Why Team Sports Are More Popular

The top sports in the US are football, basketball, and baseball. Why are team sports so popular? And I mean popular among sports pundits, who devote hours to talking sports.

Here's a recent example. Brett Favre was the disgruntled football player from Green Bay. Each year, he'd ponder whether he'd come back or not. He'd string the media and his team long. Most years, he came back and played yet another year. Why did people care?

Because people stay loyal to teams, not to the people on the team. When Brett Favre is wearing your uniform, he's your guy, supporting your city or supporting you because you chose that team, as many people liked the Bulls because Michael Jordan played on the Bulls.

Team sports aren't simply more popular because there are lots of players thus increasing the number of people to talk about, but because there's a relationship between the team, the coaches, and even management. Players can be picked to play on a team or not, so someone is making a decision. You can ask if that decision is wise or not.

You can debate whether a player is good in the clutch or not, whether he played a poor shot at a crucial moment, whether he's selfish, whether he's the best ever, whether he can beat your team or not. People often debate whether coaches should have total control over the team or not. Joe Torre wanted Manny Ramirez to cut his hair. It's amazing that baseball controls its players to this degree that they worry about their haircuts, but they do, and the funny thing is, most sports pundits say that's OK.

Indeed, many fans believe that coaches should have absolute power, and so do many sports pundits. Coaches, outside of Isiah Thomas, are often seen as the braintrust, and must reign in the team. If a player is not following rules, he's seen as a prima donna, someone disrupting the team, and told to shut up. Great players are told to toe the line because it's good for the team. They are cogs in a great machine and should be dispensed if they act up, act individually.

Indeed, sports commentators spend hours talking about misbehaving players and the effect all their own talk has on the team's psyche. It might have no effect if they didn't blah blah blah about it. Is Terrell Owens behavior hurting the team? Well, if the media didn't cover him, he would have no medium to pander to, and then he wouldn't have anything to say. But the sports pundits have to talk about something, so they love TO, or they love to hate him.

Individual sports?

Individual sports are personality based. Tiger Woods doesn't play for a team. He plays for himself. People watch because he's so good. The only personality I can recall that got attention for stuff outside the sport is Mike Tyson, whose jail time, ear biting, tattoo wearing all lead to a lot of coverage of Tyson's life outside of boxing.

As good as Tiger Woods is, the problem is that people have a hard time talking about him full time. They can say how great he is, and they do that a lot, but he doesn't get the kind of attention Brett Favre does because he doesn't play for a team. There isn't player-team dynamics. The closest equivalent might be to play for something like Ryder Cup, but because the average sports fan only cares about regular titles, even as prestigious an event as the Ryder Cup pales by comparison to the big individual events.

I suppose pundits could opine about how Tiger should play Ryder Cup (he does). The closest whining that goes on, and it goes on all the time, is Michelle Wie playing the women's tour. However, it leads invariably to the same comments again and again. Beat other women. Stop playing against men. It's a gimmick, and you aren't beating anyone this way. But people still talk about her.

Roger Federer, on track to being the best player ever has been derailed by himself and the Nadal machine, and heck, even Rafael Nadal are two players most people don't even know. Find a sports show and ask them to spend an hour talking about Rafa, and they're stuck. They can say how great he is, but that lasts five minutes.

Another thing that helps team sports in the US is a post-season. Other places in the world don't have a great notion of post-season. So if you can't talk about a player, you can talk about how a particular team will do, and whether they will make the post-season, and people will talk about who is going to make it.

The discussion for tennis is "Nadal is likely to win the US Open, with Djokovic and Murray as outside chances, and Federer, del Potro, and Blake as even further outside choices". That might be it, and that's if you even follow tennis. When it comes to actual team play, you can finally talk about all its players, whether this player being injured matters, how they can do when certain players are slumping or injured, how a returning player will help the team or not.

Now, there are things that resemble team sports but are effectively not team sports. Namely, cycling. For all the talk about Lance Armstrong and his seven wins, the fact of the matter is that cycling is a team sport, but it's the most individual of team sports. In effect, the rest of the team serves as a huge windshield and do various duties to fend off other teams attacks.

They are the offensive line to the main cyclist's quarterback which is why, as important as the offensive line is to a quarterback's success, they don't do enough to make their play interesting enough to talk about.

Indeed, in football, there's only a handful of player positions people talk about. Quarterback, running back, wide receiver, and occasionally a cornerback or some defensive player and the kicker. The offensive line, the punter, etc. don't get much talk.

So these are kinds of questions you can debate with team sports. How's the team doing? Are there players that they should get to replace the ones now? How are the star players playing? Is there an injury? How good is the strategy by the coach? Is some player acting up, trying to act defiant? Is some player going to retire? what's the chances of making the post-season? Can team X beat team Y? Is player X the best player ever? Is this team the best ever? Are the new rules affecting the sports adversely? Is the new owner too meddlesome? Is the new coach the answer to the team's problems? How well are they adjusting to this new player joining the team?

In other sports? You can't ask nearly this many questions. There isn't the same season long drama. Tennis and golf are one-off tournaments and are completely optional to players. If some player doesn't want to play a tournament, they don't have to. Team sports force players to play a schedule and there's question whether they should play hurt or not. In sports like golf or tennis, you can simply rest and not play, even if, in theory, you can play. In team sports, you are told you need to play, even if hurt, and then there's discussion about how tough you are to play with injury.

This is why it's hard for individual sports to be discussed. There's just less to talk about overall. Teams also tend to moderate any one great player where individual sports often have dominating individual players. In a team sport, you can often have seemingly weak teams do enough to create a huge upset.

It's sad but true.

Bowling for History

Tomorrow is, as they say, a moment of destiny. On the one side, is the New England Patriots, seeking to win its fourth Superbowl under Tom Brady's leadership, and more importantly, to wrap up a historical season, one that hasn't been matched since the 1973 Dolphins went undefeated in the regular season, then won the Superbowl. This New England team, were it to make good on what it seems certain they will do, would have won two more games than the Dolphins, as the regular season is now 16 games, not the 14 games of the '73 Dolphins.

On the other side is the improbable New York Giants. Most people thought that we'd be seeing the Cowboys play for the Superbowl, or had hoped that Brett Favre had one more hurrah in him, in his best season at Green Bay in a long time. On the verge of retiring with a subpar record last year, Favre lead a young team to a 13-3 record. Both lost to the Manning that most people didn't expect. Eli.

Peyton's Indianapolis Colts were the defending world champion. World. Of course, that's mostly because no one else in the world cares to play this most violent of sports. We love our superlatives, indeed, the pinnacle of the sport of American football is given the name Superbowl as if it were emblazoned with a big "S", cape fluttering in the wind, hair coiffed with a perfect curl.

The Colts faced their nemesis, the Patriots, as both were undefeated, and gave them the closest challenge they had had up to that point. The Colts would go on to a second loss against the Chargers, and then to a third meaningless loss at the end of the season, where they rested key players, only to have the Chargers knock them out again during the playoffs. Everyone felt certain the Colts would win that one, but that is, as they say, why we play the game.

Peyton had a rocky start with the Colts, having a record of 3-13 that first year, but playing every snap, and even setting records for touchdown passes by a rookie. The next year, the team was starting to turn around, and after a few years, the Colts were about as steady a team as one could expect, typically a shoo-in for the playoffs, only to find frustration against the Patriots.

Peyton was the brainy one, the one that would coax his receivers to practice during the off-season, the one who grilled his coordinators to ask the how's and the why's of what they were doing. Tee Martin may have brought UT its most recent national championship, a year after Peyton left, but it's Peyton that UT fans remember, because everytime Peyton does well in the NFL, UT fans recall that he went to Tennessee. They forget he didn't win them a national championship, and often struggled to get past Florida. It doesn't matter. His consistent success in the pros are a source of Tennessee pride. The Tennessee Titans may be the state football team, but the Colts resonate as much with Tennesseans as the Titans.

Eli was the one that followed in dad's footsteps, headed to Ole Miss, where his dad, Archie is still revered. Dad labored as a QB for the New Orleans Saints, where he was the best player on an awful team. Without free agency, he spent his career doing the best he could with no chance of finding another team.

Eli's not nearly as tall as Peyton, not the kind of workhorse that Peyton is, and of course, faces comparisons to his more prolific brother. Nearly everyone makes the comparison, and wonders why Eli isn't as good. Giants fans remember the Superbowl loss to the Ravens when a primarily defensive team with a dont-lose-the-game quarterback in Trent Dilfer still did enough to get the Ravens their only Superbowl, and they remember Phil Simms and defeating the Buffalo Bills juggernaut, who four times made it to the Superbowl, and lost each time, the closest one being the first time when Parcells' Giants eked out a win over the Bills.

New York fans, used to feasting on the success of the Yankees, are tough fans. When the teams are not winning, they are frustrated, as many fans can be. It's just that New York teams expect to win. Calls for booting Tom Coughlin, the Giants coach, and finding a new QB to replace erratic Eli were heard early. And yet, the Giants had a spotty record.

After starting 6-2, they lost to Dallas, and then came the see-saw of win one week and loss the next. In the last game, the Giants would face the Patriots. The Patriots had long since wrapped up the season, having gone perfect. Would they rest their players? Or would they go for history? The Giants also didn't need the victory. Eli had, however, played inconsistently, often tossing interceptions, his completion percentage not comparable to the elites of the game.

Of course, the Patriots decided to go undefeated and make history, and the Giants, for their part, felt Eli needed another game to gain more confidence, to play freely, not to overthink, to be overly cautious. On a game that was televised on three networks to maximize the visibility of this historic game, the Giants gave the Patriots all it could handle, and despite the loss, Eli played well, and the confidence from this game appears to have buoyed him through the playoffs.

The New York naysayers are now whooping it up. They saw that the Giants gave the Patriots trouble. Plaxico Burress is hurt, but plans to play, and their success seems to depend on how well he can play. Most people still think the Patriots will win, but hope the Giants can at least play competitively until the half. Of course, some feel the Giants will pull off the upset, that the pressure of finally having to finish a perfect season will be too much, that the ghosts of the '73 Dolphins will conjure a hex that will leave the Patriots stunned.

And that, as they say, is why they play the game.

But, in case the game is a blowout, there's always the commercials.

Amusing

See here.

Hype and Circumstance

I was listening to some sports commentator saying how, back in the day, he had felt the hype surrounding Lebron James was too much, but now that he's seen what Lebron can do, he's man enough to retract his statements. Lebron is that good.

But why? Why must he retract any of what he said?

Somehow, among sports know-it-alls, winning allows us to forgive all. Was it so long ago that Kobe was accused of rape? But then he began scoring 50 point games, and the subject seemed like a distant memory. When you win, people don't seem to care.

Even if Lebron is a good guy, even if he's the next Magic Johnson, we can still say that any hype, no matter how good the person is, is undeserved. Sports pundits like to be prognosticators, and as is often the case, people guess wrong far more than they guess right.

So people might have guessed wrong about Lebron. The sentiment expressed then should not depend on whether Lebron was a successful player, and a person people should emulate, or whether he is a flameout, or a malcontent, where commentators layer scorn upon them like Pac-mac Jones.

Don't let success get to your head when making judgements in sports.

Run, Lola, Run

(I don't usually edit my writings much. This is my third pass at it. Don't know if it will improve much).

Oprah seems to have been around forever. I remember vaguely hearing about her from The Color Purple where Oprah received a nomination. She'd eventually take her local Chicago show nationally. Originally, more of a Jerry Springer show, it became the show it is today, a kind of self-help show, and it resonated with women everywhere.

For those who don't follow the show (and I include myself among them), one thing we remember about Oprah is her diets. Her show evolved due, perhaps, to the way she handled her weight issues. She'd lose weight, then gain it back, then try to lose it again. Her battle is not so dissimilar to many others. We live in a society that values being thin, and Oprah discovered, like many others, that it's work to stay thin for most of us.

Of course, Oprah is filthy rich, and she can afford trainers and cooks and so forth. Even so, she wasn't immune to the cravings of food. She even admitted, later on, that she suffered from abuse as a child, and that may have had something to do with issues with food and weight.

While I can't relate at that level, I found myself caring about weight when it was the furthest thing from my mind when I was in college. I was pretty thin in college, weighing around 130 pounds. I'm not particularly tall, but even so, that's pretty light.

My weight went up to 150 pounds when I went to grad school, attributable, really to lack of exercise. I used to walk about two miles a day from my dorm to class and back, and carried a backpack weighing at least twenty pounds. Cornell's meals were generally healthy, and in any case, I didn't gorge out on that food. I gained 20 pounds by eating out and driving a car everywhere in grad school.

I tried exercising then, but not without a great deal of vigor. My weight stayed mostly fixed, even as I tried running and weights.

Once I began teaching, the weight started up again, mostly because I ate out more, and was even more sedentary. My weight went up another 20 pounds topping out at 170. It's then I seriously tried to reduce my weight and got down to 135 pounds or so, or nearly my college weight. At the time, I wasn't working, so I could devote a great deal of time to exercising.

Since working full-time, my weight's gone from 150 to 160 and then close to 170 or mostly back to where I was before. While I've exercised some throughout, it's not really reduced my weight. I know how much work it takes, and it's a lot. And worse still, it's probably harder to lose weight now than when I did it the first time.

There's a mental war going on, and it's sad. Sometimes I think I should not worry about it. Some people are large and in charge, and they aren't particularly worried. America's getting fatter, don't you know? So many people live with their extra pounds (oh why didn't we go metric?) But I think it's better for my long-term health, so I worry about it.

But I didn't do that much because, well, the weight gain was somewhat gradual. I think it's like that story of putting a frog in water and raising the temperature slowly. Pretty soon, the frog is in boiling water, when it could have saved itself if it had known.

I had been like this frog. My weight went to 165, but then I got braces, and because I was basically eating baby food (puddings and yogurt), I dropped down to 160, and had hoped to go down even more. However, once I started eating food again, that weight came back up again.

To me, the boiling water alarm occurred about two weeks ago.

A few weeks ago, I was in Portland. I had made what I thought was a conscious effort not to eat that much, though I had thought I would exercise while I was there. Due to crappy exercise equipment at the hotel, that didn't happen. But I thought carrying a heavy backpack and walking around was exercise enough. Nope. I was barely eating lunches, though I'd get a decent breakfast. The dinners were light enough. The last evening, I ate a huge meal at an Ethiopian place. Mistake, but tasty.

Once I got back from Portland, I discovered I was actually 1-2 pounds heavier! And I thought I had lost weight. Ah, how much weight has occupied my mind the last ten years or so.

I try to exercise at work. I really do.

I use an exercise bike at work (kudos to the building for getting a quality exercise bike) and had been upping the time I spent biking from 10 minutes to 15, and now to 20, and thinking of going higher. But it is work time, and in any case, I'd rather not spend 30 or more minutes on the bike. Having said that, exercise bikes have one virtue. I can read while exercising. Almost no other equipment keeps my body still enough to do that comfortably. And I want to read more often.

But biking is not a particularly efficient way to exercise. You only exercise your legs. Running, even if more difficult on the body, burns more calories than biking. While you use your legs, the entire body weight is being used on your legs.

I wanted to run again. I was never a serious runner, but I had done some before. In college, I took a running class, which is now starting to be 20 years ago. Back then I was wiry thin, not even 130 pounds, wearing 30 inch waist jeans. I was thin, thin, thin. I started college at 125 pounds. I ran mostly to get in better shape and to keep alert (it didn't help so much there), not because I really wanted to lose weight.

Since then, I've run sporadically. I tried to do when I hit 150 pounds in the early 90s. Then, I read that building muscles helps with weight loss and started doing that (after taking a class). It never really helped, but I did get stronger and have better endurance because of it. Still, without much success, I didn't do it regularly.

For a long time, my exercise was confined to playing tennis and racquetball and occasionally biking or getting on an elliptical at the gym. I even cut back on that when I was teaching, which consumed a ton of my time, so much so, that I rarely exercised.

At the end of 2003, years of sedentary living and bad eating caught up to me. My weight had ballooned to 170 pounds (I know, my brother would love to get to that weight!). I wanted to be closer to 150 pounds, and 170 was too heavy. I was wearing 36 inch waist pants when I used to wear 30 inch pants.

So I decided to get serious about the weight loss at the start of 2004. I exercise-biked 45-50 minutes a day, sometimes twice a day, 6 days a week. I also cut back on what I was eating. Every time I weighed myself, I was losing about 0.4 pounds, which means I was losing about 2-3 pounds each week. This was the first time I tried to lose weight and was successful. It was pretty encouraging, I can tell you.

This weight loss continued for three months. Eventually, I lost 35 pounds. My pants size reduced from 36 inches down to 31 inches, basically what I was wearing nearly 20 years earlier. Losing weight, while gratifying, was like a full-time job. I was spending maybe 2 hours a day on this, and there was getting to and from the gym, and that I wasn't always up to do a lot more the rest of the day.

But once I started to work full-time, the exercise stopped, and eating out for lunch started up. Guess what? Yeah. The weight came back. Not really fast. Initially, I was around 150, then it crept to 155, then 160, then 165. The weight gain happened slowly, over about two years of time.

Now that I'm back to where I was before I lost all that weight, I figure it's time to do something again.

In such a situation, I find myself looking for a "drastic" solution.

I talked briefly to co-worker, Ken. Everyone knows Ken runs a lot. He tries to run around lunchtime every day. Ken's no casual runner. He's serious without being super-serious. This means he likes to track his progress, see where he runs, measure his heartrate, and so forth. He's got all sorts of gadgets to help him figure out how he's doing. I don't think he's trying to "beat" anyone in particular. Runners, I suspect, tend to race against themselves, because there's always someone faster, more gifted at running.

Like many sports, runners like Ken dress the part. Remember the 70s? Tennis was all the rage. And you had to dress to play tennis. In those days, it was wristbands and headbands and Fila shorts and shirts and nice tennis shoes. That was fit for the 70s. Runners have their own gear, and Ken's not bucking the trend with what he wears. It's what runners wear.

A typical Ken outfit is a muscle t-shirt (but it really is used by runners since it wicks away sweat) and short shorts. All of this clothing is optimized for running, at least, that's how it's advertised. Serious runners wear this stuff. It's good that running is such a solitary sport, because the rest of us are laughing.

Ken's also a programming type, and programming types are obsessive-compulsive by nature. I figured this meant that Ken might not be the most talented runner, but he was going to be a smart runner, who knew a lot about running because he read a fair bit on it. And of course, the fabulous running gadgets!

I knew he was just the kind of guy to talk to. (My housemate has likewise studied running, and used to run a fair bit, but we like to call him the crazy Romanian for his maniacal laughing. He'll read books on physiology of running and probably reads about how the body deals with lactic acid, and such).

To be fair, even though I've never run seriously, I've read some stuff about exercising, so I wasn't totally in the dark talking to Ken.

I had arranged to go out on a run with him, even though I was going to look rather foolish. Ken's been running since, well, a long time. I don't run with any regularity. I'd run some with Jaime, but it was hardly regular. But I was plenty prepared to look silly. I just wanted to figure out where to run nearby, so I had a path to follow, and Ken had already done the homework for me.

Did I mention how hot it was last Friday? It was frickin' hot! One thing about heat. It fatigues you quickly. I knew this from tennis. Cold weather tires you out far less. I had hoped I could run maybe a mile. I knew I wasn't in great shape because Jaime, who's nowhere near the same shape he was when he ran in college, could still run circles around me, and he'd freely admit that he's way out of shape (though he's exercising these days too).

The run was complicated by another issue. With the warm weather, I knew I needed some shorts. I had some shorts, but they were pretty tight. You know. Weight gain. So I thought I'd get some shorts. But I wasn't really ready to get Ken shorts, the really short running shorts. But I needed looser shorts. So I went to Kohl's with David who was returning some clothes. I got some shorts there, but they were basically khakis, and had a bit more waist room than the ones I already had.

I was ready for running.

Or so I thought.


While my shorts seemed to fit OK at the store, they were a touch loose. But, as I ran, I found they were more than just a touch loose. My shorts were literally falling off as I ran, and I had to keep holding them up, while struggling to keep up, and trying to catch my breath. I spent the first half-mile grasping onto a belt loop, wondering what the hell I was doing.

Fortunately, Ken was savvy to my misery, and suggested I cut the run a little short, since it was hot. I took his advice and began heading back to the office, while he meandered on for a serious run.

I walked back to the office. As I walked to the gym inside, I realized that I didn't have my card-key. Ah, Ken did mention that didn't he? He said the back door, where the maintenance guys go in, was open, and I could go in.

Except it wasn't open.

It was locked.

I knocked at the glass door. Inside, I could see a TV on. I figured someone was exercising, but I couldn't see anyone, and no one was answering. So up the elevator I went. I started knocking on the door. No one was there. Then, I went further down the hall, and knocked there. No answer.

D***. It was lunch.

And most people were out.

I tried across the hall. Dave opened the door, but most everyone was out, and his cardkey didn't open up the gym downstairs.

Finally, I found Dan who rarely eats out, and borrowed his keycard, got a shower, and got back to work. The next day, when I got up, I was sore. I wondered why. Ah, the running.

Since my casual clothing attire didn't work well on Friday, I decided to kick it up a notch. Time to get some more appropriate clothing. Step one for me was to get better shorts to run. The shorts at Kohl's didn't seem like the right thing for running.

Before I tell you about my adventures in trying to be a running geek, I want to recount an interesting social trend.

If you watch basketball in the early to mid 80s, you'll immediately notice something. The players wore very short shorts. Just think John Stockton, who seemed to have missed the memo to lengthen his shorts.

Recall that Reagan was president throughout the early 80s (and then Bush, Sr. after him). The political conservatism also affected popular culture.

In particular, the long hair from the 60s and 70s gave way to shorter hair in the 80s, some of which can be attributed to the punk movement. Short spiky hair replaced the large hair of the early 80s. Basketball shorts also began getting longer. They went from waist-height and proceeded down to the knees. Indeed, this trend affects all shorts, not just basketball shorts.

Unless you get golf shorts or some tennis shorts, the typical shorts you get at the local mall, either casual khaki style shorts or cargo shorts or even basketball shorts are basically down to the knees. For a while, tennis tried a different idea, popularized by Andre Agassi, where conventional shorter shorts was combined with knee-length spandex underneath. These days, Rafael Nadal wears capri pants which appear to be narrow shorts that extend a little past the knees.

The lengthening of shorts made its way to swimwear. Guy used to wear pretty short shorts for swim wear, but just like the basketball short cousins, swimwear for guys started to dip down to the knees. I can't quite say why that style was more in-fashion except that it contrasted with a clothing style prevalent during the 70s that I completely missed until well into the 90s.

Tight jeans. During the women's liberation movement of the 70s, guys were starting to be objectified in much the same way women were being objectified all the years before then. Men began wearing designer jeans, and those jeans were meant to give women (and gay men) a clue about how much stuffing a guy had. And this extended to both ends. Tight jeans were used to good effect show off a fine derrière as well as emphasize genitalia. (Women also wore tight jeans to show off the junk in their trunk).

Perhaps the 80s lead to a degree of shyness (by the 90s, for example, parents did not want their kids showering at the high school level or below, even though it was common to do so in the 70s and before). Longer pants and looser fits would counter the 70s trend of showing off the male form.

But you know who bucks this trend towards longer shorts?

Yup, runners.

For runners, short shorts are still preferred, though it's done for a fairly practical reason. Long shorts retard the leg as one runs. Indeed, the trend among runners is to wear the lightest weight shorts possible. These puppies (why do people use "puppies" to represent pretty much any doo-dad?) are feather-light and often exclude such niceties, like pockets.

If you're new to running, running shorts are a shock to the sensibilities. Do you really want to show that much leg? Fortunately, the industry empathizes with those who realize you aren't ready for the running equivalent of the mini-skirt.

For the more modest, there are longer running shorts. They still come up above the knee, but they aren't quite at point where the two legs conjoin, where if it were any shorter, you'd be in Lindsay Lohan/Paris Hilton territory. These are the training bikes of running shorts, meant to get you acclimated to less material, until you make the leap to the short shorts and join the brotherhood of runners.

But there's more. What happens when you run?

Right, you sweat.

And potentially a lot.

Thus, running shares something in common with water sports (swimming!). You get wet. It's not a stretch of the imagination to see to create running shorts that mimic swim trunks. Swimming trunks, in case you haven't worn them in a while, usually have an inner lining. After all, getting in the pool means you're getting your trunks wet, and if you were wearing underwear, they'd get wet too. Unless you're wearing Speedos, most swimwear has an inner lining that serves as a kind of underwear, and a modesty guard.

Not surprising that "real" running shorts also have this feature. The good news is that you don't get your underwear soaked in sweat.

I kinda figured this from Ken. Fortunately, while I was a bit concerned about wearing such shorts before, I'm not so worried about modesty and things like that. If there's a pragmatic reason that I should be wearing short shorts with inner lining to run, I'll do it.

Ah, but where to get the clothing?

I generally prefer to go to specialty shops because the local Sports Authority, while it does a fine job serving the masses, often lacks the knowledgeable folks of a place that specializes in running. About two years ago, I went with Jaime to Metro Run and Walk which is near Seven Seas, a decent Chinese restaurant in Rockville. I bought a semi-expensive pair of running shoes which I've used less than half a dozen times. Still, it seemed like a decent store.

Ken had been told by Jay, another coworker, about a shop called RNJ Sports, also located in Rockville, which has a half-off shoe section. All their items are 20% off, which one generally must take with a grain of salt.

This store is a bit off the beaten path. By that, I mean it's on the second floor of a two story building that doesn't look at all commercial. It's easy to miss, though I happened to find it without problems. It looked like a pretty good store.

First thing I have to give props to is the sign-up list. If you sign up, there's someone who will call you up, and answer your questions. So, I signed up, and they had some guy--probably Korean-American--help me out. Another positive point. The store had about five people to help out, which is a lot.

I asked the guy questions about shorts, and he said really short shorts with the inner lining (a la swimming trunks) were common. You weren't supposed to wear any underwear while wearing them. He pointed out that there were somewhat longer running shorts if the really shorts ones were bothersome, and even longer ones with no inner lining (i.e., you would wear underwear with those) if you really weren't ready to take the plunge.

I figured I'd bite the bullet and get ones with inner lining. What the heck, might as well do it right. It wasn't the super-short ones, but it was shorter than I was used to.

I had thought about getting shorts from the half-off rack, but all the shorts there are pretty long, so I picked from the other racks.

Running shorts have pretty nice drawstrings, so on the off-chance that I am losing weight, I can draw them more tightly and not have to buy a new pair of shorts right away.

After picking out two shorts, I quickly found two shirts---the kind that wick away sweat, probably used by anyone doing outdoor stuff like biking.

Now I wanted to get shoes.

To decide which pairs to get, the guy helping me had me walk to see what I was doing.

He said I overpronated, mostly because I have flat feet. This means, he explained, that I roll my feet inward after my foot lands. If my feet had a typical arch, it wouldn't roll. So, he said, I needed shoes that have good support where the arch would be (on the inside of my feet).

We went to the half-off shoe section (everything 50% off!) in the back, a treasure trove of good prices. He said shoe manufacturers have recently agreed to color the shoe cushion gray to indicate higher density, thus increased support for the arch area. I should look for shoes with this gray color and a wider last (basically, the footprint area).

He had me walk, then jog, and said while these shoes improved my step, I should go for shoes with even more support. However, he said that would cost twice as much since none of the discount shoes in my size had that support.

But, then he did something that I have to respect. He must know that beginning runners often quit after a short time. I might shell out a hundred bucks on shoes I would hardly use (it happened before).

Why spend a ton of money on shoes if one never uses it? So he said, why don't I just buy these discounted shoes? They give pretty good support, and if they were giving me problems in a couple of months, I could come back and look for a pair with better support.

I agreed, and thought it was rather classy of him to give this advice. It makes better sense for a store to be honest (unlike, say rental cars, who are grubby money grabbers) and try to save me some money, than to advise getting the priciest thing available. Hopefully, these guys don't work on commission, which doesn't really serve the customer at all.

In the back room, I eyed a duffel bag that I liked. I've been wanting to replace the tiny bag I've been using. It's a bit bigger than I want, but the one I have is too small, so I'd rather err on too big. This duffel has side pockets where I can put stuff like socks and underwear, and it's large enough that I can also put shoes in it too.

The total cost was a bit pricey, but I said, what the heck. If I were only more frugal.

There was one thing I was missing. Running shorts don't exactly have pockets, and even those that do seem problematic. It seems like anything could fall out of those pockets.

I wanted something I could use to hold a card key. You can get stuff to wear, but they were either hugely unwieldy (meant to hold water bottles), or they were a bit small (meant to hold cell-phones). I wanted something that I could either wear on my arm, or on my shoe (attached to the laces) or some tiny belt I could wear, and nothing quite fit the bill.

So I left without buying something to hold a keycard. Then, I went to Metro Run and Walk, you know, the store I went with Jaime to a few years back to see if they had something. I noticed that it's both smaller and pricey than RNJ (the store I was at), and they didn't really have what I was looking for.

I decided to take a break and get some coffee at Starbuck's, the one by the Barnes and Noble. I saw the Hudson's Outfitters place next door. They mostly do camping and hiking, but I thought they might have what I was looking for.

Sometimes, you have to look at something that's a little unrelated to find the stuff you want. Thus, what you want may not be in a running shop, but in, say, a biking shop.

I finally found a shoe "pocket" held to the laces by velcro that could hold something credit card sized, which was just what I wanted, and it wasn't too pricey either.

And so I could run, right?

Ah, the weather.

It's raining.

Of course.

Followup: Lebron

Given Lebron's 48 points in Game 5 of the Eastern Conference finals, which lead Cleveland to a 3-2 lead, with one more win to take them to the Finals, Detroit's plan was simple. Stop Lebron. Double-team him. Triple-team him. Usually, if there's no other good player on the team, you can stop one team's best player.

Normally, a guy like Larry Hughes would be the number two choice. Or maybe Ilgauskas? The names don't roll off the tongue. These aren't the Celtics of the 80s, nor the Lakers of the 80s. It's not the bad boys of Detroit from the late 80s. Even the Spurs, now the odds-on favorites to win, have at least three weapons in Duncan, Ginobli, and Parker.

But the guy who came though in Game 4, when Hughes was hurt, one Daniel Gibson, nicknamed Boobie, who had a 21 point outburst, topped himself, when Detroit made it their mission to shut down King James.

Gibson poured in 31 points, on a night when James was held to 20 points. And it wasn't a Iverson-like 31 points where he misses more shots than he made. Boobie was in the zone, eerily efficient in his scoring. 12 of 15 free throws. 5 of 5 on three point shots. 7 of 9 field goals made. When making 50% of your shots is a pretty efficient night, Gibson was stratospheric, making 70% of his shots.

Lebron knew that Detroit would try to shut him down, and looked to Gibson to bail him out. He told him to have no fear, to take the shots when he had them. Lebron had been mentoring Gibson this season, and his faith paid off in Lebron's first trip to the finals. The NBA, fearing the blah Pistons and against the blah Spurs, were understandably relieved when Cleveland made it through. Flip Saunders now has to fear for his job, a guy who has his team play great in the regular season, but unable to take the step that Larry Brown did, that is, giving the Pistons the title.

Instead, King James and, as importantly, Boobie Gibson, have put the Cavaliers in the finals. No one expects the Cavaliers to put up much of a fight to the Spurs. The Spurs have so many weapons and play suffocating defense. The Cavaliers, one might say, is just Lebron James. But maybe no longer.

Stockton and Malone. Jordan and Pippen. Shaq and Kobe. Is it time for Lebron and Gibson? Will we look back years from now and say it wasn't Lebron that was the real steal, but Gibson?