58923

Appraisal, Valuation and Inspired Guesswork or the Rise of TV Antique Shows and the Collecting Bug

The Price is Right.

Once upon a time you knew precisely where you stood. You were, metaphorically speaking, peering over the shoulder of the venerable Arthur Negus, denizen of that epitome of middle class culture, The Antiques Roadshow. Now, however, youre turning this way and that, amidst a plethora of antiques discovery programmes, as you seek to satisfy your voyeuristic craving and perhaps learn a little something as you go.

Life used to be very simple in the antique firmament on TV. Its first airing was Going for a Song in 1965, so ancient a time that England had yet to win the World Cup and I was still in short trousers, in a programme memorably described as a

Pooterish pottery riddleathon, chaired in its glory days by Max Robertson with Arthur Negus stapled to one side for a bit of gossip. Max would then proffer a vaguely familiar looking antique loom at teams of experts and a clueless public, demanding both date and asking price. Points were awarded for the closest bid.

That wont ring too many bells with todays protagonists, by all accounts. This was an age in which most educated people were expected to have a routine general knowledge of art, antiques and collecting because it suggested some hint of engagement and appreciation of the world around them. Of course, the clueless public were a convenient prop to the cardsharps around them but the scenario hasnt deviated too far over the last forty years. Having said that, presenters could always be relied upon in yesteryear to wear a jacket and tie and a sensible haircut this was the BBC after all so one wasnt confronted, as is our current misfortune, by a bunch of D listers swathed in Hawaiian tee shirts and an all over tan.

Yet the extraordinary thing is that these programmes and, believe me, there are plenty of them have such enduring appeal. The antiques themselves obviously play their part but the real key is the human dimension and, without exception, it is a feature of all the latter day productions that the viewing public are encouraged to make contact and tell their stories. However, whereas The Antiques Roadshow was deliberately more formal in its approach, more recent entrants are positively gushing. The three best examples of this new genre are Flog It, Bargain Hunt and Cash in the Attic, each of which, like The Antiques Roadshow, have spawned some very ugly American hatchlings. More of that anon.

Back here, we have David Dickinson, full of grandiloquent gestures and gravelly tones, hosting Bargain Hunt. Dickinson, notwithstanding that he loves the sound of his own voice, has certainly done the rounds and knows his stuff unlike the motley crew from Cash in the Attic who look like cast offs from a lifestyle channel. Bargain Hunt is not designed to be too successful but just give a taste of what could be achieved with a good eye and a judicious approach though, as ever, it is most watchable when confronted by the unexpected. One contestant so successfully bought and sold a copper log box that Dickinson, momentarily speechless, had to dispatch a crew member to an ATM to cough up enough cash when he ran short. Priceless!

posted by aasdas38493 @ 10:12 PM 0 comments

Dealing With A Mental Disorder; Your Anxieties, And Your Fears

It is not easy to deal with your fears, anxieties, or any type of mental disorder. If you have such a problem, the first step is that you should talk to a professional who can get you started in the right path of getting better. Getting help from a counselor or other professional is very important and can provide you much help and insights in dealing with your current problem. Getting help from a professional should be the first thing you do in getting better. In the meantime, here are some techniques a person can use to help manage their fears, anxieties, and other issues.

Learn to take it one day at a time. Instead of worrying about how you will get through the rest of the week or coming month, try to focus on today. Each day can provide us with different opportunities to learn new things and that includes learning how to deal with your problems. Focus on the present and stop trying to predict what may happen next week. Next week will take care of itself.

A good way to manage your problem is to challenge your negative thinking with positive statements and realistic thinking. When encountering thoughts that make your fearful or anxious, challenge those thoughts by asking yourself questions that will maintain objectivity and common sense. When facing a current or upcoming task that overwhelms you with a lot of anxiety, the first thing you can do is to divide the task into a series of smaller steps. Completing these smaller tasks one at a time will make the stress more manageable and increases your chances of success.

Sometimes, we may be nervous doing a certain task that may be scary. When this happens, visualize yourself doing the task in your mind. For instance, you and your team have to play in the championship hockey game in front of a large group of people in the next few days. Before the big day comes, imagine yourself playing the game in your mind. Imagine that your playing in front of a large audience. By playing the game in your mind, you will be better prepared to perform for real when the time comes. Self Visualization is a great way to reduce the fear and stress of a coming situation.

Sometimes we encounter a scary situation that gets us all upset. When encountering these events, always remember to get all of the facts of the given situation. Gathering the facts can prevent us from relying on exaggerated and fearful assumptions. By focusing on the facts, a person can rely on what is reality and what is not.

As a Layman and not as a professional, I realize it is not easy to deal with all of our fears and other problems, however there are all kinds of help available. Remember to take advantage of the help that is around you. The key is to be patient and not to give up. In time, you will be able to find those resources that will help you with your problems.

posted by aasdas38493 @ 9:04 PM 0 comments

Super Bowl 40: Decided in the Trenches

Sundays Super Bowl is likely to be won by the team with the most rushing yardage. Winning the battle of the line of scrimmage is as basic it gets, but its also a tried and true method for victory. Last season the Patriots won the rushing battle 112-45 in their 24-21 win over the Eagles. The year before, the Pats outrushed Carolina 127-92 on their way to the title. Even in their stunning upset of the Rams five years ago, the Patriots won the rushing battle against Marshall Faulk and their strong St. Louis offensive line, 133-90.

This Super Bowl is so interesting because both teams love to run the football behind mammoth offensive lines and bruising running backs like Jerome Bettis and rushing champ Shaun Alexander. Both coaches, too, Mike Holmgren and Bill Cowher, have a propensity to run the football and take away the opponents running game. Both offensive lines are solid.

Seattle was third in the NFL averaging 153 yards rushing per game, while Pittsburgh was fifth averaging 139 yards per game. In the all important yards per carry, Seattle averaged 4.7 yards (second) while the Steelers averaged 4 yards per pop (12th).

One aspect of the game that could be key is that Seattle has faced only one good team all season (Dallas) that ran a 3-4 defense. So does Pittsburgh. In that game against the Cowboys, Shaun Alexander had his worst game of the season with 61 yards rushing on 21 carries. Seattle needed a late miracle in the final minute, and a timely Drew Bledsoe turnover, to win that game 13-10. You can bet the Seahawks have watched game film of that one again to try and figure out what they did wrong and what adjustments they need to make. Pittsburghs run-stuffers and quick, aggressive linebackers are as good as any in the league, and better than the Cowboys!

The Cowboys continually controlled the line of scrimmage by putting as many as nine defenders within 4 yards of the ball, even on passing downs. The Seattle offense, averaging 407 yards coming in to that game, finished with 289. In addition, QB Matt Hasselbeck was 23-of-42 for 224 yards, with one TD and two interceptions. Hell likely have to put up better numbers than that Sunday if Seattle is going to win a championship. Notice that Dallas RB Marion Barber ran for 95 yards on 22 carries in Julius Jones' place. The Steelers would love to repeat that kind of production with Jerome Bettis or Willie Anderson.

One final thought is the explosive war or words thats been going on. Seattle TE Jerramy Stevens took a foolish shot at Bettis, after which Pittsburgh LB Joey Porter retorted, I think we can go out there and beat them. Porter also added, "I've got my first taste of blood, and now I'm thirsty for more. Does anyone smell FIREWORKS? Said Seahawks coach Mike Holmgren when asked about the rhetoric between the two players, "You won't hear Jerramy say any more about it the rest of the week. Which means he told Stevens to keep his yap shut! Enjoy the game, and remember that the dog has covered 4 straight Super Bowls, with three of the last four decided by a field goal.

posted by aasdas38493 @ 7:06 PM 0 comments

The Game is the Name

Shakespeare could wax poetic about 'What's in a Name?' because he didn't have to contend with sports mascots ...

It's the politically-correct issue in America that refuses to subside. I consider myself to be an enlightened cyberbeing, but I contend there are just some topics that blur the bigger picture of an ethically responsible society, and complaining that mascots can be degrading is near the top of the list.

A quick check of Webster's Twentieth Century Unabridged Dictionary defines 'mascot' as 'any person, animal or thing supposed to bring good luck by being present.' So, it would seem that a team mascot is an honorable title. Most mascots in American sports had their origins in the early 1900s. Back then, teams fumbled around with quaint monickers until they gradually realized the tremendous marketing value they carried. The New York Highlanders became the more regionally-identifiable Yankees, for instance, and the Chicago Cubs took their nickname so newspaper editors could more easily fit it into headlines. Distinguished symbols like Tigers and Giants appeared. Unique features like White Stockings and Red Stockings evolved into the more headline-friendly and spelling-special White Sox and Red Sox.

One of the earliest attempts at humor in mascot-anointing was made by the Brooklyn nine of baseball's National League. Urban legend wasn't a known phrase back then, but it farily describes the allusion to fans who 'dodged' trolley fares to get a free ride to Ebbetts Field and watch the game. Those 'bums' were called Dodgers, and their favorite team became christened as such.

Ironically, that drift toward the whimsical --- probably intended to portray sports in its proper context as a divertissement of life --- may have been the root of indignation two generations later.

The social upheavals of the 1960s and early 1970s were certainly justified, in my view. Civil rights needed to come to the fore, and the resultant improvement in how all peoples were perceived was a great step forward for mankind. Still, there's a difference between significant awareness and pedantic perception in any movement. Thus, in my view, when certain Native Americans first raised the mascot controversy in headlines of the time, the attention afforded was only due to its being sucked into the backdraft of searing human rights campaigns.

Personally, I've always thought the issue had as much relevance to their legitimate concerns as bra-burning did for women's rights.

Think about it. Native Americans aren't alone in being designated as mascots. In accordance with Webster's Dictionary definition, other persons given the distinction include the Irish (University of Notre Dame) and Scandinavians (Minnesota Vikings). Both of these ethnic groups endured their moments of discrimination in the annals of American history, too. So far, neither has mounted a protest about being characterized as a good luck symbol for a sporting organization.

Don't even try to broach the 'caricature' argument as a reason why the Native American situation is different. Perhaps Notre Dame uses a leprechaun logo now, but the term 'Fighting Irish' was a clear reference to barroom brawlers, a stereotypical low-life trait at which immigrants from the Emerald Isle were perceived to be quite proficient. As to the Scandinavians, there is no evidence that even one Viking was ever so dim as to go into battle with a set of heavy horns on his helmet; why would any warrior charge into a kill-or-be-killed scenario wearing anything that could directly impede his ability to win? (The image of horns came from priests' drawings of Viking attacks, attempting to equate them to the Devil incarnate, and it was Wagner who popularized this image when he staged his epic Ring of the Niebelung.)

Cleveland's baseball team sorted through a number of mascots in their early days. 'Spiders' just didn't have that 'je ne sais crois' of marketing sizzle. They were the 'Naps' for a while, in honor of their star player-manager, Napoleon Lajoie. So, when they finally settled on 'Indians' in correlation to one of their first star players --- Louis Sockalexis, a Native American --- the monicker may not have begun as a tribute to him, but it has since memorialized his legacy. The evidence indicates the term was derogatorily applied to all members of the Cleveland team in the 1890s because it dared to have the fortitude to allow an Indian to play for them. Since then, Sockalexis has been recognized as being as much of a pioneer for minority involvement in major sports as the great Jackie Robinson was fifty years later.

Yes, the team uses a caricature of a Native American as its logo now. In fact, Chief Wahoo is perenially one of the hottest-selling logos on sports merchandise. It far outsells the NHL's Columbus Blue Jackets orginal logo, which is honoring the valiant Ohio battalion that fought so honorably in the Civil War. We haven't heard historical societies from that great state howling with indignation that this is done by putting a green insect in a Union soldier's uniform. Instead, the odds are they're pleased that more of the North American public has become aware of the Blue Jacket history than ever before, just as the Cleveland Indians can keep alive the memory of Sockalexis.Some protestors say Chief Wahoo has 'shifty' eyes and that makes him even more demeaning. I, for one, never drew that connection, but if anyone else did, why wouldn't they be laughing and demeaning the Oklahoma University Sooners? After all, that term originally implied cheaters getting a jump on staking claims to land being opened for settlement.

There are many more examples. I simply don't see Native Americans being unduly isolated in this context, and no one else involved is feeling belittled.

The Washington Redskins originated in Boston, home of baseball's Red Sox and Braves in the 1930s. They were also called the Braves back then, because they played in that team's stadium. However, when they wound up getting better terms to locate in Fenway Park, they didn't want to confuse the paying public by being Braves but playing in the Red Sox stadium. Their solution made sense: they incorporated references to their origins and their new game site by changing their name to Redskins. The logic apparently didn't register with enough fans, though, and the team soon exited to the nation's capital.

The point here is that the Redskins name wasn't derived as a slur, but as a facilitation to distinguish the team's new --- albeit transitional --- home. Furthermore, to be fair, the Redskins organization has only used a noble image as a symbol of the name. Washington DC is one of the most liberal cities in North America, with its population's majority consisting of minorities. The connotation of that nickname being demeaning, as in the Cleveland Indians case, just doesn't emerge from its context.

My impression, then, remains that the mascot controversy has its sole value in the publicity it gives those organizations who are raising it. Pro and college sports are more visible than ever in the USA, and what better way is there to affix one's organization to higher 'page rankings' than making headlines in the Sports section of newspapers and broadcasts?

The matter isn't going away anytime soon. Now the NCAA --- college sports' governing body --- has decreed that any university with a Native American mascot can neither host a championship event nor use their mascot in any championship event. Some schools have successfully been granted exceptions, which makes even less sense to me. Does this mean that Florida State's Seminoles, for example, are less demeaning to Native Americans than North Dakota's Fighting Sioux (a traditional college hockey power)? How hypocritical is that? If they're contending that degrees of discrimination exist due to local circumstances, then they're admitting to a targeted sensitivity beyond society's pale, which is discriminatory in itself. How can such a position be rationalized with a clear conscience?

Mascots, no matter how commercialized, are still nothing more than whimsical symbols. Society as a whole understands that, just as it realizes the stylized violence in Grimm's Fairy Tales leaves no lasting scars on the psyches of children who innocently absorb them. Those who claim to the contrary only risk trivializing themselves and the credibility of their greater cause.

Nowhere in the country do such topics remain in a lighthearted perspective more than in Orofino, Idaho. That's the site of the state's mental hospital. The local high school's teams are called the Maniacs.

No one protests, unless the teams don't play hard.

posted by aasdas38493 @ 6:02 PM 0 comments

Short Sided Round Robin Format for Basketball and Soccer

The computer age has bestowed some unforeseen blessings on the sports world. Math whizzes are now using the personal computer to track game results to a level never before possible, and sports are the better for it. The book "Moneyball" chronicled the way Billy Beane, general manager of the Oakland Athletics used obscure statistical analyses to scout and deal for talent. Now, a variation of this method has spilt over into basketball with a number of NBA teams using statistics in a similar manner. These methods were described in a recent Sports Illustratedarticle titled Measure of Success. Described as simply as possible, these statisticianstrack how well a team does when a player is on the floor, versus how well they do when theyarent.

These measures disregard a players contribution as represented by their scoring, rebounding and assists totals,and simply asks, "Does the team do better or worse when this player is on the floor?" They also in many casescontradict the conventional wisdom concerning the relative worth of certain players. Jason Collins, a fifth-year center for the Nets of little renown gets ranked as the fourth best defensive center in the league. Conversely, high-scoring Michael Redd of the Milwaukee Bucks issuch a disaster on defense that his teams tend to lose with him on the floor, and win while he is on the bench.

While amateur coaches are sure to find these analyses interesting, is there any way in which theycan employ these metrics for their own use? Amateur coaches might be able to get team assistantsto gather the data needed to maintain these stats, but there is a much better way these conceptscan be applied.

Virtually all teams rely heavily on scrimmage play as part of their practice routine. By adoptingwhat I call a Roster Round Robin format during scrimmage play, coaches can get a much clearerpicture of how and when individual players perform better than others. The format simply requiresthat sides be set to 3v3, 4v4, or 5v5, depending on available players. Players are issuedreversible jerseys, and score is kept for each side. Stages are set to 3 or 4 minutes, and atthe end of each stage, a team score is recorded, with each player earning points for themselves on the basis of their team result. Two players are then directed to exchange sides by flipping their reversible jersey, and a new stage is played. This pattern is continued until all possibleroster combinations have been used.

For a 3v3 contest, this would equate to 10 possible combinations, thus requiring a 30 to 40 minutegame. Each player earns a plus/minus score across all stages. As everyone plays under all rostercombinations and points can only be earned on the basis of team results, an individuals resultreflects their team contribution across all stages. In order to maintain game continuity andensure rapid roster rotations, the roster rotations are predetermined and printed on a grid usedfor scoring.

Some may notice that the one thing seemingly not taken into account in this format is positionplay. A roster rotation schedule that disregards position play will likely result in some oddlybalanced sides think 5 guards versus 5 forwards and centers that wouldnt reflect anythingresembling a real-game matchup. This difficulty can, however, be overcome by taking positionsinto account when devising the roster rotations. For a 4v4 game, with players restricted toeither a center/forward or guard position, there would be 9 different roster combinations required.For a full-sided game, a center position could be added, but 18 stages would be required. With three minute stages, this would be a 54 minute scrimmage game. Coaches may wish to splitthis size of scrimmage across multiple practices.

Would the results from any particular scrimmage mean much? For one game, probably not, as we allknow the ball can bounce funny for a time. But if this format were used on a regular basis, theresults should reveal which players are contributing the most to their team. These results willeither confirm or deny a coachs sense of who his best players are, but there are two even biggerbenefits that can come from the use of this format. First, as players come to understand thisas the new measure of their play, they will be more receptive to a coachs instruction on teamplay. As well, players will intuitively respond to the demands of the game, and adjust their playaccordingly. Simply put, the ability to measure team play translates to a better ability to teachand learn it.

The second benefit may be even more important. A system that clearly and demonstrably measuresa player on the basis of their team contribution fosters team chemistry better than any other.The talented offensive player who lets down on defense can be brought to the table when the impactof his lackluster defense can be shown. Players who are frustrated because they think theyshould be playing more can either makes their case in the round robin practice, or be showntheyre not there yet. Regardless of the case, team chemistry is advanced.

The only real barriers to this practice format are logistical. Running this practice formatrequires pre-numbered reversible jerseys, and scoring/rotation grid sheets.

posted by aasdas38493 @ 2:49 PM 0 comments