On the weekend before Thanksgiving, as I have mentioned here before, the University of Connecticut Huskies football team defeated their Big East rival Syracuse putting themselves in position for a bowl game bid.
But at the time I described their bowl eligibility as still a "long shot."
They've pulled it off, though! On Saturday of the long Thanksgiving weekend, they defeated Cincinnati. The week after that, they beat the South Florida Bulls in an exciting game that ended 19-16, after Dave Teggart's 52 yard field goal broke a tie.
As Casey Keefe wrote on the CBS Sports website, "It's unfathomable to think how far Connecticut football has come."
They are the champs of the Big East conference, and headed for the Fiesta Bowl in Arizona on New Year's Day 2011.
As some of you know, I live a stone's throw from the state line and spend a lot of time on the northern side of said line. So it seems only fair to ask: how did the U.Mass Minutemen do this season?
Well ... they sure aren't in a major bowl game! Nah-nah. The Minutemen are part of the Colonial conference. They ended the season this year with a 4-4 record within that conference, a 6-5 record overall.
Showing posts with label CBS Sports. Show all posts
Showing posts with label CBS Sports. Show all posts
09 December 2010
26 June 2009
Perseverance and Jersey Joe
Jersey Joe Walcott had to fight for boxing's heavyweight championship five times before winning it at last on that fifth try. His life is a testament to the fact that perseverance is all but sovereign in human affairs.
Walcott's first two title fights came against Joe Louis, in the final stage of Luis' career. The first of these was on December 5, 1947. The fight went all 15 rounds, and was settled by a decision -- in favor of the champ. This was surprising. Walcott had knocked Louis down twice in that fight. Louis did nothing of the sort to Walcott. All he could do with Walcott was survive his onslaughts. And yet by a split decision the judges still gave him that fight.
This is a prime example of a boxing axiom: You order to take a championship away, you have to do so decisively.
Anyway, the widespread opinion that Walcott had been robbed in that December fight forced Louis' camp to schedule another one. I'm thinking about this all today because today is the anniversary of their second match-up, June 25th, 1948.
This one appears to have been unimpressve to spedctators, who had expected a spirited grudge re-match. They jeered the listlessness of it, and though getting his unequivocal victory this time, with a knock-out in the 11th round, Joe Louis too had decided that this was the time to call it a career.
He announced his retirement in the dressing room thereafter.
Louis' retirement left the championship open, and Ezzard Charles enters out story here. Charles and Jersey Joe fought for the championship nearly a year after the second Louis/Walcott match. Charles won. So Joe had had "three strikes" in efforts to make himself champion. But he kept up.
He fought Charles a second time for the crown in March 1951. He lost again. Apparently, though, there weren't a lot of other worthy challengers for Charles to face, because he gave Walcott another shot on July 18 of that year.
This time Walcott achieved his life's ambition. Knocking Charles out in the seventh round.
Great story eh? Oops, there goes a million killowatt dam.
Walcott's first two title fights came against Joe Louis, in the final stage of Luis' career. The first of these was on December 5, 1947. The fight went all 15 rounds, and was settled by a decision -- in favor of the champ. This was surprising. Walcott had knocked Louis down twice in that fight. Louis did nothing of the sort to Walcott. All he could do with Walcott was survive his onslaughts. And yet by a split decision the judges still gave him that fight.
This is a prime example of a boxing axiom: You order to take a championship away, you have to do so decisively.
Anyway, the widespread opinion that Walcott had been robbed in that December fight forced Louis' camp to schedule another one. I'm thinking about this all today because today is the anniversary of their second match-up, June 25th, 1948.
This one appears to have been unimpressve to spedctators, who had expected a spirited grudge re-match. They jeered the listlessness of it, and though getting his unequivocal victory this time, with a knock-out in the 11th round, Joe Louis too had decided that this was the time to call it a career.
He announced his retirement in the dressing room thereafter.
Louis' retirement left the championship open, and Ezzard Charles enters out story here. Charles and Jersey Joe fought for the championship nearly a year after the second Louis/Walcott match. Charles won. So Joe had had "three strikes" in efforts to make himself champion. But he kept up.
He fought Charles a second time for the crown in March 1951. He lost again. Apparently, though, there weren't a lot of other worthy challengers for Charles to face, because he gave Walcott another shot on July 18 of that year.
This time Walcott achieved his life's ambition. Knocking Charles out in the seventh round.
Great story eh? Oops, there goes a million killowatt dam.
24 July 2008
The wardrobe malfunction
The FCC recently lost a high profile case. CBS got the fine rescinded on the so-shocking display of one of Janet Jackson's nipples.
"Miss Jackson if you're nasty."
So what? So ... nothing, really. It was all just a lot of sound and fury. Which is the only good reason for mentioning it now. How much of the sound and fury of today's discussion will soon likewise invoke the reflex yawns that this story probably does for most of us today?
From now on a wardrobe malfunction is to me just a plot development in a C.S. Lewis novel, nothing more.
Actually, that "wardrobe" functions unfailingly. I suppose, though, that if a child wanted to travel to Narnia, and upon walking through the wardrobe with that goal found himself in Oz ... THAT would be a wardrobe malfunction!
"Miss Jackson if you're nasty."
So what? So ... nothing, really. It was all just a lot of sound and fury. Which is the only good reason for mentioning it now. How much of the sound and fury of today's discussion will soon likewise invoke the reflex yawns that this story probably does for most of us today?
From now on a wardrobe malfunction is to me just a plot development in a C.S. Lewis novel, nothing more.
Actually, that "wardrobe" functions unfailingly. I suppose, though, that if a child wanted to travel to Narnia, and upon walking through the wardrobe with that goal found himself in Oz ... THAT would be a wardrobe malfunction!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
