blogovich

Too many on roster equals dull CFL games, Grey Cup

The Saskatchewan-Winnipeg Grey Cup was not an on-field artistic success.

Rather boring, actually and this is coming from a longtime CFL booster who likes all brands of pigskin.

Much has been made of why CFL games the last two years have lacked the wide-open nature of previous seasons. It's been pointed out that punt-return rules have been changed (and changed back) and so on.

I think one factor that has been overlooked is fatigue, or lack thereof, born of bloated rosters.

When I was growing up, and yes, I'm showing my age, CFL rosters were 32 players deep. The NFL's at the time were 47 (now 53). Of course, NFL games are quite exciting these days for the most part but in my opinion that's due more to widespread parity developed through free agency, the salary cap and some schedule manipulation.

CFL rosters, meanwhile, have been bloated to 46, of which 42 can dress on game day. Just a theory, but while it's likely saving in terms of injuries and I'm not saying I want to see guys hurt, I think it's cutting down on the excitement. Or at least playing a part.

Reason: if you have just 32 folks on the roster, you have to have multi-dimensional players not only play offence and defence but also special teams. As a result, fatigue becomes a factor. Fatigue leads to mistakes, hence to excitement.

Just a theory.

England and the Toronto Maple Leafs: Two of an imperfect pair

To paraphrase Winston Churchill: Never in the field of human sporting competition have two teams received so much hype for so little accomplishment.

England, just eliminated from Euro qualifying rounds, last won the World Cup — its only title - in 1966. The Leafs last won the Stanley Cup in 1967.

Yes, these remain — I suppose — marquee teams in their respective sports, soccer and hockey.

But certainly not deserving of the endless hype surrounding them.

Will the New England Patriots lose?

These are the only three ways I can see it happening, the first one obvious, of course.

• Key player(s) get hurt.

• MAYBE in a lousy weather game where they can't do as many things offensively. And wouldn't that be ironic, since it can get wicked in Foxborough and the Patriots will have home field advantage throughout the playoffs.

• A rash of turnovers early in a game has the Patriots fall way behind. They're not used to playing from behind.

On the other hand:

• The Pats are used to bad-weather games. And while they seem to be throwing on every down these days, both long and short with the ball-control passing game, they are fifth in the league in rushing.

• They played from behind against a quality team, the Super Bowl champion Indy Colts, and still won.

OK, here's the revised "only way they'll lose" list:

• key player(s) get hurt.

As for their running up scores, I wonder. Tough call, really. People can talk about Spy-gate and the Pats wanting to beat the crap out of everyone as a result, that they go for it on fourth down a lot, etc. etc.

But look at the Buffalo game when they scored a touchdown from close range after going for it on fourth down. Had they kicked a field goal, that would have been even cheesier. What are they supposed to do, kneel down? Early in the third quarter? If they went for it with two seconds left, up 56-10, that's one thing, classless. Early in the third, up 35-7? Like I say, what are they supposed to do? The Bills at least were classier than the whining Washington Redskins, beaten 52-7 by New England. The Bills basically said, hey, it was up to us to stop them.

The other thing is, since at this point it appears the Pats are competing only against themselves, it's likely they go into every game having to challenge themselves. They're likely thinking, "let's see if we can score on every possession, or score a touchdown on every possession" and so on.

That it's looking like men versus boys at this point isn't their fault.

Immediate, and likely last, thoughts on the Barry Bonds indictment

Immediate thoughts on Barry Bonds getting indicted for perjury and obstruction of justice related to steroid use.

Sure, he made his own bed.

But possibly 30 years in the slammer for, likely, doing eventual potential damage to his own body?

While countless world leaders, including past and present presidents of Bonds’s home country, have real flesh and blood on their hands?

Absurd. Laughable. A waste of time and taxpayers' money.

Bonds is an adult, consented by his own actions to his own possible destruction both physically and in the eyes of the public who follow sports — most of whom have long since stopped batting an eye at any revelations of drug use anywhere in sports. It’s all high comedy, anyway.

Most people watch sports to be entertained; they don’t really care who these guys are (in reality athletes in team sports are nothing more than fodder for fantasy leagues) or what they do in their personal and professional lives — other than to provide a diversion from daily life.

So more taxpayer money — not to mention forests — will be sacrificed to something of, essentially, no consequence in an endeavour (sports) that ultimately has no meaning.

Ridiculous.

Finally! A Led Zeppelin defender. More on the issue . . .

The Led Zeppelin-as-ripoff-artists debate continues. And for once we have a Zep defender and that’s great.

Pat writes (in a comment now posted under Tony’s previous views about rock plagiarism, Ozzy and Boston).

Oh, and by the way: anyone out there ever heard Jethro Tull’s We Used To Know (Stand Up album, late 1960s) and compared it to the Eagles’ Hotel California from 1976? Hmm.

Back to Pat and Zep. Here’s what Pat says:

Have you tried listening to the "originals"? While Black Mountain Side" is a straight rip-off of Jansch, "Dazed and Confused" takes its beginning from Jake Holmes (something The Yardbirds were doing before Zep), and some of The Lemon Song is a straight lift from Howlin' Wolf, the rest of Zep's end results have little in common with the rest when listened to in their entirety. The statement that "Custard Pie" and "Hats off to Harper" are both versions of the same song says it all,'cos they sure don't sound it!

Blogovich sez: I agree; the end results, the overall sound (you’re talking blues artists with guitar and that’s it for the most part coupled with poor recording technology versus a full rock band) etc. are in the end arguably different in Zep’s versions from those they, er, borrowed from. Memphis Minnie (whom Zep did credit) certainly didn’t have Bonzo’s drum pattern down in her original When the Levee Breaks, for instance.

And I never said I didn’t, or don’t, enjoy Zep’s music. I did and do. I grew up with it, as many of us did. It just rankles me that they blatantly ripped people off — even the new compilation, Mothership, gives Jake Holmes no credit on Dazed and Confused. Of course, Holmes long ago said something regarding Jimmy Page and the ripoff akin to: “he can have it.” Perhaps it wasn’t worth the trouble, battling Zep (and their arguably ill-gotten royalty money) in court over it. I just believe talented people should credit other talented people; doing so, (and this applies in any field) opens listeners ears up to more music and furthers the cause of music, or whatever the pursuit, overall. So in that sense ripping people off is a betrayal of the overall craft of music.

But I won’t go on; anyone following this thread or Zeppelin and the blues in even cursory fashion knows the rest.

Pat goes on:

Additionally, you sound very confident in your claim that, with regard to old blues artists borrowing,adjusting etc. old tunes, "Nobody ever did it to Zep's extent. Not even close." How do you know this? I would imagine it went on all the time.

Blogovich sez: Pat, I appreciate what you say but stand by what I say. I just don’t see such indiscriminate Zep-style borrowing elsewhere in popular music and I listen, read and play a lot of it. David Fricke of Rolling Stone magazine fame, who does a lot of Zep liner notes (Mothership, previous box sets) makes this point about blues artists in his defence of Zep and that’s fine and true to an extent. Just not to Zep’s extent, I maintain. Just give the various tunes a listen for lyrics, riffs, melodies and so on. I suppose we agree to disagree but am confident we can agree on enjoying the music. I will say I never had the chance to see Zep live and wonder if I would have enjoyed it anyway: I can live without a half-hour version of Dazed and Confused, much as I can live without a half-hour version of Deep Purple’s (another personal fave) 1970s concert renditions of Space Truckin’, which is an otherwise great tune. It will be interesting to see whether Zep, in their London reunion show, sticks more to the studio-length running times of their tunes. I’m not sure today’s audiences are as into the self-indulgence of the 1970s live versions.

But I appreciate the feedback; this ongoing Zep discussion continues to prove fascinating.

And speaking of the new Zep compilation Mothership (man, these reissues have me buying stuff I already have but I can’t seem to resist): anyone else out there having trouble with the bonus DVD version of the 2 CD set? Very poor packaging in terms of trying to dig the actual discs out of the holder. Let’s just say the package is very tight. So I wound up buying both — the DVD version which is a sampler of the How the West Was Won career DVD retrospective from 2003 — and the simple 2 CD version which is much easier to handle. That will be my “play” version of Mothership for the car; the other will likely just stay on the bookshelf. Yeah, of course they suckered me but I admit that while I love original album statements I'm a happy sucker for compilations, I guess for the liner notes.

Besides, what’s wrong with being a completist about rock music?

The dollar, delays and whining: Your choice, folks

So the Canadian dollar is strong. Stronger than it’s been in years. Decades. Generations. Stronger than the U.S. greenback — which is weaker than most currencies these days thanks in large measure to the ill-advised policies of George W. Bush. But that’s a topic for another day.

Today’s topic — and sorry if this is perhaps a touch out of date but I just got back from vacation — is cross-border shopping and the whining Canadians and their media enablers who go on about border waits and lineups and this and that and on and on.

Hey, nobody’s forcing you to go to the U.S. to buy stuff. And when you factor in what you are spending on gas, time wasted in lineups, crowds in the stores and so on, are you really saving that much? Up to you, I guess.

I just don’t get it. Too much hassle for me, but to each his or her own.

If you are saving big-time, good for you. Just don’t complain about whatever it is you have to endure to do so.

Back Nov. 14

Vacation. I'm outta here. See you then . . .

Ozzy vs. Boston (the band): Ozzy does Look Back

Further to Tony's take (see previous post) on whether Ozzy Osbourne ripped off Boston's 1978 track Don't Look Back with the riff to Bark at the Moon (the song). Both are title cuts of albums, Ozzy's coming in the early 1980s.

Just listened to them both, several times, and for what it's worth I think Tony has a point. Different tempos, to my ears, the two tracks, but definite similarities. That's about all I can say, other than that Tony inspired me to give both bands a listen tonight and now I'm finding that Ozzy solo tracks I Don't Know, Over the Mountain and Flying High Again, while not necessarily ripoffs, seem very derivative of Boston's Don't Look Back album overall.

Not sure if that's a good or bad thing. Very "of its time" sounds, both bands, in my view. Not saying it's bad stuff and I still enjoy it, but definitely of its time in production value, hence likely not timeless.

Keep those music comments coming, folks. The discussion is enjoyable and nice to know there's such passion for rock music still out there.

Another possible topic: the demise of the album as artistic statement in the age of downloading. Coming soon . . .

Somebody please do a study on studies that state the obvious

A new study is out. Clean up your diet, eat well, limit red meat, processed foods, etc. or you risk getting cancer.

Like, well, duh. Ever looked at the ingredients in processed food? We need a study to tell us this? Have we not heard all of this before? Many times?

The study also tells us that booze is bad. This is after we get all kinds of studies telling us that booze — particularly red wine — (or coffee, or this, or that) is good for you. Or bad for you.

All of it good for you, In moderation, of course. As is the case with most (enjoyable) things.

Here’s a study I’d like to see: Let’s have someone do a study on these folks that do all these studies that state the obvious.

Who is paying these people for telling us things we already know?

(And why do we in the media print it?. That may be the bigger story, one for FARK.com).

Cry us a river, Heather Mills (McCartney)

Heather Mills (McCartney) goes to the media (British TV) to whine about media coverage which, apparently, has nearly driven her to suicide, blah blah blah.

“They’ve called me a whore, a gold digger, a fantasist, a liar, the most unbelievablly hurtful things . . . she moaned.

Whore? Who knows or cares?

Gold digger? Being married to McCartney? Most, or at least many, I think, would suspect as much. Who would know who Heather Mills is were it not for her relationship with the former Beatle?

A fantastist? A liar? Who knows or cares?

But we do know this. Heather, you don’t have to read the papers or watch TV. That's what your ex-husband says he's doing — ignoring the coverage. End of story.