In attempting to build his brand through a hyped up free agency, Lebron has turned the public against him and has completely destroyed it. His hour-long special has been blasted by fans, and his egomaniac-ism (yes, I made up this word) and selfishness has been made extremely apparent. The public also sees through his little charity stunt to his sense of entitlement of attention, especially when he's compared to the classiness of Dwayne Wade and the humility of Kevin Durant. It has been made clear that every decision he makes, even basketball decisions, is about money, and he is intent on being a billionaire, and fans will be more hesitant than ever to throw money that will only boost his ego. Lebron has quickly become the most hated man in America, as he steals an hour from millions as he beats around the bush before actually announcing his decision. In attempting to build his brand, Lebron has completely destroyed it.
On my Google Reader, I'm subscribed to Bleacher Report , which is a sports blog hosting site where anyone can start a sports blog (I might create one some time). Surprise, surprise there has been the most Lebron bashing I've ever seen in my life. Even on Facebook, many statuses are lampooning Lebron and his little hour-long Free-Agency Idol results show. Lebron is now known across the country as a self-absorbed, selfish, greedy player that still hasn't won a ring. Lebron is the new Brett Favre - you hear about him every day but like him less and less every day. The more you hear about him the more you want him to disappear and never come back. This free agency has destroyed Lebron's image throughout the country.
In anticipation of Lebron joining Dwayne Wade and Chris Bosh tonight at Miami, here are three reasons why signing with the Heat is a bad decision:
1) Miami is DWade's city, and the Heat are DWade's team.
Dwayne Wade is the unquestioned leader of the Miami Heat, and the addition of Chris Bosh doesn't change that at all. Despite the recent down years in Miami, Wade is mentally tough and committed to both the city of Miami and to winning. Wade has demonstrated loyalty and classiness, which so many superstars seem to lack nowadays. While Lebron will without a doubt be the best player on the team, will he be the mental, emotional leader? Will Dwayne Wade let him take the reigns of the team?
I saw this quote on a Bleacher Report article: "Lebron James is Alex Rodriguez to Dwayne Wade's Derek Jeter." I couldn't have said it better.
2) Miami isn't the best place to win a championship
After signing Lebron James, the Heat will need to settle with mediocre role and bench players to push them through the season. Sure, having Lebron and Wade and Bosh will create most of the offense needed, but unless they play every minute of the game, someone will need to replace them. Comparisons to the Big Three of Boston can be made, but the new "Super Three" of Miami won't have the support of Glen Davis, Eddie House, Leon Powe, or James Posey on the bench or Perkins and Rondo role playing (wow that sounds dirtier than intended). A crappy bench and crappy role players mean more minutes for the Super Three, and more minutes means more fatigue and effect on the body. Even if the Super Three win one championship, the physical toll that season will have on their body will make it extremely difficult to repeat.
The importance of a good bench is often underrated, but look at these statistics from the 2010 NBA Finals:
Game 1: 102-89 LAL. Bench 16-15 CEL.
Game 2: 103-94 CEL. Bench 24-15 CEL.
Game 3: 91-84 LAL. Bench 24-22 CEL.
Game 4: 96-89 CEL. Bench 36-18 CEL.
Game 5: 92-86 CEL. Bench 14-13 CEL.
Game 6: 89-67 LAL. Bench 23-13 LAL.
Game 7: 83-79 LAL. Bench 9-6 LAL.
Five out of seven times, the team with the better bench won the game. And if you notice, the two times where the better bench did not win the game, it was only by a margin of two and one points. You cannot win a championship if your bench and role players cannot score.
3) Miami isn't the best place for Lebron to build his brand.
Let me first make one thing clear: for Lebron to build his brand into a billion-dollar market, he must win championships. Without championships, he cannot hope to be anywhere near Michael Jordan.
Let's just assume that the Heat win a championship two years from now (after the Lakers three-peat next year). The market will undoubtedly be split between Dwayne Wade and Lebron, and if Lebron takes more credit than he deserves and pushes his brand too hard, it will backfire and he'll lose the respect of fans. However, if they win, James really might not be getting the majority of the credit. It won't be a "Lebron and friends" kind of deal, but more of a "Miami has a great team" split in credit. Lebron will never be able to be the one that everyone can easily point to as the MVP of the team. What if Dwayne Wade wins it? Lebron's brand will never explode as he wants it to.
If Lebron really wants to boost his brand into the billion-dollar empire he desires, he needs to win championships by playing out of his mind and being the most well-liked player in the NBA. Of these two factors, I don't think he has the capacity for the latter.
Kobe vs. Lebron
Thursday, July 8, 2010
1 Samuel 5, 6: Don't mess with God.
This passage is quite familiar to me and the images of drawings of this passage from the Picture Bible are still vivid in my head. I can still see the image of this giant mermaid idol Dagan flat on the ground, broken into pieces in front of the ark of God. I love this story because we often like to treat God like a giant fluffy teddy bear (someone like a pre-fall Lotso from Toy Story 3) that will accept us despite our brokenness (which he will), and we forget just how awesome (in the awe-some sense of the word) and powerful God is. If it's not too sacrilegious to say, God is totally BA in this passage. In this passage, I can imagine God saying to himself something like this:
"Philistines don't want to respect me and make me share a temple with this poser Dagan, whom they call "Lord of the gods"? Man, don't the Philistines know that I totally trademarked that name centuries ago? These fools don't know who they're messin with. Imma tip this little fella over and see what happens...They picked him up again?! I'll just push him a little harder this time...oops..broke his head, arms, and fishy tail by accident...Aww they don't want me here next to their pwecious little Dagan anymore and are moving me to another city. Why don't they just treat me like the powerful God that I am instead of pretending I'm just some mere symbol? I know...I'm going to make them an offer they cannot refuse: Return the ark to my people, or TUMORS AND RATS. Your move, Philistines."
God demands respect. God demands obedience. God's holiness and power should cause us to fall down and worship him, like Dagan did. Our God is not a God to mess with, as the Egyptians, Philistines, Persians, Babylonians, Assyrians, Romans, Nazis, and Islamic extremists have painfully discovered. It's kind of funny thinking about it because the Egyptians, Jordanians (Canaanites, Edomites), and Syrians (Assyrians) never learned their lesson and got their butts kicked again by God's Chosen People in the Six-day War in 1967. They never learn.
God's Justice
The thing that struck me this time around that I haven't seen before is the justice of God demonstrated in the punishment of the Israelites. Sometimes when we read the Old Testament, it really seems like God is always in favor of the Israel, because those seem to be all the stories that we remember. When we think about God and the Israelites, we like to remember all the warm, fuzzy stories like Moses and the Exodus, Joshua and Jericho, and David and Goliath but we immediately don't think about the punishments the Israelites suffer for their sin, like "the earth opened up its mouth and swallowed them, with their housholds and all Korah's men and all their possessions (Numbers 16:32)", Joshua's stoning of Achan and burning of his family for the Ai fiasco, and the death of David's firstborn for murdering a soldier and quid pro quo-ing his wife.
God does not show favoritism. Contrary to popular belief (and practice), Christianity and the Christian God is not about racism or putting one ethnicity or peoples above another. God's justice is painfully demonstrated in the passage, with an extremely severe punishment of all who disrespected His ark. God is less tolerant with the sin of the Israelites because they really should know better than to try and look inside the holy ark of God. This passage is a confirmation of the first part of Romans 2:9-10, that God's chosen people are held to a higher standard. This is God's justice.
The moral of the story is that as Christians, we should never just assume that we can treat God however we want. He has demonstrated grace beyond grace, but we serve a God that also demands fear and obedience. God is unpredictable, in both his grace and his discipline - as said in Narnia, God is not a tame lion.
It all really makes me think: DAM, GOD. YOU SCARY (in the best possible way ever).
"Philistines don't want to respect me and make me share a temple with this poser Dagan, whom they call "Lord of the gods"? Man, don't the Philistines know that I totally trademarked that name centuries ago? These fools don't know who they're messin with. Imma tip this little fella over and see what happens...They picked him up again?! I'll just push him a little harder this time...oops..broke his head, arms, and fishy tail by accident...Aww they don't want me here next to their pwecious little Dagan anymore and are moving me to another city. Why don't they just treat me like the powerful God that I am instead of pretending I'm just some mere symbol? I know...I'm going to make them an offer they cannot refuse: Return the ark to my people, or TUMORS AND RATS. Your move, Philistines."
God demands respect. God demands obedience. God's holiness and power should cause us to fall down and worship him, like Dagan did. Our God is not a God to mess with, as the Egyptians, Philistines, Persians, Babylonians, Assyrians, Romans, Nazis, and Islamic extremists have painfully discovered. It's kind of funny thinking about it because the Egyptians, Jordanians (Canaanites, Edomites), and Syrians (Assyrians) never learned their lesson and got their butts kicked again by God's Chosen People in the Six-day War in 1967. They never learn.
God's Justice
The thing that struck me this time around that I haven't seen before is the justice of God demonstrated in the punishment of the Israelites. Sometimes when we read the Old Testament, it really seems like God is always in favor of the Israel, because those seem to be all the stories that we remember. When we think about God and the Israelites, we like to remember all the warm, fuzzy stories like Moses and the Exodus, Joshua and Jericho, and David and Goliath but we immediately don't think about the punishments the Israelites suffer for their sin, like "the earth opened up its mouth and swallowed them, with their housholds and all Korah's men and all their possessions (Numbers 16:32)", Joshua's stoning of Achan and burning of his family for the Ai fiasco, and the death of David's firstborn for murdering a soldier and quid pro quo-ing his wife.
God does not show favoritism. Contrary to popular belief (and practice), Christianity and the Christian God is not about racism or putting one ethnicity or peoples above another. God's justice is painfully demonstrated in the passage, with an extremely severe punishment of all who disrespected His ark. God is less tolerant with the sin of the Israelites because they really should know better than to try and look inside the holy ark of God. This passage is a confirmation of the first part of Romans 2:9-10, that God's chosen people are held to a higher standard. This is God's justice.
The moral of the story is that as Christians, we should never just assume that we can treat God however we want. He has demonstrated grace beyond grace, but we serve a God that also demands fear and obedience. God is unpredictable, in both his grace and his discipline - as said in Narnia, God is not a tame lion.
It all really makes me think: DAM, GOD. YOU SCARY (in the best possible way ever).
The extent of my holy fear (and humility) never ceases to amaze me.......just kidding.
1 Samuel 4 - Continued Disobedience and Using God
1 Samuel 3 - Midnight Encounter with God
1 Samuel 2 - For those stumbling
1 Samuel 1 - "Because I asked the Lord for him"
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
Technology and Officiating: Case Studies
The following are some case studies where the ideas that I posted in my Myths and Realities post can be applied.
Armando Galarraga's Non-Perfect Game
The SituationArmando Galarraga was one out away from a perfect game. Jason Donald hit a ground ball to first-baseman Cabrera, so Galarraga went to go cover first base. Cabrera threw the ball to Galarraga, but first base umpire called Donald safe, when later replay clearly showed that Donald clearly had not beaten the throw.
The Problem
Calling base-runners safe or out is very difficult and almost an inexact science. It cannot be understated how much credit MLB umpires should get for calling these bang-bang correctly most of the time, but they do make mistakes once in a while, and those mistakes can be very costly and can alter the outcome of a game.
The Fix
On base-running calls - Adding an umpire in front of a screen to watch replays and if an umpire is not sure, they can request help on the call. This will be similar to what the umpire behind the plate does on check swings, as he points to either the first or third base umpire for their call on whether or not a batter held his swing. Although umpires now may always think they are certain of all the calls they make, these calls can easily be confirmed by someone watching replays. These replays should really only take a few seconds, as the replay umpire should be viewing plays even if requests have not been made. If the replay assistant isn't sure about a call after first glance (around five seconds),
On coach's challenges - I agree that replays where all the umpires gather around take too much time and need to be minimized. Some say a manager's challenge once a game is too much, and that it should be once a week. I think that it should be once a series for the regular season and two per series in the playoffs. I think having one per week is too arbitrary and that we should take advantage of the organization of the baseball season. Maybe in addition to the one replay per series there can also be two or three free replays for the entire season, just in case a big game is being played and a challenge has already been used in the series. The issue in the end isn't about the replay itself, but about the amount of time it adds in games. I still think that it is unnecessary for all the umpires to walk to some spot off the field to watch a replay and that there is many more efficient methods that can be employed.
These plans are not perfect, and may not even have changed this Armando Galarraga case. While I'm sure if the system was in place, Jim Joyce would have requested a second opinion from the replay umpire, Jim Joyce seemed to be pretty certain that his call was correct. If he truly did not have any doubts about the call on the field, there's nothing that can be done to change the situation. The mindset of umpires would need to change and a little more humility and accountability will need to be accepted by umpires, who have always made calls and stuck with them, no matter if there are players or managers yelling in their faces. They have always been invincible, and choosing to defer the decision to another umpire watching replays takes away from that invincibility, but I'm sure that it's still all for the better of the game. Also, as many have said before, there's no guarantee that Jim Leland would have a coach's challenge remaining for the last pitch of the game.
While I feel terrible for Galarraga, the reality is that it did not and was not going to affect the win-loss outcome of the game, which is the most important element to get right.
Kaka's Red Card, Torres' Flop
The Situation
Kaka got his second yellow card against Ivory Coast, forcing him to miss the next game. Brazil was deep enough to replace him and win the next game, but most teams would really feel the loss of their star player. Torres also flopped, causing the unlucky Chilean player to get a red card and giving Spain a free kick right outside the box. [Some people think Torres' heel got clipped, but even if it was, it was a little accidental contact with a whole lot of embellishment.] The fine pieces of acting are below:
The Problem
Soccer players are not held accountable for diving. I don't agree with the notion that there should be another referee to watch the replay and keep Kaka in the game because I still feel that it is the sole responsibility of on-field officials to call fouls. The referee made a mistake, and that is the "human element" of the game that we always talk about. However, players are rarely punished for diving, with their only punishment being non-calls (as we saw with Cristiano Ronaldo in the Spain game).
The Fix
Blatant diving should be considered unsportsmanlike conduct and treated that way. While, it may not be obvious during actual play, replays often clear things up. I'm not sure if other soccer leagues do this already, but FIFA should consider punishing blatant diving and repeat offenders of ridiculous embellishment with yellow cards (because I don't think FIFA can fine players). Because there's often a fine line between diving and mere embellishment, there needs to be significant evidence of diving (or significant evidence that there was no contact). Repeat offenders should also be punished significantly more severely.
The NFL and the NBA have cracked down on in-game unsportsmanlike behavior like head-stomping, face-punching, and face-spitting. Sure, diving isn't as bad as any of these, but action against this unsportsmanlike conduct should be taken nonetheless.
USA's onsides goal and Argentina's offsides goal
The Situations
The USA beat the odds and had tied the game against Slovakia 2-2 after being down 2-0, but the goal that would have put them ahead was taken back on a whistle that was either a foul or an offsides call, but we don't really know which. Mexico was trying to battle back from a 1-0 deficit against favorite Argentina when Argentina scored again. The scorer was very obviously offsides, but a call was never given. Argentina was then up 2-0, a mountain that humble Mexico had no chance of climbing.
These two are opposite situations: Mexico didn't get a call when it was appropriate but USA had a goal reversed for a ghost call.
The Problem
Offsides are often difficult to call.
The Fix
All FIFA officials are already equipped with headsets so they can communicate with each other. Why not stick one more guy in front of a replay booth and have him communicate to the on-field officials when an offsides has been committed or if a called offsides that had resulted in a goal needs to be overturned? Of course, the details and rules need to be figured out, but if you've been watching the World Cup, you've seen that nifty grey-ing visual, and you know that most calls are so obvious that it only takes one replay, between 3 and 5 seconds, to get the call right if it wasn't correct in the first place. If there isn't immediate indisputable evidence to overturn the call on the field in the first 5 minutes, the replay official should allow whatever call was made on the field to stand.
This system should be pretty easy to implement and very fast, where replay overturns will occur rarely. Even though overturns may be rare, offsides calls, whether made and missed, are often extremely crucial and, as we have witnessed, can completely change the complexion and outcome of a match.
That said, I don't know if the USA goal would have been called a goal either way, but I do think that under this system Argentina's goal would be correctly discounted.
Armando Galarraga's Non-Perfect Game
The Situation
The Problem
Calling base-runners safe or out is very difficult and almost an inexact science. It cannot be understated how much credit MLB umpires should get for calling these bang-bang correctly most of the time, but they do make mistakes once in a while, and those mistakes can be very costly and can alter the outcome of a game.
The Fix
On base-running calls - Adding an umpire in front of a screen to watch replays and if an umpire is not sure, they can request help on the call. This will be similar to what the umpire behind the plate does on check swings, as he points to either the first or third base umpire for their call on whether or not a batter held his swing. Although umpires now may always think they are certain of all the calls they make, these calls can easily be confirmed by someone watching replays. These replays should really only take a few seconds, as the replay umpire should be viewing plays even if requests have not been made. If the replay assistant isn't sure about a call after first glance (around five seconds),
On coach's challenges - I agree that replays where all the umpires gather around take too much time and need to be minimized. Some say a manager's challenge once a game is too much, and that it should be once a week. I think that it should be once a series for the regular season and two per series in the playoffs. I think having one per week is too arbitrary and that we should take advantage of the organization of the baseball season. Maybe in addition to the one replay per series there can also be two or three free replays for the entire season, just in case a big game is being played and a challenge has already been used in the series. The issue in the end isn't about the replay itself, but about the amount of time it adds in games. I still think that it is unnecessary for all the umpires to walk to some spot off the field to watch a replay and that there is many more efficient methods that can be employed.
These plans are not perfect, and may not even have changed this Armando Galarraga case. While I'm sure if the system was in place, Jim Joyce would have requested a second opinion from the replay umpire, Jim Joyce seemed to be pretty certain that his call was correct. If he truly did not have any doubts about the call on the field, there's nothing that can be done to change the situation. The mindset of umpires would need to change and a little more humility and accountability will need to be accepted by umpires, who have always made calls and stuck with them, no matter if there are players or managers yelling in their faces. They have always been invincible, and choosing to defer the decision to another umpire watching replays takes away from that invincibility, but I'm sure that it's still all for the better of the game. Also, as many have said before, there's no guarantee that Jim Leland would have a coach's challenge remaining for the last pitch of the game.
While I feel terrible for Galarraga, the reality is that it did not and was not going to affect the win-loss outcome of the game, which is the most important element to get right.
Kaka's Red Card, Torres' Flop
The Situation
Kaka got his second yellow card against Ivory Coast, forcing him to miss the next game. Brazil was deep enough to replace him and win the next game, but most teams would really feel the loss of their star player. Torres also flopped, causing the unlucky Chilean player to get a red card and giving Spain a free kick right outside the box. [Some people think Torres' heel got clipped, but even if it was, it was a little accidental contact with a whole lot of embellishment.] The fine pieces of acting are below:
The Problem
Soccer players are not held accountable for diving. I don't agree with the notion that there should be another referee to watch the replay and keep Kaka in the game because I still feel that it is the sole responsibility of on-field officials to call fouls. The referee made a mistake, and that is the "human element" of the game that we always talk about. However, players are rarely punished for diving, with their only punishment being non-calls (as we saw with Cristiano Ronaldo in the Spain game).
The Fix
Blatant diving should be considered unsportsmanlike conduct and treated that way. While, it may not be obvious during actual play, replays often clear things up. I'm not sure if other soccer leagues do this already, but FIFA should consider punishing blatant diving and repeat offenders of ridiculous embellishment with yellow cards (because I don't think FIFA can fine players). Because there's often a fine line between diving and mere embellishment, there needs to be significant evidence of diving (or significant evidence that there was no contact). Repeat offenders should also be punished significantly more severely.
The NFL and the NBA have cracked down on in-game unsportsmanlike behavior like head-stomping, face-punching, and face-spitting. Sure, diving isn't as bad as any of these, but action against this unsportsmanlike conduct should be taken nonetheless.
USA's onsides goal and Argentina's offsides goal
The Situations
The USA beat the odds and had tied the game against Slovakia 2-2 after being down 2-0, but the goal that would have put them ahead was taken back on a whistle that was either a foul or an offsides call, but we don't really know which. Mexico was trying to battle back from a 1-0 deficit against favorite Argentina when Argentina scored again. The scorer was very obviously offsides, but a call was never given. Argentina was then up 2-0, a mountain that humble Mexico had no chance of climbing.
These two are opposite situations: Mexico didn't get a call when it was appropriate but USA had a goal reversed for a ghost call.
The Problem
Offsides are often difficult to call.
The Fix
All FIFA officials are already equipped with headsets so they can communicate with each other. Why not stick one more guy in front of a replay booth and have him communicate to the on-field officials when an offsides has been committed or if a called offsides that had resulted in a goal needs to be overturned? Of course, the details and rules need to be figured out, but if you've been watching the World Cup, you've seen that nifty grey-ing visual, and you know that most calls are so obvious that it only takes one replay, between 3 and 5 seconds, to get the call right if it wasn't correct in the first place. If there isn't immediate indisputable evidence to overturn the call on the field in the first 5 minutes, the replay official should allow whatever call was made on the field to stand.
This system should be pretty easy to implement and very fast, where replay overturns will occur rarely. Even though overturns may be rare, offsides calls, whether made and missed, are often extremely crucial and, as we have witnessed, can completely change the complexion and outcome of a match.
That said, I don't know if the USA goal would have been called a goal either way, but I do think that under this system Argentina's goal would be correctly discounted.
Sunday, July 4, 2010
"Freedom is not free"
Iris and I went to visit Jonny, Johnny, and Diana around a month ago at Washington D.C, where we haven't visited for years. We arrived near midnight, and we headed off towards the monuments, which were absolutely beautiful at night.
Johnny, ever the tour guide, showed us the Lincoln Memorial, the Vietnam Memorial, the Korean War Memorial, and the World War II Memorial (which, tragically, the lights were turned off for). What really stuck with me was the quote "Freedom is not free" etched on the wall of the Korean War Memorial.
I can't help but remember Jesus who set us free not only from the evil tyranny of funny-dressed Brits, but from the slavery and bondage of sin, that we should never be enslaved to it again. Many times, we take our freedom from sin for granted, not thinking twice about the significant of liberation from sin and assuming eternal life as a right that we all deserve to have. We forget that our relationship with God and our freedom from sin did not come freely, and that God paid the ultimate price for our freedom.
The freedom -
Romans 6:22,23
1 Peter 2:23,24
Also, I love America! USA! USA!
How I celebrated July 4th:
For all those interested, after we chilled at Tim's house, we went to Pier Village for the Oceanfest fireworks. Traffic sucked, but it was pretty worth it in the end because of all the fun people in the car and the fireworks were so close we could smell the smoke! The fireworks were actually being shot only maybe one hundred feet from us. Every time the "weeping willow" fireworks were shot, I got scared that the ashes would burn some poor people sitting too close to the shore. Aside from hanging out, the one thing that I loved the most of the night was hearing the awe of the kids all around me. As we grow up, we often get desensitized to the amazing things in the world, and it was nice to hear kids who are still genuinely captivated by the wonder of beautiful exploding flames in the sky.
Android Tip #1681 - Don't take videos sideways because you will never be able to rotate them back, especially if the files are too big to transfer to your computer via email. Taking 50MB of video sideways is never a good idea.
Playing with firecrackers outside of Tim's house. Audio required.
Yes, I screamed. The firecracker hit me! Don't judge me.
Johnny, ever the tour guide, showed us the Lincoln Memorial, the Vietnam Memorial, the Korean War Memorial, and the World War II Memorial (which, tragically, the lights were turned off for). What really stuck with me was the quote "Freedom is not free" etched on the wall of the Korean War Memorial.
I can't help but remember Jesus who set us free not only from the evil tyranny of funny-dressed Brits, but from the slavery and bondage of sin, that we should never be enslaved to it again. Many times, we take our freedom from sin for granted, not thinking twice about the significant of liberation from sin and assuming eternal life as a right that we all deserve to have. We forget that our relationship with God and our freedom from sin did not come freely, and that God paid the ultimate price for our freedom.
The freedom -
Romans 6:22,23
But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves to God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life. For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
John 8:36
If the Son sets you free, you are free indeed.The price -
1 Peter 2:23,24
When they hurled their insults at him, he did not retaliate; when he suffered, he made no threats. Instead, he entrusted himself to him who judges justly. He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed.So on the day that we remember the men and women that gave their lives for our country and everything that she represents, let's remember the One who died to right humanity with God, the only one who can truly set us free and give us real freedom from all the evil of the world.
Also, I love America! USA! USA!
How I celebrated July 4th:
For all those interested, after we chilled at Tim's house, we went to Pier Village for the Oceanfest fireworks. Traffic sucked, but it was pretty worth it in the end because of all the fun people in the car and the fireworks were so close we could smell the smoke! The fireworks were actually being shot only maybe one hundred feet from us. Every time the "weeping willow" fireworks were shot, I got scared that the ashes would burn some poor people sitting too close to the shore. Aside from hanging out, the one thing that I loved the most of the night was hearing the awe of the kids all around me. As we grow up, we often get desensitized to the amazing things in the world, and it was nice to hear kids who are still genuinely captivated by the wonder of beautiful exploding flames in the sky.
Android Tip #1681 - Don't take videos sideways because you will never be able to rotate them back, especially if the files are too big to transfer to your computer via email. Taking 50MB of video sideways is never a good idea.
Playing with firecrackers outside of Tim's house. Audio required.
Yes, I screamed. The firecracker hit me! Don't judge me.
Thursday, July 1, 2010
1 Samuel 4: Continued Disobedience and Using God
2 John 1:6
Continued disobedience to God results in a broken relationship with Him and makes us lose sight of who He is.
After Samuel's message from God to Eli, decades pass, but it doesn't seem like Eli or his sons have changed. Eli's sons are still wild, being two of the people who basically stole the ark from the temple. Though Eli's role in this is all unknown, he has failed both as a father of two wayward sons and a leader of a rebellious nation. After Samuel's prophecy about Eli and his family, Eli seems unmotivated to change his ways and his sons' behavior. We've seen God's mercy in the Old Testament, where God condemns cities or individuals but after sincere repentence of the condemend sparing their lives. Eli didn't bother to ask God for forgiveness or beg Him to change his mind. Eli seemed resigned, saying merely, "He is the Lord; let him do what is good in his eyes", which to me almost seems like Eli is saying, "Whatever...do whatever you want."
The Israelites forgot who God was. They forgot that He is all-powerful and strong enough to help them defeat the Philistines, they forgot that He is loving and willing to help his chosen people, but above all, they forgot that He is holy, and that all sinners who come in contact with His holy presence embodied by the ark of the covenant will die. To them, God was confined inside the walls of the ark, not an all-powerful ever-present God who would strike down all who disrespected his holy ark.
When we lose sight of who God is, we try to use God for our own selfish desires.
When we lose sight of who God is, we lose sight of who we really are. Instead of recognizing our continual dependence on Him, we rely on ourselves and demand His intervention whenever we run into a little bit of trouble. Although it is easy to condemn the Israelites for attempting to use God's power and presence for their own salvation without desiring relationship, we often do the same in our own lives. We slack in our personal lives, falling into continual obedience, and act like spoiled children and demand God's blessing when life gets tough.
What makes using God and relying on God different? Here are some thoughts:
Using God stems from pride.
There might be a fine line sometimes between relying on God and using God in any one situation, but looking at our life as a whole, it's easy to see where our heart really is. Relying on God comes from a posture of humility because we can't do anything on our own. We rely on God for the big things and the little things. On the other hand, when we use God, we treat him as a car repairman, giving him our life only so he can make it better and wanting it back again. We often communicate "Hey God. I know you're out there and all-powerful. You love me. I know you do. I have this thing in my life that I really don't know what to do or how to deal with it. Can you fix it for me? After you do fix it though, I want it back. Thanks." This all stems for a belief that we can take care of most of life by ourselves. God isn't needed in life most of the time, and we only need Him once in a while, so that's why we only pray every once in a while.
Using God implies selfish prayers.
When we use God, our prayers are for ourselves. Like the Israelites, they had only themselves in mind. Our heart isn't in line with God's heart, and we are too focused on the trials and troubles that we are currently going through and we miss the bigger picture of God's heart for the whole world. In 1 Samuel 4, there is no real indication of why the Israelites were fighting the Philistines. Maybe they were being attacked, maybe they were attacking. We don't really know. However, I can say with certainty that if God had commanded his people to go out and fight, they would not have lost and would not have needed to go steal the ark. The Israelites were living life by themselves and for themselves, and their demand of God to give them a victory in battle stems from selfishness.
Using God lacks praise.
When we use God, we feel entitled to whatever we are asking of Him. God is gracious and often gives us what we desire, no matter how foolish our desires may be. When we use God, we fail to worship him with our lives. Sure, we may praise him in the moment, but we don't praise him with our lives. This of course is very general, and I know of situations where God used a selfish ambition to reveal His power and love and bring their hearts back to Him. However, many times when we come to God with our vending machine prayers ("Hi God. I would like A6, good grades please. Oh and B7, that girl"), when He gives us what we asked for, our pride blinds us to his work and we claim it for our own ("I'm a good-looking genius. Good grades and girls are my own accomplishment.")
I know that a lot of stuff written here is pretty harsh and uncomfortable to identify with, but the reality is that everyone struggles with it. I struggle with continued disobedience and I struggle with selfish prayers. We all do. If we can learn anything from the Israelites in 1 Samuel 4, we should know that if Jesus hadn't died for our sins, we would end up like them: sinful and dead.
Also, don't be like Eli. He was weaksauce and stubborn. Here's a lesson: continued disobedience makes you old, blind, fat, and clumsy enough to die by falling out of a chair.
And this is love: that we walk in obedience to his commands. As you have heard from the beginning, his command is that you walk in love.John 15:9,10
As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Now remain in my love. If you obey my commands, you will remain in my love, just as I have obeyed my Father's commands and remain in his love.
Continued disobedience to God results in a broken relationship with Him and makes us lose sight of who He is.
After Samuel's message from God to Eli, decades pass, but it doesn't seem like Eli or his sons have changed. Eli's sons are still wild, being two of the people who basically stole the ark from the temple. Though Eli's role in this is all unknown, he has failed both as a father of two wayward sons and a leader of a rebellious nation. After Samuel's prophecy about Eli and his family, Eli seems unmotivated to change his ways and his sons' behavior. We've seen God's mercy in the Old Testament, where God condemns cities or individuals but after sincere repentence of the condemend sparing their lives. Eli didn't bother to ask God for forgiveness or beg Him to change his mind. Eli seemed resigned, saying merely, "He is the Lord; let him do what is good in his eyes", which to me almost seems like Eli is saying, "Whatever...do whatever you want."
The Israelites forgot who God was. They forgot that He is all-powerful and strong enough to help them defeat the Philistines, they forgot that He is loving and willing to help his chosen people, but above all, they forgot that He is holy, and that all sinners who come in contact with His holy presence embodied by the ark of the covenant will die. To them, God was confined inside the walls of the ark, not an all-powerful ever-present God who would strike down all who disrespected his holy ark.
When we lose sight of who God is, we try to use God for our own selfish desires.
When we lose sight of who God is, we lose sight of who we really are. Instead of recognizing our continual dependence on Him, we rely on ourselves and demand His intervention whenever we run into a little bit of trouble. Although it is easy to condemn the Israelites for attempting to use God's power and presence for their own salvation without desiring relationship, we often do the same in our own lives. We slack in our personal lives, falling into continual obedience, and act like spoiled children and demand God's blessing when life gets tough.
What makes using God and relying on God different? Here are some thoughts:
Using God stems from pride.
There might be a fine line sometimes between relying on God and using God in any one situation, but looking at our life as a whole, it's easy to see where our heart really is. Relying on God comes from a posture of humility because we can't do anything on our own. We rely on God for the big things and the little things. On the other hand, when we use God, we treat him as a car repairman, giving him our life only so he can make it better and wanting it back again. We often communicate "Hey God. I know you're out there and all-powerful. You love me. I know you do. I have this thing in my life that I really don't know what to do or how to deal with it. Can you fix it for me? After you do fix it though, I want it back. Thanks." This all stems for a belief that we can take care of most of life by ourselves. God isn't needed in life most of the time, and we only need Him once in a while, so that's why we only pray every once in a while.
Using God implies selfish prayers.
When we use God, our prayers are for ourselves. Like the Israelites, they had only themselves in mind. Our heart isn't in line with God's heart, and we are too focused on the trials and troubles that we are currently going through and we miss the bigger picture of God's heart for the whole world. In 1 Samuel 4, there is no real indication of why the Israelites were fighting the Philistines. Maybe they were being attacked, maybe they were attacking. We don't really know. However, I can say with certainty that if God had commanded his people to go out and fight, they would not have lost and would not have needed to go steal the ark. The Israelites were living life by themselves and for themselves, and their demand of God to give them a victory in battle stems from selfishness.
Using God lacks praise.
When we use God, we feel entitled to whatever we are asking of Him. God is gracious and often gives us what we desire, no matter how foolish our desires may be. When we use God, we fail to worship him with our lives. Sure, we may praise him in the moment, but we don't praise him with our lives. This of course is very general, and I know of situations where God used a selfish ambition to reveal His power and love and bring their hearts back to Him. However, many times when we come to God with our vending machine prayers ("Hi God. I would like A6, good grades please. Oh and B7, that girl"), when He gives us what we asked for, our pride blinds us to his work and we claim it for our own ("I'm a good-looking genius. Good grades and girls are my own accomplishment.")
I know that a lot of stuff written here is pretty harsh and uncomfortable to identify with, but the reality is that everyone struggles with it. I struggle with continued disobedience and I struggle with selfish prayers. We all do. If we can learn anything from the Israelites in 1 Samuel 4, we should know that if Jesus hadn't died for our sins, we would end up like them: sinful and dead.
Also, don't be like Eli. He was weaksauce and stubborn. Here's a lesson: continued disobedience makes you old, blind, fat, and clumsy enough to die by falling out of a chair.
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Technology and Officiating: Myths and Realities
Recently, there have been a lot of controversial calls in sports. There was Galarraga's non-perfect game, USA's Edu's goal taken back, Britain's equalizer that wasn't, and Argentina's offsides dagger against Mexico. Fans and analysts are screaming for replay while league officials are mostly against it while claiming to "consider" replay to appease fans, and we still don't really know what any actual referees think about it.
Technology should be embraced, not blindly rejected, and sports should evolve with technology. It's true that sports may become different, but it's also important to remember that fans have also become different. Now armed with instant replay at home and the ability to see the validity of calls, fans have become significantly more critical of officiating than they've ever been. Officials should always be the most informed, never the least-informed, viewers of any sporting event. The following are some myths and realities of the integration of technology and officiating, and in this post are some of the possible applications of the ideas shared below.
Myth: Using more technology in sports will decrease the "human element" of the game
Sports often pride themselves in the "human element" of the game. In baseball, this usually refers to the strike zone and how different umpires have slightly different strike zones. In basketball and soccer, this usually refers to the standard of what a foul is and how tightly a game is with respect to fouls called. Though the fear of the elimination of the human element of games is legitimate, the reality is that it is still possible to incorporate more technology in refereeing games without compromising the human element of sports. After all, it is humans that look at replays and humans that even decide if replays are needed on the first place! Also, using replay won't eliminate the need for human officials- in most cases there will be an increase to the number of officials for sports matches, even if not all the officials are actually on the field of play.
Will the strike zone ever be replaced by computer software? Maybe. Will fouls ever be called by robots? I doubt it. Even though how tightly a game is called with respect to both fouls and a strike zone are supposedly objective, the reality that everyone recognizes is that they are the subjectiveness of these aspects of the game that give sports their "human element." Nobody is calling for replays of strikes or fouls, but why not make the more objective parts of games like buzzer-beaters, goals, and home runs completely objective by video replay? The only human element taken away from subjecting objective calls to video replay is the human element of mistakes, which should not be desired in the first place. The human element that everyone cries for isn't about the black and white calls that most instant replay is used for but the grey areas that video replay probably wouldn't clear up anyway.
[After instant replay, Jay Cutler was dismissed for public intoxication]
Myth: Technology will destroy the flow of the game.
The destruction of the flow of any game is the biggest fear of sports' self-declared "purists." While technology and replay done wrong can definitely destroy the flow of a game, as we can often see in the NFL where flow is not as important, technology used correctly can really add to the game. I truly believe that with careful planning, there is a way to make integration of most technology and replays nearly unnoticeable. The following is an example of a working system:
NBA 2, 3-point shot reviews - Most of us now take the review of 2 and 3 point shots for granted and don't give it a second thought when a three-pointer is changed to two points fifteen seconds after the shot. There is no change in the flow of the game and no one really pays attention to it. The NBA took great lengths to make these replays as seamless as possible, as you can read here. It's also interesting to note that Phil Jackson was skeptical of the change, but probably has no current objections to the new system.
Reality: Accountability without technology is unnecessarily painful
Proponents of more instant replay say that referees would be in favor of it because their first priority is to get calls right while its opponents claim that instant replay takes away from the authority and importance of referees. We don't really know what referees think about instant replay, but I can say with certainty that it's unfair for a league to discipline its officials without providing the maximum tools to succeed. Yesterday, FIFA dismissed four referees that either missed big calls or made wrong calls. FIFA itself recognized that officials make mistakes and that it was all part of the game, so to dismiss them is both inconsistent and unfair. FIFA should take some responsibility for the wrong calls because their refusal to use the basic instant replay that soccer leagues around the world have already adopted. Similarly, it will be difficult for leagues to keep their officials accountable for incorrect calls they make if they don't put them in a place to succeed.
[After replay, I'm pretty sure that's a home run]
Reality: There is no perfect system
The system now is imperfect, and future systems that include more technology and instant replay will also be imperfect. A great example of this is occurred in the NBA finals a month ago when, in the last two minutes of the game, Rondo fouled Lamar Odom, causing him to lose the ball out of bounds. Replays clearly showed both the ball going off on Odom and Rondo's foul, which had previously been missed by the officials. However, because officials can't use replay to call fouls (which I agree with), the officials had no choice but to award the ball to the Celtics, which was the right decision given the rules of the game but not the ideal, correct outcome.
But even if there's no perfect system, it doesn't mean that we can't continue to improve the current system.
Reality: It is foolish to reject the advancement of technology
In an era where we can carry around the internet in our pockets and it's possible to view replays in 360 degrees for every possible angle, why can't referees watch a simple replay of a play? While I can sympathize with the sentiment of tradition and keeping the integrity of sports, I think that dismissing all attempts at reducing human error in officiating is foolish and irresponsible. Sports have gotten better over the years as leagues look to appeal to fans more. Can you imagine the NFL without free substitution or playoffs or basketball without the shot clock or free throws? Similarly, the addition of more technology to correct calls needs to happen to appease fans who have access to more footage than they ever have. Fans can no longer just take referees at their word and are horrified when incorrect calls are made. It's not just about getting the call right; it's about communicating to fans that leagues are committed to good officiating.
Does anyone really believe that sports will look the same 50 years from now? Sports have been evolving and the games now don't look the same as they were even just ten years ago. The culture of sports have been constantly evolving. It wasn't very long ago that all basketball players wore short-shorts and baseball players wore only knee-breaches. The NFL has been going through a quest to improve player safety while the MLB is working hard to end the steroid era. Sports will never remain the same, so to dismiss the use of more technology because of a fear of changing the game is foolish. Proper use of technology will only improve the playing of games and increase the enjoyment of games for fans.
As technology advances, all of society evolves with it. We can try and fight it (we all know people who do), but in the end, there's no way to avoid its effect in society, especially in sports.
Technology should be embraced, not blindly rejected, and sports should evolve with technology. It's true that sports may become different, but it's also important to remember that fans have also become different. Now armed with instant replay at home and the ability to see the validity of calls, fans have become significantly more critical of officiating than they've ever been. Officials should always be the most informed, never the least-informed, viewers of any sporting event. The following are some myths and realities of the integration of technology and officiating, and in this post are some of the possible applications of the ideas shared below.
Myth: Using more technology in sports will decrease the "human element" of the game
Sports often pride themselves in the "human element" of the game. In baseball, this usually refers to the strike zone and how different umpires have slightly different strike zones. In basketball and soccer, this usually refers to the standard of what a foul is and how tightly a game is with respect to fouls called. Though the fear of the elimination of the human element of games is legitimate, the reality is that it is still possible to incorporate more technology in refereeing games without compromising the human element of sports. After all, it is humans that look at replays and humans that even decide if replays are needed on the first place! Also, using replay won't eliminate the need for human officials- in most cases there will be an increase to the number of officials for sports matches, even if not all the officials are actually on the field of play.
Will the strike zone ever be replaced by computer software? Maybe. Will fouls ever be called by robots? I doubt it. Even though how tightly a game is called with respect to both fouls and a strike zone are supposedly objective, the reality that everyone recognizes is that they are the subjectiveness of these aspects of the game that give sports their "human element." Nobody is calling for replays of strikes or fouls, but why not make the more objective parts of games like buzzer-beaters, goals, and home runs completely objective by video replay? The only human element taken away from subjecting objective calls to video replay is the human element of mistakes, which should not be desired in the first place. The human element that everyone cries for isn't about the black and white calls that most instant replay is used for but the grey areas that video replay probably wouldn't clear up anyway.
[After instant replay, Jay Cutler was dismissed for public intoxication]
Myth: Technology will destroy the flow of the game.
The destruction of the flow of any game is the biggest fear of sports' self-declared "purists." While technology and replay done wrong can definitely destroy the flow of a game, as we can often see in the NFL where flow is not as important, technology used correctly can really add to the game. I truly believe that with careful planning, there is a way to make integration of most technology and replays nearly unnoticeable. The following is an example of a working system:
NBA 2, 3-point shot reviews - Most of us now take the review of 2 and 3 point shots for granted and don't give it a second thought when a three-pointer is changed to two points fifteen seconds after the shot. There is no change in the flow of the game and no one really pays attention to it. The NBA took great lengths to make these replays as seamless as possible, as you can read here. It's also interesting to note that Phil Jackson was skeptical of the change, but probably has no current objections to the new system.
Most reviews take only a few seconds to make and if an extra official is added in front of a television to watch a replay and communicate to the on-field officials via earpeice, on-field officials won't need to waste time walking to and from replay booths. It might take a while for officials to get used to the system, but I'm confident that this is a viable long-term solution for many issues such as soccer offsides and baseball foul/fair balls.
Reality: Accountability without technology is unnecessarily painful
Proponents of more instant replay say that referees would be in favor of it because their first priority is to get calls right while its opponents claim that instant replay takes away from the authority and importance of referees. We don't really know what referees think about instant replay, but I can say with certainty that it's unfair for a league to discipline its officials without providing the maximum tools to succeed. Yesterday, FIFA dismissed four referees that either missed big calls or made wrong calls. FIFA itself recognized that officials make mistakes and that it was all part of the game, so to dismiss them is both inconsistent and unfair. FIFA should take some responsibility for the wrong calls because their refusal to use the basic instant replay that soccer leagues around the world have already adopted. Similarly, it will be difficult for leagues to keep their officials accountable for incorrect calls they make if they don't put them in a place to succeed.
[After replay, I'm pretty sure that's a home run]
Reality: There is no perfect system
The system now is imperfect, and future systems that include more technology and instant replay will also be imperfect. A great example of this is occurred in the NBA finals a month ago when, in the last two minutes of the game, Rondo fouled Lamar Odom, causing him to lose the ball out of bounds. Replays clearly showed both the ball going off on Odom and Rondo's foul, which had previously been missed by the officials. However, because officials can't use replay to call fouls (which I agree with), the officials had no choice but to award the ball to the Celtics, which was the right decision given the rules of the game but not the ideal, correct outcome.
But even if there's no perfect system, it doesn't mean that we can't continue to improve the current system.
Reality: It is foolish to reject the advancement of technology
In an era where we can carry around the internet in our pockets and it's possible to view replays in 360 degrees for every possible angle, why can't referees watch a simple replay of a play? While I can sympathize with the sentiment of tradition and keeping the integrity of sports, I think that dismissing all attempts at reducing human error in officiating is foolish and irresponsible. Sports have gotten better over the years as leagues look to appeal to fans more. Can you imagine the NFL without free substitution or playoffs or basketball without the shot clock or free throws? Similarly, the addition of more technology to correct calls needs to happen to appease fans who have access to more footage than they ever have. Fans can no longer just take referees at their word and are horrified when incorrect calls are made. It's not just about getting the call right; it's about communicating to fans that leagues are committed to good officiating.
Does anyone really believe that sports will look the same 50 years from now? Sports have been evolving and the games now don't look the same as they were even just ten years ago. The culture of sports have been constantly evolving. It wasn't very long ago that all basketball players wore short-shorts and baseball players wore only knee-breaches. The NFL has been going through a quest to improve player safety while the MLB is working hard to end the steroid era. Sports will never remain the same, so to dismiss the use of more technology because of a fear of changing the game is foolish. Proper use of technology will only improve the playing of games and increase the enjoyment of games for fans.
As technology advances, all of society evolves with it. We can try and fight it (we all know people who do), but in the end, there's no way to avoid its effect in society, especially in sports.
Monday, June 28, 2010
1 Samuel 3: Midnight Encounter with God
Background of these 1 Samuel posts: I'm reading through 1 Samuel with Cory and Kelli, my small group leader and helper, over the summer to prepare ourselves for small group Bible studies this next semester. We read two chapters a week, and this week, we read 1 Samuel 3 and 4.
Yesterday, life took a difficult turn. I went to bed disappointed, a bit sad, and very anxious. I normally fall asleep immediately, but not surprisingly, it took me a little longer than usual to fall asleep. The strange thing is that I woke up in the middle of the night, which never ever happens, thinking and worrying about life. I tried to pray about it, but it was difficult letting go and giving everything over to God. Like Samuel, God spoke to me, lying in bed in the middle of the night. God told me: "You can either trust me or not trust me. You decide." As Christians, we often create little grey areas for ourselves to justify and rationalize our doubts and selfishness, but when God puts it in those terms, I have no choice but to respond by putting my trust in Him.
God has taught me a lot about trusting him these past years. Recognizing God's sovereignty and love has been a constant encouragement that as long as I remain in Him by obeying his commands, God's will is done in my life, and I can be confident that his will in my life will always be the best for me. Trusting in God has given me unparalleled peace, even in the worst circumstances. It also seems like whenever I get closer to God, my circumstances become terrible. Though I'm confused by this, I press on in the knowledge and hope that God is always working for my good and has plans only to prosper me.
Like Samuel, God has been speaking to me recently in many different ways. Reading the Word has been extremely fruitful, as God is giving me passages that really relate to my life and is opening my eyes to the things he wants me to see. Here are some verses that God has given me today:
Proverbs 13:12 (NKJV)
Yesterday, life took a difficult turn. I went to bed disappointed, a bit sad, and very anxious. I normally fall asleep immediately, but not surprisingly, it took me a little longer than usual to fall asleep. The strange thing is that I woke up in the middle of the night, which never ever happens, thinking and worrying about life. I tried to pray about it, but it was difficult letting go and giving everything over to God. Like Samuel, God spoke to me, lying in bed in the middle of the night. God told me: "You can either trust me or not trust me. You decide." As Christians, we often create little grey areas for ourselves to justify and rationalize our doubts and selfishness, but when God puts it in those terms, I have no choice but to respond by putting my trust in Him.
God has taught me a lot about trusting him these past years. Recognizing God's sovereignty and love has been a constant encouragement that as long as I remain in Him by obeying his commands, God's will is done in my life, and I can be confident that his will in my life will always be the best for me. Trusting in God has given me unparalleled peace, even in the worst circumstances. It also seems like whenever I get closer to God, my circumstances become terrible. Though I'm confused by this, I press on in the knowledge and hope that God is always working for my good and has plans only to prosper me.
Like Samuel, God has been speaking to me recently in many different ways. Reading the Word has been extremely fruitful, as God is giving me passages that really relate to my life and is opening my eyes to the things he wants me to see. Here are some verses that God has given me today:
Proverbs 13:12 (NKJV)
Hope deferred makes the heart sick,Jonah 4:9-10 (NIV)
But when the desire comes, it is a tree of life
But God said to Jonah, "Do you have a right to be angry about the vine?"Job 1:20 (NIV)
"I do," he said. "I am angry enough to die."
But the LORD said, "You have been concerned about this vine, though you did not tend it or make it grow. It sprang up overnight and died overnight.
The LORD gave and the LORD has taken away;
may the name of the LORD be praised."
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
1 Samuel 2: For those stumbling
1 Samuel 2:4
When I read this verse, I immediately thought of Court McGee, who just won the Ultimate Fighter last Saturday. In his post-fight interview, he broke down while saying "I want to dedicate this fight to anybody who's struggling today. I love you all!" A little background on Court: a few years back, he was addicted to drugs and eventually overdosed, and he was clinically dead at one point. He fought through it, went to rehab, straightened his life, and has now just landed a UFC contract. You can watch the fight here. (The post-fight interview is at around 8:50).
Court's outburst of emotion reminded me of another man who was beaten, knocked down, taken down, and hit in the face in every literal and figurative way imaginable, but fought hard and he came out on top. He has dedicated his life for all those struggling, that when we fall, he lifts us up back on our feet with heads held high, knowing that it is because we are loved that Jesus died for us.
If you are struggling today, Jesus loves you. If you've been stumbling, know that however strange it may seem, God arms all who have stumbled with strength. Keep your head up, your arms high - God has already won the battle.
"The bows of the warrior are broken,This verse jumped out at me when I read Hannah's prayer. For all you out there who stumble, this is the verse for you. How strange the Scripture says that those who stumble are empowered, when in my experience stumbling in life causes shame, guilt, and an overall sense of powerlessness, not strength! When the devil succeeds in his temptations, get back up and continue to fight on. This verse has greatly encouraged me, reminding me that God is my strength, no matter how righteous I am.
but those who stumbled are armed with strength."
When I read this verse, I immediately thought of Court McGee, who just won the Ultimate Fighter last Saturday. In his post-fight interview, he broke down while saying "I want to dedicate this fight to anybody who's struggling today. I love you all!" A little background on Court: a few years back, he was addicted to drugs and eventually overdosed, and he was clinically dead at one point. He fought through it, went to rehab, straightened his life, and has now just landed a UFC contract. You can watch the fight here. (The post-fight interview is at around 8:50).
Court's outburst of emotion reminded me of another man who was beaten, knocked down, taken down, and hit in the face in every literal and figurative way imaginable, but fought hard and he came out on top. He has dedicated his life for all those struggling, that when we fall, he lifts us up back on our feet with heads held high, knowing that it is because we are loved that Jesus died for us.
If you are struggling today, Jesus loves you. If you've been stumbling, know that however strange it may seem, God arms all who have stumbled with strength. Keep your head up, your arms high - God has already won the battle.
1 Samuel 1: "Because I asked the Lord for him"
Hannah joyfully accepts the gift of a son that God has given to her with gratitude and a new understanding of God's grace. In the NIV Bible, it says that "Samuel" sounded like the Hebrew for "heard of God" so even though the sentence may at first glance sound prideful, but the focus of Hannah was on the grace of God, not on her own asking.
There are many things in my life that I want that I have never brought to the Lord for whatever reason, but Hannah's joy in knowing that God responded to her prayers really makes me want to eventually be able to say "..because I asked the Lord for it." Not only is this a reflection of reliance on God, it's a response to the command to pray, jumping on God's bandwagon to advance His kingdom. I want to be a part of God's plan' I want to make a difference, so I need to pray more.
Two observations on prayer and asking God for things:
We don't receive because we don't ask.
Don't get me wrong. If you ask, there's no guarantee that you will receive what you're asking for. However the Word is quite clear that "if you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer" (Matthew 21:22). Our hearts need to be aligned with God's heart, but many times even for the noble and righteous things we are hesitant to pray. How often do we pray for the salvation of friends or the healing of broken relationships? God can also use prayer to mold our hearts and often to convict us to be the answer to our prayers.
God promises us that he answers prayers. Why do we doubt him so much? Has God really let you down before? We doubt God's faithfulness and love when we fail to bring things to him in prayer, forgetting just how much he loves us and desires our joy and pleasure.
Luke 11:9-13
"So I say to you: Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened.
"Which of you fathers, if your son asks for a fish, will give him a snake instead? Or if he asks for an egg, will give him a scorpion? If you then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!"
We aren't grateful when we do receive because we didn't ask
Despite our failure to pray, God still pours out blessings for us, whether or not we asked for it, but because we didn't ask, we take those blessings for granted. This seems a little bit counterintuitive, because it would seem like we should be even more grateful because we should be able to see God's grace clearer, as we never asked for what we received. The sad reality is that we become like spoiled children, feeling entitled to the world and failing to recognize that all the wonderful things in life are blessings from God.
When we ask God, we are recognizing his sovereignty and resigning our will to His, that when we do receive, there is no reaction fitting but to praise Him. Because we often don't ask, we don't bother to wonder where our blessings are, forgetting that "every good and perfect gift is from above" (James 1:17).
To sum it all up: don't be afraid to ask God for anything, and remember to praise God for everything.
Despite our failure to pray, God still pours out blessings for us, whether or not we asked for it, but because we didn't ask, we take those blessings for granted. This seems a little bit counterintuitive, because it would seem like we should be even more grateful because we should be able to see God's grace clearer, as we never asked for what we received. The sad reality is that we become like spoiled children, feeling entitled to the world and failing to recognize that all the wonderful things in life are blessings from God.
When we ask God, we are recognizing his sovereignty and resigning our will to His, that when we do receive, there is no reaction fitting but to praise Him. Because we often don't ask, we don't bother to wonder where our blessings are, forgetting that "every good and perfect gift is from above" (James 1:17).
To sum it all up: don't be afraid to ask God for anything, and remember to praise God for everything.
Saturday, June 19, 2010
Why NCAA Football Playoffs is a Bad Idea
Why an Eight (or more) Team Playoff System Won't Work
A Four-Team Playoff System Will Only Create More Controversy
As many have said, if there is a playoff system in place, it should be only a four-team playoff system. I'm not completely opposed to the idea, but it's a complete myth that a four-team playoff system will decrease the selection drama and all worthy teams will have a chance at becoming the national champion. A four-team playoff system has the same shortcoming as the current BCS system: How will you decide what four teams get to play in the four-team playoff?
The answer to this question will be even more difficult to determine than the two teams for the BCS championship game for one main reason: that there are rarely four undefeated teams and there are usually a much larger amount of one-loss teams that would feel deserving of the final spots in the playoff. There are rarely more than three teams in the conversation for the national championship game, but with a four-team playoff, much more than one team will feel robbed if left out.
2009
Undefeated teams: 5 (Alabama, Texas, Cincinnati, TCU, Boise State)
1-Loss Teams: 1 (Florida)
2008
A lot of casual college football fans want the college football postseason to look more like March Madness. I love March Madness, but football and basketball are completely different, and here are some reasons why that kind of playoff won't work:
1) Decreases importance of regular season.
College football prides itself in that every game is already like a playoff game. Every week counts, so you can't take any week off. A large playoff system easily destroys this notion. It's really not that hard to be ranked in the top 16 of the AP poll, and being in the top 8 isn't anything to brag about either. When you start having 3-loss teams (of a 12 game season!) creep into the conversation for being in top 8 teams of the country, which happens a lot, you know the regular season has lost some of its importance. The selectivity of the BCS system maintains the sacredness of the regular season, making the national championship more of a rarely-attainable dream rather than a party where all the cool kids are at.
While this in itself may not seem like a big deal, the importance of the regular season is one of the main driving forces behind huge rivalries. You can ruin a team's season by a win against them, which may not be possible under a large playoff system. Michigan did it to Penn State, Ohio State did it to Michigan. Hand a loss to any team and that team is almost certainly out of the national championship conversation. The importance of the regular season and the intensity of rivalries and big games go hand in hand, and a playoff system could destroy that.
2) Decreases importance of conference titles
Currently, being the conference winner of a BCS conference is a ticket to a BCS bowl. Under a playoff system with eight or more teams, there is a large chance for the runner-up in a conference to also make the playoffs, making the conference title meaningless. Sure, you get bragging rights for a year, but the title will no longer be as coveted as is today. Conference championship games are all of a sudden kind of silly, as you might end up playing each other again in the playoffs. The loser of the conference title game could even make it farther than the winner of the conference!
Conference identity and conference titles in college football are much more important than in college basketball, where it often is an afterthought because of March Madness, and a playoff system would destroy this conference identity.
3) A significantly longer season is not good for players.
An eight team playoff would increase the season for football programs that make it by two games. While this doesn't seem like a big deal, when the season is extended by that much, injuries are inevitable, and serious injuries in college are significantly more crippling to a career than in football. In my opinion, the NCAA should an is protecting players as best possible, because an injury in college could decrease or eliminate the chance of employment as a professional athlete for student athletes, who aren't paid.
4) Competition with NFL playoffs
While it may seem that a playoff system will bring in more viewers, a playoff system will push the college season into the heart of the NFL playoffs, and college football doesn't stand a chance against the NFL playoffs, especially when NFL playoff games are on both Sunday and Saturday. Don't mess with the NFL. They will eat you alive.
[Short paragraph, but competing against the NFL will cripple NCAA ratings]
5) Bowl Games become undesirable
This is probably the last thing on anyone's mind, but the bowl system will be destroyed under a playoff system. It cannot be underestimated how much bowl wins are important to college football, especially small programs that don't always have great recruiting classes. One of the great things about the bowl system is that half the teams end their seasons with wins, which creates excitement for the program and incentive in its recruiting. A playoff system will make bowl games like the NIT. Sure, you're happy if you win, but no one wants to be in it. The ratings for bowl games will plummet, as no one wants to watch them either, which decreases the much-needed payout of bowl games for smaller schools. The bowl system is good for college football, and a playoff system will benefit only the teams in the playoffs but will hurt other up-and-coming football programs.
A Four-Team Playoff System Will Only Create More Controversy
As many have said, if there is a playoff system in place, it should be only a four-team playoff system. I'm not completely opposed to the idea, but it's a complete myth that a four-team playoff system will decrease the selection drama and all worthy teams will have a chance at becoming the national champion. A four-team playoff system has the same shortcoming as the current BCS system: How will you decide what four teams get to play in the four-team playoff?
The answer to this question will be even more difficult to determine than the two teams for the BCS championship game for one main reason: that there are rarely four undefeated teams and there are usually a much larger amount of one-loss teams that would feel deserving of the final spots in the playoff. There are rarely more than three teams in the conversation for the national championship game, but with a four-team playoff, much more than one team will feel robbed if left out.
2009
Undefeated teams: 5 (Alabama, Texas, Cincinnati, TCU, Boise State)
1-Loss Teams: 1 (Florida)
2008
Undefeated teams: 2 (Utah, Boise)
1-Loss Teams: 8 (Oklahoma, Florida, Texas, Alabama, USC, Texas Tech, Penn State, Ball State)
2007
Undefeated teams: 1 (Hawaii)
1-Loss Teams: 2 (Ohio State, Kansas)
2-Loss Teams: 10 (LSU, Virginia Tech, Oklahoma, Georgia, Missouri, USC, West Virginia, Airzone State, BYU, Boise State)
2006
Undefeated Teams: 2 (Ohio State, Boise State)
1-Loss Teams: 4 (Florida, Michigan, Louisville, Wisconsin)
2005
Undefeated Teams: 2 (USC, Texas)
1-Loss Teams: 4 (Penn State, Oregon, West Virginia, TCU)
2004
Undefeated Teams: 5 (USC, Oklahoma, Auburn, Utah, Boise State)
1-Loss Teams: 3 (Cal, Texas, Louisville)
2003
Undefeated Teams: 1 (Oklahoma)
1-Loss Teams: 5 (USC, LSU, Boise State, TCU)
2002
Undefeated Teams: 2 (Miami, Ohio State)
1-Loss Teams: 3 (Iowa, Georgia, Boise State)
Average from 2002-2009
Undefeated Teams: 2.25 (18 teams in 8 seasons)
1-Loss Teams: 3.75 (30 teams in 8 seasons)
2-Loss teams ranked in top 5 of AP Poll: 1.25 (10 teams in 8 seasons)
Michigan 2003, Georgia 2003, Ohio State 2005, Notre Dame 2005, LSU 2006, LSU 2007, Virginia Tech 2007, Oklahoma 2007, Georgia 2007
From these numbers we see that if we assume that undefeated teams will be in the playoffs, there will be (on average) two 1-loss teams left out and some worthy 2-loss teams. Simple exercise: given the teams named each year above, choose two teams for the national championship. It won't be very difficult for most years, as the top two teams are often significantly ahead of the rest. Now go choose 4 teams to be considered for the playoffs. It's really not that easy, as you probably consider many more teams for that last spot in comparison with a national championship game.
It's also important to note that many of the 1-Loss Teams (and even undefeated teams) are ranked significantly lower than other two-loss teams, as two-loss teams in power conferences with more difficult schedules are widely considered better teams than one-loss teams (especially apparent in 2007 when LSU became the first two-loss team to win the BCS championship). This was especially true further in the past, when the BCS voters didn't respect non-BCS wins as much. I didn't post these teams because of space issues, but you can find the AP Poll final rankings of each season. Though there was a surprising 5 teams were undefeated in 2004 and 2009, even a four-team playoff system would leave one undefeated team out.
Is the four-team playoff much worse than the current system? No. But people have to realize that there a four team playoff system will leave more teams feeling out. It might be more fun to watch for a while, but don't be surprised when it's your turn to be left out and when people start crying for the clarity of the previous system. The current system has its issues, but a four team playoff will just create more drama.
I wouldn't be against a four-team playoff, as long as its proponents don't start crying and complaining once they're left out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)