REVIEW: THE GREATEST GAME EVER PLAYED

THE GREATEST GAME EVER PLAYED

I'm three weeks late to the party on this, but I finally sat down and watched my TiVo'ed version of ESPN Films' "The Greatest Game Ever Played" - it originally aired following the Heisman Trophy Presentation in mid-December.

The big selling points were the fact that the game was being presented on television in color for the first time, and that current and former Colts and Giants were sitting down together to talk about the game.

When you look past the typical ESPN fluff (hosted by Chris Berman, yuck), it was a very enjoyable couple of hours.

In terms of significance, it was the greatest game ever played - but when you actually watch the game, which this show finally presented me (with a chopped up and edited version) the opportunity to do - it was not a great game. It was tremendously sloppy - something all of the current and former personnel noted.

The field was sloppiest of all - the Yankee Stadium field looked terrible that day. But Yankee Stadium itself looked great. I love watching the old (I'm talking OLD, pre-renovation) videos of Yankee Stadium - color or black and white - and this video seemed to have an inordinate amount of stadium shots - maybe the way football was shot showed more of the stadium. Majestic. I would have loved to see a game there.

Besides the Stadium, some of the current players paired up with the old-timers were really impressive. I've always liked Dwight Freeney, but I was blown away by his conversations with Alex Sandusky (a Colts offensive lineman). I was also impressed by Steve Smith, and I thought Adam Vinatieri and Pat Summerall were interesting. ESPN paired Michael Strahan with Art Donovan. I've seen Donovan years ago doing all sorts of TV appearances, though I can't put my finger on what right now, and he's always been entertaining. It seemed like Strahan was trying to yuk it up with him too much, and that was not fun to watch. When the two of them played it straight, it was very good. Mike Tirico talked with Bob Wolff, who did the TV broadcast in 1958. I can't figure out exactly what bothers me about Tirico, but there's something. I enjoy listening to him do play-by-play...but I didn't like him in this situation.

The most interesting technological aspect of the show was an analysis of what was one of the more controversial plays in the game - Frank Gifford ruled short of a first down (which he insists he had) on a late drive that would have helped the Giants run out the clock with the lead. They did two separate analyses on the screen showing with graphs how Gifford was about 9 inches short. That was cool.

And then two revelations came out that I never knew:

1) Late in the game, a fan ran onto the field. It was a pivotal moment - the Colts were driving late, and for viewers at home, they lost the picture. Turns out, NBC had a plug knocked loose, and one of their workers ran out on the field to delay the game, until the plug was replaced. I thought that was funny.


and

2) Alan Ameche, the famous fullback who scored the championship-winning touchdown in overtime, was not liked by his teammates. A couple of different Colts mentioned it in the interviews. One related the story that when Ameche decided to retire in 1960, he went to coach Weeb Eubank and said, "I think I'm going to retire." Eubank reportedly told him, "That's probably a good idea."

The game footage in a show like this is great - but it's stories like these that set the shows apart. I don't know if ESPN will replay the show at any point in the near future - but it's worth a watch if you see it.

REVIEW: ONLY A GAME

A few months back, I got an iTouch. It got me back into iTunes, and I discovered the world of podcasts. At first, I was downloading everything ("Best of ESPN Radio", "Best of Mike & Mike", interviews from "Mike & The Mad Dog"), but quickly learned that there was not enough time in the day to listen to everything. Especially during the school year.

I did, however, have time for a weekly podcast, and made it a point to listen to NPR's "Only A Game", which I knew of, but knew very little about. So I gave it a listen. And I really liked it. Even though my podcast obsession has died down, I still make a point of listening to "Only A Game" each week. Sometimes I save a bunch for the car rides to New York, sometimes I listen as I mow the lawn, sometimes I pop it on iTunes when I'm on the computer. It depends. But I listen to it solely off the podcasts - I couldn't even tell you when it's on regularly. (Check your local listings.)

I thought it was time to write about this, because it's been long enough that I can now tell I really enjoy the show, and it's not just a fluke. (And I apologize if you've been listening for years and you think I'm a dope for just getting this now.) I also wanted to take a break from the Mets mess.

The host of "Only A Game", Bill Littlefield, can be hokey, I guess, but it's all part of what makes the show enjoyable - he's a good hokey, willing to poke fun at what he does not know as well as what he does know, and able to keep everything in perspective. He laughs a lot, too, which is pretty contagious.

The part about the show that impresses me the most, though, is that it offers a take on sports and sports events that I wouldn't usually pay attention to. And I appreciate it. I wouldn't read about women's basketball in the paper or online, but I'll listen to a 7-minute segment on the sport. (I also should pay more attention to the sport, since I'll have two girls at home in a matter of months.)

I also consider myself someone who knows a lot about sports and sports history. But every other week or so, the show features something that I'd never known about, and I appreciate that. I appreciate that it will find something that, not just me, but hardly anyone has ever heard about. It takes work, and it's well done.

Bottom line - the show makes me feel smarter and more knowledgable 90% of the time I listen to it.

Unlike the current news about the Mets, which makes me feel dumber every time I tune in. Yes, that's Jerry Manuel stabbing Willie Randolph in the back on the back cover of the "New York Post". Funny, I don't remember seeing that live. And how did he get the knife through security? (The article is typical 'Post' stuff - don't bother with it. This Tony Bernazard character is a problem, huh?)

REVIEW: 'MICHIGAN VS. OHIO STATE: THE RIVALRY'

A couple of things I think I should make clear before I get into this review. Growing up in New York City and now living near Boston (and having gone to Boston University, whose football team was disbanded after my freshman year), college football was never much on my radar. Sure, I'd watch a game or two, the big games during the year, but my football attention was devoted to Sundays, not Saturdays.

As I grew older, though, I started to appreciate more about the game. I also developed attachments (and dislikes) for certain teams due to who I knew. I always rooted for Notre Dame - one of my cousins went there when I was in high school, and growing up, my dad rooted for Notre Dame, so I did too. I started to root for Tennessee the past few years because someone I met in the teaching profession was a Tennessee fan. When I worked at the CBS affiliate in Boston, one of my closest friends there was a Michigan fan, and seeing him live and die with these games made me root for Michigan to win. I root against Florida because of one of my college roommates (he lived and died, too, but I enjoyed it more when he died with the losses...unlike my CBS friend, who I much preferred to see live with the wins). I also root against Boston College, because of my BU ties. Then, I root for and against whoever tickles my fancy - right now I keep rooting against the number 1's and 2's until I get a team I like in there. I'm rooting for Kansas right now, just for some new blood. I think my college football interest is summed up in the fact that this is the first time I've written a blog extensively about college football. And I think it should be said that I root against Ohio State simply because of my CBS friend.

All of that said, I am much more interested in college football recently than I ever was. This is in part because of my participation in a Bowl pool at the end of the season, and I like to think that having watched a couple of games during the regular season increases my chances of doing well. (It usually doesn't.) But I'm looking forward to today's Ohio State-Michigan matchup. And in anticipation of the game, I watched the HBO Sports documentary "Michigan vs. Ohio State: The Rivalry".

I need to learn my lesson - no matter what the subject, HBO Sports does a nice job. I should watch all of their documentaries. In spite of myself, I always feel myself getting choked up at a certain point, and I always end thinking that it was done very well (the same way I felt watching the documentary about the Cubs).

I went in hoping to learn more about a subject I knew little about, while hoping to be entertained, and getting glimpses of events I was familiar with. All were accomplished. The one complaint was that there was a big chunk (maybe 10 minutes) about the fans, which I could have done without. I realize how important that part is - if I was doing the documentary, I would also think the part about the fans was important to include...but as a viewer with no particular allegiances, I thought that segment was too long.

The most entertaining part was Desmond Howard, who struck the Heisman pose after scoring on a punt return in the Ohio State game. He went through his thought process about whether or not he should do it as he was running, and finally decided, "F___ it." He was an entertaining interview throughout the documentary.

A lot of time was spent on the Woody Hayes-Bo Schembechler connection. The Schembechler interview was recorded the day before he died...which was exactly one year ago as I write this. I also liked hearing about the 1950 game, which took place in a tremendous blizzard, which Michigan won, 9-3, scoring the game's only touchdown on a blocked punt. There were 45 punts in the game, some on first down, and Michigan didn't get a first down the whole game. Good stuff all around.

It made me wish I was a fan in some kind of rivalry like this - where one game means so much. The Mets have a rivalry with the Braves, but it's nowhere near this scale (and ranks waaaaaay down on any list of rivalries - it's not even in the top 10 of its sport). The Jets-Patriots rivalry is too recent...and still is more media-manufactured than anything else. The Jets-Dolphins are probable bigger rivals...but it's rare that both teams have been competitive at the same time. In hockey, I guess there's BU-BC, but the fact that it's hockey, in such an apathetic school as BU really has a negative impact. I guess I'll just continue to live vicariously through the Ohio State-Michigan rivalry. I'll be rooting for Michigan...but from where I stand, it sure hurts less if they lose.

NFL UPDATE: I'm very tempted to say the Buffalo Bills will hand the New England Patriots their first loss of the season on Sunday night...but I really think Marshawn Lynch being out of the lineup kills their chances. I'm hard-pressed, looking at their roster, to say they have someone who can be as explosive. So I'm afraid the Patriots will continue to march along undefeated.

SITE UPDATE: One drawback, I've just realized, of deleting the Jets entries so they reappear here is that I'm losing pictures when I do this. If you come across a post that has a red 'x' where a picture should be, please let me know, and I'll fix it.

REVIEW: 'WAIT 'TIL NEXT YEAR: THE SAGA OF THE CHICAGO CUBS'

I spent my last day of summer vacation, in part, watching a documentary about the Chicago Cubs on HBO. It's been on for a while, I was just never able to catch it in its entirety.

The documentary reviewed the longtime suffering of the Chicago Cubs and their fans...spotlighting a few fans in particular.

It was a pretty good documentary, and the Mets were featured in a pretty good amount of it, as a lot of time was spent on the 1969 collapse. The following is my review, in bullet form:

• I think the thing that is worth mentioning first and foremost is that Cubs fans still hate the Mets because of 1969. I guess it's reasonable, since I hate the Cardinals because of how they've beaten out the Mets over the years (1987, last year, for example), but it seems a bit extreme. First of all, it's been almost 40 years. Secondly, the Cubs played horribly down the stretch that year - I'm sure there are scapegoats on that team. Here's a story that exemplifies the stupidity of the hatred - Bryant Gumbel was a featured Cubs fan in the documentary. He talked about doing a 'Game of the Week' with Tom Seaver, and how he couldn't stand to be in the booth with Seaver. Seaver at one point asked if he had done something to tick off Gumbel, and Gumbel told him it was 1969, or something to that effect. The irony here, I think, is that from all I've heard, Bryant Gumbel is the most hated man in show business. So go ahead and hate Seaver. Idiot.
• Another point about 1969 that I had never thought about - some of the players, Ron Santo in particular, said that the players were tired that year. They talked about how they were dragging towards the end of the season, and a big part of why the Cubs couldn't be successful was that they were always playing in the sun, during the day, and there were no night games. I'm not sure about that - sounds like fishing for an excuse...but it's an interesting point.
• Of course, the documentary focused on Steve Bartman for a few minutes, and how some fans blame him, others don't. How about this - watching the video again, I'm realizing that there was a fan who reached farther than Bartman, and interfered with Moises Alou more than Bartman. And he's gotten a free pass. Someone hunt down that guy and ruin his life.
• Finally, there was one fan, who is a cardiologist, who has been to 17 Chicago Cubs fantasy camps. Those are the events where old guys go to Florida to play baseball for about a week with former players from their favorite teams. And this guy has been to 17. That's a bit much. Now, when I was a kid, I thought those fantasy camps reeked of desperation. I still do...kind of. But I've reached a conclusion that if someone were to send me to a fantasy camp, as a gift, I would gladly accept the gift...and I would enjoy the fantasy camp. I'm kind of convinced it's the only way I'm going to meet Hall of Famer Gary Carter. I think I would also only go if someone I knew was going with me - I think it would be more fun that way. So - bottom line - I would go...but I wouldn't go 17 times.

OVER THE WEEKEND: I mentioned earlier in the week that I spent Sunday at a sporting event I had never before attended...it was the final round of The Barclay's golf tournament. It was pretty awesome. I had never before been to a golf tournament, and it's very similar to the U.S. Open tennis tournament - you have access to the entire place - practice at the driving range, practice at the putting range, you can follow certain players, or you can set up camp at a hole and watch everyone come through. I would definitely go to another golf tournament. It's very reasonably priced, and if the weather is good, it's a great day. The fact that the day I went was the final round of the first ever PGA Playoff tournament is just icing on the cake.