dislike, above all the continuing toll of crippling and mind-destroying injuries--the control by corporatist billionaires is a given.  I've watched enough to be knowledgeable about the game, but not the individual players so much; most of them come and go too quickly for me to notice, except for one position.  The quarterbacks, of course, are what the game revolves around today:  who's hot, who's injured, who's getting the protection they need to succeed or finding ways to escape the pass rush, and those who don't, lose. The game remains fun to watch, perhaps now more than ever, as scoring climbs with pass defenders hampered more than ever, and the spectacle of the long pass, and how it gets set up, is as entertaining as ever.  I have to praise the innovation of the skycam and the alternative TV channel which dispenses with the constant analytical babble--we've got all these channels, they might as well use them. 

As a rule, I pay little to no attention to the NFL standings or even the teams' performances until late November, and this year is no exception. I do notice that some of the teams we are used to seeing dominate are suffering more losses early:  I'm sure most of them will get it straightened out by the end, quarterback injury status permitting, but in the meantime it's good for the game that some other teams are getting some play, like the Tampa Bay Buccaneers and the Pittsburgh Steelers with Aaron Rodgers (!) 

The college game is perhaps more intriguing right now.  The postseason playoffs expanded to 12 teams last year, and the tourney produced somewhat predictable results.  This year it looks as though nothing can be predicted:  the top teams have been taking turns beating each other week after week, and some surprising new powers have emerged, both ones with rich history but difficulties in recent years (Ole Miss, Texas A&M) and the improbable rise of the Indiana Hoosiers, long a doormat of the Big Ten, and James Madison, a university that was primarily a women's teachers college within my memory. What made IU and JMU possible is the transfer window, providing mobility for players that no other major team sport features (OK, college basketball).  What made Mississippi and Texas A&M go is the attraction among players to come and perform in the SEC, the only conference that matters anymore. The only thing certain seems to be that Ohio State will dominate the 16-team Big Ten and be there in the end--prove me wrong, someone!

The outstanding "human interest" story of college football this year is the saga of Arch Manning, the third-generation quarterback of the Texas Longhorns.  It was expected that he would win the Heisman trophy as the top college player this year, but that expectation just made him a target for opposing defenses and for media criticism, as it hasn't gone so well for that campaign (and it is an electoral campaign).  Texas lost early, as did Alabama, and I mistakenly wrote them off.  I wish him well; he's probably been under the pressure of unreasonable expectations since he was a child. 

World Football 

The big news this time of year in global football  (or soccer, foosball, or calcio if you prefer) is the "transfer window" also, but it is different there:  this is about the purchase of rising players by the big-money teams from those needing to sell, the players being the draw for the critical sale of merchandise.  Yes, there are rules to prevent the game becoming a total monopoly, but it's a fact that the rules were made to be bent. Real Madrid, Paris Saint-Germain, Juventus, the English Premier League big 3 (Liverpool, Manchester City, and Manchester United--usually) and Barcelona hover over the landscape of the smaller clubs all over the world that develop most of the talent. 

My team in the English Premier League, Chelsea, is off to a muddling start after a surprising run to win the World Club Football championship this summer in the US, an off-season triumph which took advantage of its relatively light supplementary season in '24-25 to pull off another trophy (actually the trophy was pulled off by none other than The Dickhead himself, who showed up uninvited on the winners' championship stage and "borrowed" it for decorating his offices). Anyway, the squad has tons of young talent, with the result being surprising victories over better teams (like PSG then, and Liverpool a couple weeks ago) along with shocking losses to league teams with less talent. It looks like it will be a battle to the finish to stay in the Champions League, the all-important goal for financial purposes, though probably a fairly early departure from Champions League competition itself this year. 

The football world has one eye on the upcoming World Cup in 2026, which has expanded yet again, to 48  teams. Getting to it is still a big deal, though, either if you do or especially, with the top European nations, if you don't. The event will be held in the US, Canada, and Mexico, so all three of those countries will get a free pass, which will open the door for some other countries in the North American/Caribbean region to qualify, more than usually. 

The specter of Donald Trump looms over the planning for the event somehow.  He has been making threats about taking planned matches away from Boston and Los Angeles if those cities don't do something or the other that he is requesting.  Mr. Trump is about to learn a lesson, though:  there is something bigger than him, or even than the US, and that is world football, governed by a corrupt but powerful body called FIFA, and they decide the venues and timing of the events.  The US is, at best, a peripheral power in that organization.  If he fucks around too much, they might just take the finals away from his country (right now, it's scheduled to be in the Meadowlands in NJ) and put it in a real soccer country, like Mexico.

Basketball

Being a native of Kentucky, hoops are deeply ingrained in my culture from the very beginning. Keeping up with high school games is too big and broad for me at this point, but I do care deeply about the college game.  It has also been somewhat transformed by the open transfer policy. Previously, a player had to sit out a year if he changed colleges; I have to praise this expansion of freedom.  It does mean that a program can be built almost from scratch in a year, but also, combined with the ability for top college players to turn pro after one year, that it can disappear just as quickly, say if a coach leaves for another job. 

 A negative is the disintegration of the traditional sports conferences, driven entirely by football and the desire for the aspiring programs in lesser conferences to get to the big time (the SEC and the Big Ten, mostly); one casualty was the Pacific Coast Conference (or whatever it was called at the end), which has as many national championships among its universities as any in the nation, but now the conference has completely disintegrated.  Another is the Big East, from which all the major universities departed, though it still remains in a truncated form. 

What remains, though, is March Madness, an indisputable and enduring success which has little to do with the power game of the big conferences--it does protect the little ones, who all get a berth in the tournament. I have no idea which college teams will emerge as the principal contenders for the national championship--there are a bunch of players who've moved around, or out, and the reality emerges gradually through the season which teams have the potential, which is largely around building a team game with effective defense.  College basketball is a coach's game. 

Effective defense was the key differentiator in last year's NBA playoffs, too, as the Indiana Pacers surprised everyone by making it to the Finals, only to be defeated by a team with both effective defense and a fully-emerged superstar in Shea Gilgeous-Alexander, MVP of the regular season and the playoffs as well. The Pacers suffered the loss of their star player, Tyrese Halliburton, to an Achilles tear in game 7 of  those Finals, which pretty much cooked their goose, despite the best efforts of the team's remaining players.

An Achilles tear happens in basketball, too often I suppose, but perhaps not unexpectedly given the extraordinary demands on overstretched players (height-wise) running, cutting and jumping.  It typically takes a full year to recover, and full recovery is never certain. Halliburton's not the only big NBA star who will miss the entire season due to injury: I mention also Jayson Tatum, star of the previous season's champion, the Boston Celtics, Fred Van Vleet, a veteran guard who was emerging as a star on the Houston Rockets, and Damian Lillard, another aging veteran guard (returning to the Trail Blazers after a failed experiment in Milwaukee).  The absence of those four will have dramatic effects on the team chemistry of the teams that lost those players.  

Here's a classification of the NBA teams by tiers, as we go into the new season next week: 

1.  Proven quality, still at the top of the game (injuries permitting):  Oklahoma City Thunder, with Gilgeous-Alexander ("SGA"); Denver Nuggets, with Nikola Jokic (former champions, took OKC to 7 games in the playoffs); Boston Celtics (former champions, even without Tatum, still formidable and should be favorites in the Eastern Conference)
2.   Star-quality mashups--this is the most prevalent group for would-be contenders, as the style now is to try to put together three top players with suitable sidemen, roughly in order of probability of success (defined as reaching the Conference Finals, i.e. the league playoff semi-finals):   Dallas Mavericks with Anthony Davis, super rookie Cooper Flagg, and unpredictable talent Kyrie Irving (now injured, probably just for the first half); New York Knicks (Jalen Brunson, Karl-Anthony Towns, O.G. Anunoby); Houston Rockets (Kevin Durant, rising star Alperen Sengun, Amen Thompson); Los Angeles Clippers, with Kawhi Leonard, James Hardin, and Ivica Zubac (perennial disappointments, but one year...maybe); Los Angeles Lakers (Luka Doncic, Lebron James--now with an old-man's disease, sciatica--and Austin Reaves); Philadelphia 76ers (Joel Embiid, Tyrese Maxey, and Paul George, all likely to be injured at any one time);  San Antonio Spurs, now building rapidly to return toward the top (Victor Wembanyama, DeAaron Fox, and #2 draft pick Dylan Harper); Orlando Magic (Paolo Banchero, Franz Wagner, Desmond Bane, all top offensive threats); Sacramento Kings (Domantis Sabonis, Zach LeVine, Keegan Murray, with new addition of Hall of Famer Russell Westbrook); New Orleans Pelicans (Zion Williamson, Dejounte Murray, Trey Murphy); and, still hanging around, the Golden State Warriors (Stephen Curry, Draymond Green, and mid-season addition Jimmy Butler).  Any of these teams could jell and threaten a run at the title. 
3.   One big star, plus adjuncts:  Milwaukee Bucks (Giannis Antetokounmpo); Atlanta Hawks (Trae Young), Detroit Pistons (Cade Cunningham); Minnesota Timber Wolves (Anthony Edwards); Phoenix Suns (Devin Booker); Miami Heat (Bam Adebayo); Memphis Grizzlies (Ja Morant); Toronto Raptors (Scottie Barnes); Indiana Pacers (without Halliburton, Pascal Siakam); and Cleveland Cavaliers (Donovan Mitchell).  All of these teams have had significant success in recent years, some winning the title and others making runs as recently as last season, but typically teams like this can get hot and make the playoffs behind their star but don't get far. It's quite likely they will be rebuilding soon, possibly by trading their big stars, or going for it by trying to add more talent (Indiana will just lay low for one season). 
4.  Rebuilding, or Not:  Chicago Bulls, Washington Wizards, Utah Jazz, Portland Trail Blazers, Charlotte Hornets, Brooklyn Nets.  These teams don't look to be competitive.  Brooklyn has disbanded their previous mashup entirely and drafted five in the first round, who will all be playing.  The problem with building through the draft is that it typically takes 2-3 years before these teenage one-and-dones can reach their potential, if they ever do, and in the meantime soak up a whole lot of money. 

Baseball

This is the one US sport for which I exhibit true fan behavior, as in illogical emotional following of a team, in the context of general love for the sport and its history.* Here, I'm talking about the Cincinnati Reds+, the team for which I have been "tifo" (the Italian word for fan behavior, comes from the word for typhoid fever) since the early '60's.  Thus, I was totally there for their glorious run in the '70's, the legendary Big Red Machine (one of the top five starting lineups of all time), and their shocking World Series sweep of the proud Oakland A's in 1990 (thank you, Lou Piniella and the Nasty Boys reliever corps). 

The Reds made the playoffs, legitimately but just barely backing into them with a record just barely with more wins than losses, then lost in the preliminary "Wild Card" round to one of the best teams, the somewhat under-performing defending champion Los Angeles Dodgers. For that defeat, I will root fervently for the Dodgers to go out, until they do, just as I root against the Yankees every year since they beat the Reds in the World Series in 1961 (!) Somehow, the Baltimore Orioles, who beat the Reds in 1970's Series, don't draw the same opprobrium from me, as they are similarly a smaller-market, rarely dominant team (though the Yankees haven't really dominated in the last 20 years, either). 

As for the rest:  well, the playoffs are down to four teams, none of which were clear favorites at my last sports take, but ended up with the best regular-season records due to strong second-half performance (the Phillies were the other team with a top regular season, but they faded in the playoffs due to the injury to their best pitcher, Zach Wheeler): the Milwaukee Brewers and Dodgers in the National League, and the Seattle Mariners and Toronto Blue Jays in the American League. This over-representation of small-market teams is a nightmare for the World Series TV ratings, especially if the Dodgers and legendary superstar Shohei Ohtani go out. Several teams faded badly and left their fans sorely disappointed:  the Detroit Tigers, Houston Astros, New York Mets, and Boston Red Sox come to mind.  At least the Reds did not disappoint, really, and they have the potential to improve and come closer to championship-level contention with just a good move or two. The Chicago Cubs and Cleveland Indians are two others that are comparably on the verge. 

I do have a bit of a beef with how baseball is going these days.  This discussion of the "Three True Outcomes":  strikeout, walk, and home run has the whole major-league game oversimplifying things tremendously.  The notion of "hit them where they ain't" (ancient wisdom for putting the ball in play, strategically if possible) has disappeared, despite the game's rulemakers seeking to blunt the trend toward player shifts to take away the prevalent field that batters would put their batted balls toward.  And bunting? Forgeddaboutit!  

One good trend, though, is the re-emergence of the stolen base, for those who can do it, because pitchers are so focused on getting that strikeout that they barely notice what the runners on base are doing.  So much so that their arms get weary after five-six innings, and straining of the pitching arm's ulnar collateral ligament has become an epidemic (leading to the so-called "Tommy John surgery" where they put a new one in, just below the elbow).  This bothers me much more than the innovations to juice up public interest, like the time clock for pitchers, limiting mound visits of catchers and coaches, and the "ghost runner" they put on second base in the extra innings, to make the games shorter (not used in the playoffs).  

As with the NBA, the major leagues show more and more players not born in the USA all the time.  I insist that this is a positive development for the sport, broadening its participation attractiveness beyond the US (the NFL shows no such inclination, despite the highly popular one-off games they set up abroad).  In the long run, though, we should be encouraging "norteamericanos" to take up the game when young, rather than the brutality and short careers of American football and the impossibly long odds of making it in the NBA (even for those blessed with height of two meters or more). 

*My previous true fan experiences were with University of Kentucky basketball--I wept at their loss in 1965 to Texas Western (now the University of Texas at El Paso) in the NCAA finals.  I later learned that I was totally politically incorrect in the history of the game, and should have eschewed the all-white Wildcats in favor the breakthrough all-black Texas Western team.  I'm still a UK backer, but I will also root for their in-state rival, University of Louisville:  both have provided major emotional lifts to me over the years, though I'm a bit perturbed U of L sold out and left the Big East for the second-tier Atlantic Coast Conference (the conference is really just second-tier in football, though one of the top ones in basketball).  

The other fan-like experience was when I was living in New York in the '80's and '90's, the era of Patrick Ewing, John Starks, etc. and I had part-share of season tickets.  They never quite won the championship then, and since have consistently for decades, though now they show some major signs of potential life.  Too late for me, though.  

+I was a youth in Louisville, Kentucky, just down the Ohio River from Cincinnati, named for the inspiring example of Cincinnatus, a Roman "dictator" (their word) from the fifth century B.C. who led a military victory then returned to private life, preserving for a while their republic.  We need some like him now!  In those days of the early Sixties, we just had the "Game of the Week" on TV (Dizzy Dean and PeeWee Reese, usually the Yankees, Dodgers, or Giants vs. somebody), so I was brought up listening to the Reds' games on the radio.