This touches on one of my new sports pet peeves. In the free agent era, especially regarding baseball, historical records are meaningless. The only thing that remains consistent about a team over the years is their laundry and geography (and even those are subject to routine change). As King pointed out, only 11 players remain from the team that lost 119 games. The "Tigers" may have lost 119 games three years ago, but this years' "Tigers" are only slightly more similar to 2003's "Tigers" as they are to 2003's "Expos."

It's difficult to justify allegiance to a baseball team because the thing that makes up the team - the players - have become ordinary commodities. To paraphrase Jerry Seinfeld, to cheer for a team is really tantamount to cheering for clothes. It's saying "I like the clothes in my city more than the clothes from your city."

The 119 loss statistic couldn't be more irrelevant, and I agree that it needs to be left out of discussion. But then again, when was the last time sports-related talking heads gave a crap about the relevance of what they say?

Calling black people who don't speak in ebonics "articulate" is a shining example of institutional racism. I cringe every time I see the word "articulate" being used to describe someone of color, because I know that merely means the author is shocked that they don't speak like "those rapper types."

Now I know this is complicated by the fact that Obama really is articulate. But I would bet that 98.5% of the people labeling him as "articulate" are doing it for the above-described reasons. Can we instead call him a "passionate wordsmith" or something not-so-racist?

Thanks.

After scrolling down almost all the way, I finally found an expert who agrees with my position on what's wrong with baseball. Tal Smith lists his first bullet point as "Too much player movement and churning of rosters may tend to diminish fan interest." Nailed it, Tal.

I've been a Cubs fan all of my life. Not a rabid, mouth-foaming fan, but they're definitely my de facto favorite team. Now, I couldn't care less about them. Maybe this is a factor of my growing older and less concerned with the performance of my favorite teams, but the problem is that every year, the roster turns over to the tune of roughly half. I don't even know who's on the team. In the immortal words of Jerry Seinfeld, I finally realize that with the current state of free agency, I'm basically cheering for clothes. Go whoever-happens-to-be-wearing-cubbie-blue-during-this-short-lived-stint! I find it quite hollow.

Unlike the other two major sports (sorry, hockey), baseball seems to be fairly unique in that any given player can step into any given team and not skip a beat. A new player does not have to learn a whole new system or playbook, like football and, to a lesser extent, basketball. Where basketball teams might have one major off-season free agent signing, baseball teams seem to be mere skeletons of the teams they were one year prior. Styles of play are far more dictated by the rosters in other sports ... quick, light defenses versus stout run-stopping defenses in football; run-and-gun basketball teams versus grind-it-out defensive minded teams. All of these serve as an identity.

Because of the uniformity of the game, baseball lacks this essential team identity. True, the White Sox played "smallball" or "ozzie ball" to win a World Series two years ago. But were they really that distinguishable from other teams? Did other teams not try to move runners over and score on groundouts and sac flies? Baseball is unique in that it's a team game but success is a giant amalgam of thousands of individual performances over time. Other than the interplay between the pitcher and the catcher, relays, and the double-play turn, is there any other part of the game that requires players working together?

I guess the whole point of this rant is that Tal encapsulated my feelings. Too much player movement and roster churning has completely diminished my interest in the Cubs. Derrick Lee crushed our hearts in 2003 by almost singlehandedly beating the Cubs when he was on the Marlins, and now I have to cheer for Derrick Lee because he's in a Cubs uniform? Sorry ... I just don't care anymore.

I did not notice the pantyless song girl, but I did notice one of the funnier unintentional blurtings in announcing history during the BSU/OK game.

At some point in the fourth quarter after a big hit and right before commercial, Barry Alvarez was getting all excited about the physicality on the field. He said something like "these guys are really hitting! If you like football, this game's for you ... some big bangs on the field!" to which Thom Brenneman (sp?) retorted in an excited voice "Barry Alvarez and Charles Davis are banging one another up here in the booth!" right before a commercial cutaway. After rewinding it several times to make sure this is exactly what he said (it is), you could hear a faint muttering of "we gotta cool this off" and a "whew" right before commercial. It was awesome.

I really wonder if that line will still be there when the game airs as an instant classic. God I hope so.