It's Just 5 Yards... Right?

LFL can wait until next week. It's kind of embarrassing anyway...

The NFL has moved the spot for kickoffs up 5 yards from the 30 to the 35 yard line. When I first heard about it I didn't think it would be a really big deal. It was just 1994 that kickoffs were moved back to the 30 yard line anyway. So what could happen in 17 years that would make this a big deal? I even heard somewhere that the average kickoff last year ended up 5 1/4 yards in front of the goal line. So logic would tell me the average kickoff from the new spot should end up just about at the goal line. But through three weeks of the preseason it looks like I was WAY off! In fact, I can't believe the uproar it has caused amongst players and sportswriters alike.

So far in the preseason, kickers seem to be booting the ball out of the back of the end zone (10 yards) for touchbacks quite regularly. So how is it that moving the ball forward 5 yards gets the ball kicked 15 yards past the average landing spot last year? Well, my initial thought concerns how the average landing spot last year was determined*. But even so, I've seen a few kickers put the ball through the uprights on kickoffs. If kickers are able to do that from the 35 yard line, shouldn't they have been able to put the ball at least 5-7 yards deep in the end zone last year from the 30 yard line? Sounds logical to me but that doesn't seem to be the way it's working.

I suppose there are also warm weather considerations. But how much further will a ball travel in warm air than cold (wind is not a consideration)? To me it seems like the added humidity of summer would cancel out the air density factors of warm air versus cold. So, maybe the ball travels 2-3 yards further in summer?

Anyway, all of this is my long-winded way of saying, "I don't get it, how does 5 yards become 15?" Maybe someone can explain it to me.

Just Joe

* Was every kick into the end zone just considered a "zero" when calculating the average or was the depth into the end zone considered? Example: let's look at two different calculation scenarios. Let's say a kickoff lands at the 5 yard line and a second kickoff lands 7 yards deep into the end zone. If every kick into the end zone is simply considered a touchback -- probably considered the 0 yard line -- then the average of those two kicks would be 2 1/2 yards in front of the end zone. If the 7 yards into the end zone is considered, then the average would actually be -1 or 1 yard into the endzone.



NEXT WEEK:  LFL (maybe)

Young vs. Old

Going to the grocery store with my mom is pretty routine; enter through the front doors, start off to the right towards the deli, then the bakery, then produce and up and down each necessary aisle. She goes through the checkout line while I wait up front for her -- since it gives me the opportunity to people watch. Then a bagger helps us to the van, helps unload and then receives his or her two dollar tip.

This week I noticed a little play that made me chuckle:

My mom was checking out and a young man, probably 20 years old or so, who I didn't recognize was bagging her groceries. Of course the bagger was chatting with the cashier while he worked. Meanwhile an older gentleman, probably 65 years old or so, who has helped us before came over and also started bagging my mom's groceries. By this point it looked more like the young bagger was closer to flirting with the cashier than just talking. Slowly the older bagger began to take control of the bagging situation and the young guy just sort of stepped aside and continued flirting. Now, I can't say for sure what the older man's motivation was but I'm guessing it was the $2 because, well, frankly, it helps my story.

Anyway, I thought it was a pretty neat display of a young man's attitude versus an experienced man's attitude. While the young man would rather flirt with a gal, the experienced man swoops in, works just a wee bit harder and earns an extra two bucks. I know, I know, it's two bucks. But it beats earning zero extra dollars just standing around, right? To me, it sounds like a modern day fable by Aesop. Maybe I should change the main characters to sheep or foxes?

Just Joe


NEXT WEEK:  LFL

Two Very Different Things

A few weeks ago I was watching the remake of "The Karate Kid." It was a nice little movie but, of course, it couldn't match the original. Whenever something strikes you emotionally as a kid, it's hard to match as an adult... especially when the "karate" kid is actually learning kung fu. But I digress. There was a quote in the movie that made me mentally high-five myself. When I first heard it I was pretty sure it must have come from some ancient Eastern philosopher because it was so simple and true yet seemingly unconventional.
Now, being an introvert I find that I often need alone time with my thoughts, especially if I've been around a group of people for any length of time. But over the years I've realized that this alone time is WAY different than the alone time I spend just being lazy and doing nothing.

Okay, back to the movie. Jackie Chan's character, Mr. Han, was pointing out to student Dre a woman who was holding a difficult and awkward looking pose while a cobra sat coiled just a foot or two away from her face.  When asked if he saw what the woman was doing, Dre answered, "she isn't doing anything." After explaining how the woman was connecting with the Chi ("life force") around her, Mr. Han succinctly summarized his correction into one, ten word sentence.

"Wow, that totally has to be Confuscious or Buddha," I thought. After many web searches I could not find the quote attributed to any source other than the movie. So congrats to either Christopher Murphy (screenplay) or Robert Mark Kamen (story), the writer of:

"Being still and doing nothing are two very different things."

Just Joe


NEXT WEEK:  Young vs. Old

Cows vs. Tigers

I was watching a documentary about the illegal poaching of wild tigers in Asia. Apparently tiger parts are used, and have been used for thousands of years, in holistic Chinese medicine. One of the more popular uses is to make Tiger Bone Wine. After much outcry the practice of killing wild tigers, selling tiger parts and selling concoctions made with tiger parts has become illegal -- although the undercover reporter had no problem finding the black market.

Did I mention that tigers are on the endangered species list? So there's this facility in China that took 10 tigers from the wild and began mating them. Now they "have more tigers than they can count," per the woman giving the tour of the facility. The head scratcher is that no tigers have been re-released into the wild. The theory is essentially that this facility is breeding tigers to provide underground access to Tiger Bone Wine and such. That sounds pretty abominable, right?

Well, I got to thinking... why is that different than what the United States does with cows? Currently the only wild cows in the United States are of the bison variety. The domestic cow, Bos taurus, no longer roams free but are, of course, bred and used for meat, dairy, leather, etc. So I wonder if there is outrage in India, where the cow is sacred, with people doing documentaries on how Americans breed this would be extinct animal for consumption? Is the only difference that the tiger is really cool looking?  Or maybe because tigers looks majestic yet cuddly? Maybe the wild, domestic cow became extinct before people knew they were supposed to be outraged?

I could be way off on this but it was just a thought. I mean, I see the legal difference but not the moral difference.

Just Joe


NEXT WEEK:  Two Very Different Things

UFC 133: Update

Quick update on UFC 133 tomorrow night. There's been one more injury that has affected two of the scheduled fights. A fighter in one matchup is replacing the injured fighter of another matchup. Eesh.

Just Joe

I Despise Politics

How much do millionaires and billionaires think their money will be worth after the revolution? Sure, it won't happen in this generation or the next or the next. But we (the United States) are certainly on that path. Remember Rome; the mightiest military ever... rotted from the inside and "poof!” Remember nearly every power in World War I; working-class pushed to the brink while huge inflation and skyrocketing food prices nearly starved them? Workers actually went on strike during the war! Well, except for England because they gave into worker demands and had the morale boost that went along with it. Remember Tunisia way back in December 2010? Egypt, January 2011? Libya, Syria, as I type? People will only be beaten down so long. It seems like we want to beat them just to the point where they are miserable but it could still be worse. Why beat them at all? I'm no historian but even I can see a country doomed to repeat the mistakes of ancestors passed.

Sorry, I just felt like venting.