Alas, the World Baseball Classic has come to an end. Sure, we can all treasure how we were able to bask in the rich tradition and history of something established in 2006. More importantly, however, is that this signals that spring training is drawing to a close, and baseball will soon begin in earnest.I didn't really start following sports until midway through high school, and I didn't develop my current obsessive level until college. My dad has zero interest in sports for some reason, so while all of my siblings and I played youth soccer, baseball, and basketball, we never really paid attention to college or pro sports. I also grew up in an area (northwest Louisiana) with no real sports scene or local teams of significance. Given that upbringing, I grew up with no real sports allegiances.
Considering that my college years were when I really started following sports, and considering Aggies have a tendency to be aggressively loyal to the alma mater, it's little surprise that I'm more of a college fan than the pros. This past weekend, I had my DVR set to record the Women's Basketball Tourney, as my girls were a #2 seed. That's right ... I've actually been watching women's basketball. (Of course, last summer I was watching the Women's World Series, so my sickness really knows no bounds.)
I'm a big believer in having a rooting interest. If you call yourself a sports fan, it seems to me you should have a favorite team, regardless of how that allegiance originated. For me, hockey was easy, as the Dallas Stars were the only hockey team even close to me, and they came into Texas with immediate success. (I don't really even follow hockey at all, but I still need a team.) My roommate in college was from San Antonio and a big Spurs fan, so I steered towards them. (Worked out pretty well, huh?) The Cowboys were an easy pick, because they were close, and my hometown is full of Cowboys fans anyway. Besides, when you start following the NFL in the early '90s, how could you not think the 'Boys were great?Baseball, however, is where I go off the board. I loved Major League, and I have an affinity for the Loveable Loser. Additionally, the Indians had a wealth of young talent that was coming up in the early '90s, so they seemed to be poised to lift themselves out of the depths. I decided to get aboard the bandwagon before everyone else and called myself a Tribe fan. It worked out well, too; they were always in the post-season, and they were one crappy Charles Nagy pitch away from winning a World Series. (Freaking Marlins!!)
Recently, I've noticed that I don't really care that much about the Indians anymore. I'm not a giant baseball fan, so I don't really put forth the effort to follow them as they continue to try to get back into contention. As it stands now, they're just a so-so team 1,200 miles away. Maybe it's just an indication as to how low on the totem pole baseball is for me, but I can barely tell you about any of their players.
Regardless of the disinterest, I still feel, in principle, I must have a "favorite" team. Here's the question: do I switch? My wife LOVES the Astros, but I just can't go with a National League team. True, I agree in principle that having batters hit is a more strategically valid form of baseball, but it just ends up being ... BORING! I've got to go American League, which leads me towards the topic of the Rangers.
On the plus side, they're close and thereby easy to follow. Nolan Ryan is the team president, and I've always thought he was a bad ass. They apparently have the #1 farm system in the majors right now, so I could get in on the ground floor yet again.From a negative standpoint, I inherently dislike the idea of switching allegiances just because of a relative lack of success or ease of access. I'm not a Dallas native, so the idea that almost all of "my" pro teams would be Dallas-based isn't appealing either, as it makes it seem like my allegiance is dependent on my ZIP Code. It just feels like a shallow & capricious move on some level. Of course, it doesn't help that the Rangers NEVER win. I'm not exaggerating, either. The Rangers are the only team to have never won at least one playoff series. In fact, here's a few of the teams that have gotten to the World Series since the Rangers moved to Texas:
- San Diego Padres (twice)
- Toronto Blue Jays (won it twice)
- Florida Marlins (won it twice)
- Arizona Diamondbacks (won it)
- Anaheim Angels (won it)
- Colorado Rockies
- Tampa Bay Rays
Seriously?!? That collection of also-rans have managed to get to The Series while the Rangers have managed exactly one good stretch ... and that was when they were apparently awash in steroids. Hey, I can support the loveable loser, but you have to work with me here!Besides, they're not even that loveable. Of the 4 major teams in the Dallas area, I think the Rangers may run 4th in terms of local excitement. I think the locals care more about a freaking hockey team than the Rangers! In Texas! Seriously!
So, I'm not sure what I'm going to do. Maybe I'll just stick with the Indians and see what happens. Maybe I'll just dive in with the Rangers. Maybe I'll "sit out" for a year, and see which team tickles my fancy. As ridiculous as it sounds, this is a very important decision. I'll keep you posted.
Until next time,
The Jim
I'm not going to get into which method of addressing this problem is correct, as I have become grossly disillusioned and disinterested with politics in general and political debate specifically. Moreover, I’m not going to try to delve in any way into these expansive macroeconomic analyses as to the cause of this problem. I'm not an economist by any means, and my small exposure to the subject generally leaves me with the impression that economists are along the same line as meteorologists: they can accurately predict the future … sometimes … maybe … unless they're wrong … which means an unforeseen change in the variables happened.
One particular item of note, however, has occurred to me: the insane proliferation of bank branches. I have had exactly 3 jobs since college, and have worked at a total of 6 offices during that run. At those 6 offices, 4 of them were located in bank buildings, and a fifth one (the Louisiana Highway Department) had a credit union branch in the lobby. Moreover, none of these buildings had the same bank in them, and one actually switched banks while I worked there. In summary, I've worked in the same building as 6 completely different banks in my short ten-year career.
Could we possibly need this many banks, and this many branches? Why is there a bank in seemingly EVERY office building? Why can I rattle off 20 different banks without even thinking about it? Hey, I’m all about competition, but can the market really support that many companies? (Given the current crisis – apparently not!)
Who even needs that much access to cash? This past month, I had roughly $3 in my wallet for about 3 straight weeks. Was I destitute? Was I unable to buy gas, groceries, or lunch? Of course not! Every place in this country takes some form of credit card, and if they don’t, an ATM is always around. My paycheck comes in direct deposit as well, so I don’t even need to run to the bank to drop it off. In all honesty, I may need to make a trip to my bank 4 times a year. Do they really need 18 buildings within a 2-mile radius for that little use?
Meanwhile, Mrs. The Jim was invited to go on a spring break trip to Florida for free with her buddy. So, as she's done roughly once or twice a year since we've been married, she's off on a solo vacation. Bear in mind, she also is scheduled to go with me to Austin for "my" birthday present, and as of yesterday, she's trying to plan a trip over the summer which I may or may not be able to attend. She really works at staying relaxed, especially considering she has no job and we have no money.