If the Chandavkl family has an ancestral homeland, it would be Houston, Texas. How the family got to Houston is somewhat of an unusual story. The Chandavkl family settled in San Francisco some 110 years ago, then moved to Los Angeles perhaps 20 years later. The first American born member, Uncle Edward, worked in the Federal court in Los Angeles as an interpreter. With the enactment of federal laws severely restricting immigration from China to the United States, deportation hearings requiring interpreters fluent both in English and Toishanese were not uncommon. At one such trial an event occurred which altered the course of the family's history. The accused defendant was determined to have illegally entered the United States and was ordered deported. The defendant's family and associates blamed Uncle Edward for incorrect translations that led to the deportation order, and put a bounty on Uncle Edward's head. Uncle Edward had to flee for his life, as far from Los Angeles as he could get.
Uncle Edward ended up in New York City, which was almost as far from Los Angeles as one could go. In New York he latched on with the Chinese Consul General and became his right hand man. Then, the Counsel General was transferred to a new consular office in Galveston, Texas, which was subsequently moved to Houston. This was in the middle of the Great Depression, and after having established himself in Houston, the rest of the family joined him there in 1935. During the 1940s, some of the family, including my dad relocated back in Los Angeles to take his dad to a sanitarium (a word once closely tied to Los Angeles, but which has since disappeared from the lexicon). Essentially, before tuberculosis was controlled in the middle of the 20th century, the treatment was to go to a medical facility in warm, dry climate such as that in Los Angeles, which became the sanitarium capital of the United States.
I had made numerous trips to Houston over the years for various family gatherings, particularly in the 1960s and 1970s. While Houston had the largest Chinese population of any of the Texas cities, and hence there was some authentic Chinese food there, it really couldn't compare to what you could get in Los Angeles or San Francisco. Sadly, the old timers died off and it's been almost 20 years since the last major family gathering in Houston. Indeed, since that last gathering I've only been to Houston twice, on side visits to business trips to Dallas (in 2003) and San Antonio, just a few weeks ago.
Consequently, you can imagine my surprise during this trip to Houston to find Chinese food as good as in the San Gabriel Valley. Even in 2003, while the Chinese food in Houston was decently good, there was no hint that it would make any kind of leap forward. Equally surprising was the availability of dishes in Houston (either the Bellaire Blvd. Chinatown or Sugar Land) that have only recently been introduced in the Los Angeles area, or in some cases not available at all here in Los Angeles. Beijing style beef hockey pucks (Niu Rou Xian Bing) which have just recently made an appearance in Los Angeles? Go to Xiong's Cafe on Bellaire Blvd. Great hand pulled noodles? Try Classic Kitchen in the same shopping center. Pan fried beef dumplings with onions? Golden Dumpling House in the same shopping center. Tomato in fish sauce--not sweet and sour? Arco Seafood in the same shopping center. Fantastic beef shiu mai (hardly if ever seen in Los Angeles these days)? At Hong Kong Dim Sum across the street. Taro rolls like you get at 85°C in Irvine? Go to Six Ping on Bellaire. Large scallop fish roe rice noodle rolls and egg tofu rice noodle rolls? You can get them at Jade Garden in Sugar Land, but not in Los Angeles. Supermarket deli selling Taiwanese chicken rolls? Go to Wel Farm market in Sugar Land. Certainly Houston doesn't have the breadth or depth of Chinese food that is available in Los Angeles, but any of these Houston restaurants would survive quite well if operating in the San Gabriel Valley.
The increase in the quality of Chinese food in Houston in the eight years since my previous visit was wholly unexpected. This result was probably magnified by the fact that I only ate at restaurants that had opened up after my 2003 visit to Houston so everything I ate was on the cutting edge. Before this year's visit to Houston I was viewing the trip as one last visit to the ancestral homeland. However it seems to me that I'll continue to go back to check out the food whenever I get the chance.
Monday, December 12, 2011
Wednesday, November 30, 2011
American Airlines Files For Bankruptcy--Business As Usual
The economic IQ of many Americans is truly appalling. To many, being a large international corporation is equated to having a license to print money, when in fact corporate profits are a relatively small percentage of gross sales, and payroll payments to employees far outstrip net profits. I highlighted this belief in a previous posting with a quote from a Occupy Wall Street protester who said he was demonstrating because he worked for American Airlines and hadn't had a raise in eight years. Well, d'oh, they couldn't afford to give raises. With its stock selling for a little over $1 a share, American Airlines has been on the bankruptcy watch for quite a while, so the actual filing was not that big of a surprise. This quote was particularly disturbing since you'd think that a longtime employee would be aware of his employer's precarious economic position.
What might be a real surprise to most people is the fact that from the beginning of the airline industry in the early 20th century to date, the cumulative historic profit of the airline industry as a whole stands at somewhere around zero. This point was humorously brought to light recently by Warren Buffett, who stated that had there been potential investors present at Kitty Hawk when the Wright Brothers made their first flight, they would have done a great favor to future investors had they shot the Wright Brothers on the spot. An equally humorous comment was made by Richard Branson, who said that the easiest way to become a millionaire was to be a billionaire, then invest in an airline.
The fact that a major industry like the airlines has never made money is truly astounding and hard to fathom. Why would anybody invest in an industry or enterprise that has never shown the ability to make a profit, particularly with a track record of many decades? Well, there are some answers to that. Airlines have had good years and indeed stretches of profitability. So once it had been shown that airlines could make money it's easy to think that they would continue to make money. Also, somebody may come up with a better idea (e.g., Southwest) and indeed make money doing it. And who could foresee the events of 9/11 which ultimately led to the bankruptcy filing of most of the major US based carriers.
However my uneducated guess is that the main reason for the lack of profits in the airline industry is the subsidization of airlines by foreign governments. Whether it's to give their airlines a "competitive" advantage, national pride over a flagship airline, viewing airline transportation as an extension of public transportation, or what, such subsidies artificially reduce fares charged by both subsidized airlines and their competitors. While US airlines have their own indirect subsidies, such as the restriction on foreign carriers to connect between domestic locations and the flight infrastructure established by major airports and the federal government, these are probably diluted by pressures to serve unprofitable domestic markets and other government restrictions.
What might be a real surprise to most people is the fact that from the beginning of the airline industry in the early 20th century to date, the cumulative historic profit of the airline industry as a whole stands at somewhere around zero. This point was humorously brought to light recently by Warren Buffett, who stated that had there been potential investors present at Kitty Hawk when the Wright Brothers made their first flight, they would have done a great favor to future investors had they shot the Wright Brothers on the spot. An equally humorous comment was made by Richard Branson, who said that the easiest way to become a millionaire was to be a billionaire, then invest in an airline.
The fact that a major industry like the airlines has never made money is truly astounding and hard to fathom. Why would anybody invest in an industry or enterprise that has never shown the ability to make a profit, particularly with a track record of many decades? Well, there are some answers to that. Airlines have had good years and indeed stretches of profitability. So once it had been shown that airlines could make money it's easy to think that they would continue to make money. Also, somebody may come up with a better idea (e.g., Southwest) and indeed make money doing it. And who could foresee the events of 9/11 which ultimately led to the bankruptcy filing of most of the major US based carriers.
However my uneducated guess is that the main reason for the lack of profits in the airline industry is the subsidization of airlines by foreign governments. Whether it's to give their airlines a "competitive" advantage, national pride over a flagship airline, viewing airline transportation as an extension of public transportation, or what, such subsidies artificially reduce fares charged by both subsidized airlines and their competitors. While US airlines have their own indirect subsidies, such as the restriction on foreign carriers to connect between domestic locations and the flight infrastructure established by major airports and the federal government, these are probably diluted by pressures to serve unprofitable domestic markets and other government restrictions.
Monday, November 21, 2011
Supercommittee Failure Causes Stock Market Plunge--Not!
One of the most irritating myths about the stock market is that daily news items explain most of the movements in the stock market. Every day you hear that the stock market went up or down because of a specific economic or political news event. Today, when the stock market tanked, with an almost immediate 300 point loss, it was blamed on the weekend revelation that the Supercommittee was not going to come up with any solution by its statutory deadline. However, any such connection is totally ludicrous.
As J. P Morgan once so astutely noted, stocks will fluctuate. Stocks will go up or down, even if there is absolutely no news. What controls the stock market and stock prices is the general expectation of the future health of the economy and companies by the world as a whole. This is not to say that news doesn't affect stock prices. But for news to affect stock prices, it must deviate from the current expectation. For example, if everybody expects that Microsoft will buy out Yahoo for $30 a share two months from now, Yahoo certainly will not be trading for $15 today--it'll be trading much closer to $30. Of course, expectations are not black and white, so current prices reflect the probabilities of certain events happening. So if Yahoo stock is worth $15 a share without takeover prospects, but there is a 50 percent chance that some company would buy them out in the near future for $30 a share, its current price would settle somewhere around 22½.
Which brings up to today's market drop being blamed on the Supercommittee's inability to come up with a budget alternative. Well, if the general expectation had been that the Supercommittee was going to be successful, and the failure to come up with an agreement would be catastrophic, then the cause and effect would be reasonable. But in fact the failure of the Supercommittee to find a solution was almost as surprising as the fact that the sun rose today in the eastern sky. Trading futures on Intrade a week ago pegged the chance of a Supercommitee agreement at 20 percent, a percentage which undoubtedly diminished during the week last week. Furthermore the lack of an agreement merely means that the default solution goes into effect, unless otherwise modified by 2013. Consequently, unlike something approaching a Congressional bailout vote with down to the wire uncertainty, this news had little to do with today's stock market action.
As J. P Morgan once so astutely noted, stocks will fluctuate. Stocks will go up or down, even if there is absolutely no news. What controls the stock market and stock prices is the general expectation of the future health of the economy and companies by the world as a whole. This is not to say that news doesn't affect stock prices. But for news to affect stock prices, it must deviate from the current expectation. For example, if everybody expects that Microsoft will buy out Yahoo for $30 a share two months from now, Yahoo certainly will not be trading for $15 today--it'll be trading much closer to $30. Of course, expectations are not black and white, so current prices reflect the probabilities of certain events happening. So if Yahoo stock is worth $15 a share without takeover prospects, but there is a 50 percent chance that some company would buy them out in the near future for $30 a share, its current price would settle somewhere around 22½.
Which brings up to today's market drop being blamed on the Supercommittee's inability to come up with a budget alternative. Well, if the general expectation had been that the Supercommittee was going to be successful, and the failure to come up with an agreement would be catastrophic, then the cause and effect would be reasonable. But in fact the failure of the Supercommittee to find a solution was almost as surprising as the fact that the sun rose today in the eastern sky. Trading futures on Intrade a week ago pegged the chance of a Supercommitee agreement at 20 percent, a percentage which undoubtedly diminished during the week last week. Furthermore the lack of an agreement merely means that the default solution goes into effect, unless otherwise modified by 2013. Consequently, unlike something approaching a Congressional bailout vote with down to the wire uncertainty, this news had little to do with today's stock market action.
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
An Afternoon At The Philharmonic
I think I have a relatively high interest in music. I can identify many thousands of songs in just a very few notes and have collected thousands of performance music videos from the 1950s to the present. However, there are a number of categories of music I don't particularly care for, including opera, Chinese opera, jazz, rap and classical music. Consequently when my son couldn't make the L. A. Philharmonic concert at the Disney Concert Hall and I took his tickets, that could have been quite a mismatch, as I was certainly the least sophisticated member of the audience when it came to this kind of music.
In fact I had a wonderful time with Mrs. Chandavkl at the concert. Frankly I didn't like any of the music, but I had a very interesting time observing the orchestra. For example I never realized that a symphonic orchestra was so heavily weighted towards string instruments, with just a small number of winds and percussions backing up the predominantly violin, viola and cello orchestra. The first thing that really caught my attention was the cymbal player in the back row. In the first piece performed which lasted about half an hour, he spent most of the time seated on a chair. Once in a great while he would stand up, grab his cymbals, then a minute later he would crash his cymbals once, twice or maybe even four times. I counted only four or five times when Mr. Cymbal was called on to perform, which means he probably spent 25 minutes of the 30 minutes sitting at his chair, and probably one minute actually performing. Now I know the Philharmonic musicians are world class, with intense competition to work your way into the most prestigious orchestras. But this made me wonder, exactly what made one a world class cymbal player? My guess is that there were two elements--the first being able to distinguish when your time to perform was coming up, and the second being able to operate the cymbals at the proper noise level. I do think I know what makes a world class kettle drum player. The drummer was maneuvering six different sets of drumsticks, each with a different size head, and it certainly took skill to switch from one set to another to another. Even just knowing where the various sets should sit struck me as being daunting.
The next thing I learned was that musicians in the orchestra come and go between pieces. After the first piece, Mr. Cymbal was done for the day, as were most of the other percussionists and some of the wind instrument players. Other musicians, including a new cymbal player who doubled as a bass drummer, showed up. Also, I noticed that not all the musicians turned their music pages at the same time. I guess that means there's different sheet music for different types of instruments. In addition I became cognizant of the complexity of composing and conducting a symphonic piece with all of the different instruments and the assignments. The conductor was indeed like the head coach of a sports team, not just a guy waving his baton to the rhythm.
After the first piece ended and some of the orchestra left, they brought in a piano, which was followed shortly by the entrance of the pianist who received a large ovation. The pianist was a young Asian woman in a relatively short black dress. I wondered to myself whether this might be Yuja Wang, though it wasn't until intermission that I was able to look at the program and indeed confirm that it was her. Now while I know zero about classical music, I do know enough to be aware of Yuja Wang, for the skimpy orange outfit she wore earlier this year at the Hollywood Bowl, which apparently resulted in the first ever convergence of a public performance of symphonic classical music and wolf whistles. Now besides not liking classical music, I probably dislike classical piano the most, so I really didn't appreciate her performance. But man, that lady plays a mean piano.
My last observation is how contrived the ovations for the conductor and featured performers are. After the piece has ended the conductor stands and takes his bows. Then he exits stage left. Then he comes back for another ovation. Then he exits stage left again. Then he comes back for a final ovation. In Yuja Wang's case she must have left and come back four or five times. I also noticed Yuja bows kind of funny--more like a gymnast than a musician. As we left Mrs. Chandavkl wanted to get a closer look at Yuja Wang who was going to sign autographed copies of her CD in the gift shop. However the line to see her was too long.
In fact I had a wonderful time with Mrs. Chandavkl at the concert. Frankly I didn't like any of the music, but I had a very interesting time observing the orchestra. For example I never realized that a symphonic orchestra was so heavily weighted towards string instruments, with just a small number of winds and percussions backing up the predominantly violin, viola and cello orchestra. The first thing that really caught my attention was the cymbal player in the back row. In the first piece performed which lasted about half an hour, he spent most of the time seated on a chair. Once in a great while he would stand up, grab his cymbals, then a minute later he would crash his cymbals once, twice or maybe even four times. I counted only four or five times when Mr. Cymbal was called on to perform, which means he probably spent 25 minutes of the 30 minutes sitting at his chair, and probably one minute actually performing. Now I know the Philharmonic musicians are world class, with intense competition to work your way into the most prestigious orchestras. But this made me wonder, exactly what made one a world class cymbal player? My guess is that there were two elements--the first being able to distinguish when your time to perform was coming up, and the second being able to operate the cymbals at the proper noise level. I do think I know what makes a world class kettle drum player. The drummer was maneuvering six different sets of drumsticks, each with a different size head, and it certainly took skill to switch from one set to another to another. Even just knowing where the various sets should sit struck me as being daunting.
The next thing I learned was that musicians in the orchestra come and go between pieces. After the first piece, Mr. Cymbal was done for the day, as were most of the other percussionists and some of the wind instrument players. Other musicians, including a new cymbal player who doubled as a bass drummer, showed up. Also, I noticed that not all the musicians turned their music pages at the same time. I guess that means there's different sheet music for different types of instruments. In addition I became cognizant of the complexity of composing and conducting a symphonic piece with all of the different instruments and the assignments. The conductor was indeed like the head coach of a sports team, not just a guy waving his baton to the rhythm.
After the first piece ended and some of the orchestra left, they brought in a piano, which was followed shortly by the entrance of the pianist who received a large ovation. The pianist was a young Asian woman in a relatively short black dress. I wondered to myself whether this might be Yuja Wang, though it wasn't until intermission that I was able to look at the program and indeed confirm that it was her. Now while I know zero about classical music, I do know enough to be aware of Yuja Wang, for the skimpy orange outfit she wore earlier this year at the Hollywood Bowl, which apparently resulted in the first ever convergence of a public performance of symphonic classical music and wolf whistles. Now besides not liking classical music, I probably dislike classical piano the most, so I really didn't appreciate her performance. But man, that lady plays a mean piano.
My last observation is how contrived the ovations for the conductor and featured performers are. After the piece has ended the conductor stands and takes his bows. Then he exits stage left. Then he comes back for another ovation. Then he exits stage left again. Then he comes back for a final ovation. In Yuja Wang's case she must have left and come back four or five times. I also noticed Yuja bows kind of funny--more like a gymnast than a musician. As we left Mrs. Chandavkl wanted to get a closer look at Yuja Wang who was going to sign autographed copies of her CD in the gift shop. However the line to see her was too long.
Sunday, November 6, 2011
Greed May Not Be Good--Especially For College Athletic Directors
Not too many sports fans outside of the mid-Atlantic area follow University of Maryland's football program, and I certainly don't. I did notice that the football team finished the 2010 season with an 8-4 record and almost won the ACC title, a tremendous turnaround from their 2009 record of 2-10. Ralph Friedgen, their coach, was rightfully named conference coach of the year. So how did Maryland reward him? Perhaps extending his contract which had only one year left to run? No, they fired him after a successful 10 year run in which he turned around the football program, though the first part of his tenure was admittedly more successful than the back half.
This would leave us to wonder as to the justification for the firing. Did the coach kick kittens, or perhaps mistreat players. No, not at all. Rather, in the thinking of the athletic director, Fridgen had raised Maryland's football program to the good level. However, the AD said good wasn't, well, good enough. Maryland football should be great. So bye bye Friedgen and hello Randy Edsall, hired away from Connecticut. This turned out to be a great hire right off the bat in the Maryland AD's search for greatness. In the first game of the 2011 season, Maryland beat the vaunted Miami Hurricanes on national television. Clearly, Maryland football was on the road to greatness.
Now after the victory over Miami I kind of lost track of Maryland's football fortunes. However, I just noticed this weekend that Maryland was whacked by traditional archrival Virginia by the score of 31-13. Since the Miami victory, this was Maryland's seventh loss in eight games, which included a loss to Boston College, previously thought to be the sorriest team in the ACC. Ralph Friedgen, where are you?
This episode is reminiscent of Nebraska's firing of their head coach a few years ago after Nebraska finished the season with a 10-3 record. The athletic director explained the firing saying that he would not be the one to oversee Nebraska football's descent into mediocrity. He was wrong as Nebraska won only 27 games in the next four years under the AD's hand picked successor, including two losing seasons. I suspect Maryland might not exceed that output.
This would leave us to wonder as to the justification for the firing. Did the coach kick kittens, or perhaps mistreat players. No, not at all. Rather, in the thinking of the athletic director, Fridgen had raised Maryland's football program to the good level. However, the AD said good wasn't, well, good enough. Maryland football should be great. So bye bye Friedgen and hello Randy Edsall, hired away from Connecticut. This turned out to be a great hire right off the bat in the Maryland AD's search for greatness. In the first game of the 2011 season, Maryland beat the vaunted Miami Hurricanes on national television. Clearly, Maryland football was on the road to greatness.
Now after the victory over Miami I kind of lost track of Maryland's football fortunes. However, I just noticed this weekend that Maryland was whacked by traditional archrival Virginia by the score of 31-13. Since the Miami victory, this was Maryland's seventh loss in eight games, which included a loss to Boston College, previously thought to be the sorriest team in the ACC. Ralph Friedgen, where are you?
This episode is reminiscent of Nebraska's firing of their head coach a few years ago after Nebraska finished the season with a 10-3 record. The athletic director explained the firing saying that he would not be the one to oversee Nebraska football's descent into mediocrity. He was wrong as Nebraska won only 27 games in the next four years under the AD's hand picked successor, including two losing seasons. I suspect Maryland might not exceed that output.
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
Something the Wall Street Occupiers May Be Overlooking
While I understand the frustration with the economy that spawned the Occupy Wall Street and other Occupy movements around the world, their protests are in large part misplaced. The movement would make much more sense if Wall Street were a monolithic institution or even a giant conspiracy that could be convinced, forced or legislated to change their evil ways. But Wall Street is not a monolith, nor are conspirators acting in conscious concert. Rather what the Occupy protestors are demonstrating against is crowd economic behavior, that is the cumulative effects of independently made individual decisions being made by hundreds of thousands of businesses, and which is virtually impossible to change or control.
The particular crowd economic behavior in question is the unwillingness of business to spend its accumulated cash to hire additional workers, or for that matter, even to pay it out to shareholders as dividends. The reason is that businesses are scared stiff of economic prospects and are unwilling to do anything that commits themselves to future expenditures. This is no conspiracy theory--each individual business has independently made this decision to hunker down and wait out a potential double dip recession. One could just as well put the blame for the current economy on consumers, who themselves are afraid of economic prospects, which itself leads to lack of spending and economic uncertainty. Nobody blames the consumer for being so skittish, and business is merely reacting in the exact same manner.
A good example of the futility in trying to affect crowd economic behavior was demonstrated right after the 9-11 terrorist attacks. World markets were closed immediately after the attacks to prevent panic selling, and remained closed for several days afterwards to let the world settle down. During that period of market closure, investors were urged by politicians not to sell their stocks when the markets reopened, as doing so would be playing into the hands of the terrorists, whose attack goals were at least in part tied to crippling the world economy. So the financial markets finally opened and stocks plunged, staying down for an extended period of time, as millions of investors each made the decision to flee to investments that were safer than stocks.
Indeed it's absolutely laughable when comparing the economic realities to some of the actions of the Occupy protestors. There was a noisy demonstration last week outside my office window with dozens of protestors gathered around the local branch of Bank of America. Bank of America is an especially good target for opponents of evil and greed since they are one of the leading mortgage lenders in California. However, a better term to describe Bank of America instead of evil or greedy is stupid, as they made the deliberate decision to acquire Countrywide Mortgage after the recent economic meltdown had begun. Indeed the real question is will Bank of America survive in the long run. Their stupidity is reflected in its stock price which has plummeted to long term lows, and which led me to post on Facebook in my description of the demonstration that perhaps the demonstrators were not from the Occupy group, but rather were Bank of America shareholders protesting the steep drop in Bank of America's stock price.
Another striking comment was made on the CBS radio network news which interviewed a protestor who explained his presence at an Occupy demonstration by the fact that he worked for American Airlines and "had not received a raise in nine years." Well those who follow the financial news know that the current speculation about American Airlines is whether they might be filing for bankruptcy before the end of the year (not likely, but still significant that the topic is even being broached), not what kind of raises they are going to give their employees.
The particular crowd economic behavior in question is the unwillingness of business to spend its accumulated cash to hire additional workers, or for that matter, even to pay it out to shareholders as dividends. The reason is that businesses are scared stiff of economic prospects and are unwilling to do anything that commits themselves to future expenditures. This is no conspiracy theory--each individual business has independently made this decision to hunker down and wait out a potential double dip recession. One could just as well put the blame for the current economy on consumers, who themselves are afraid of economic prospects, which itself leads to lack of spending and economic uncertainty. Nobody blames the consumer for being so skittish, and business is merely reacting in the exact same manner.
A good example of the futility in trying to affect crowd economic behavior was demonstrated right after the 9-11 terrorist attacks. World markets were closed immediately after the attacks to prevent panic selling, and remained closed for several days afterwards to let the world settle down. During that period of market closure, investors were urged by politicians not to sell their stocks when the markets reopened, as doing so would be playing into the hands of the terrorists, whose attack goals were at least in part tied to crippling the world economy. So the financial markets finally opened and stocks plunged, staying down for an extended period of time, as millions of investors each made the decision to flee to investments that were safer than stocks.
Indeed it's absolutely laughable when comparing the economic realities to some of the actions of the Occupy protestors. There was a noisy demonstration last week outside my office window with dozens of protestors gathered around the local branch of Bank of America. Bank of America is an especially good target for opponents of evil and greed since they are one of the leading mortgage lenders in California. However, a better term to describe Bank of America instead of evil or greedy is stupid, as they made the deliberate decision to acquire Countrywide Mortgage after the recent economic meltdown had begun. Indeed the real question is will Bank of America survive in the long run. Their stupidity is reflected in its stock price which has plummeted to long term lows, and which led me to post on Facebook in my description of the demonstration that perhaps the demonstrators were not from the Occupy group, but rather were Bank of America shareholders protesting the steep drop in Bank of America's stock price.
Another striking comment was made on the CBS radio network news which interviewed a protestor who explained his presence at an Occupy demonstration by the fact that he worked for American Airlines and "had not received a raise in nine years." Well those who follow the financial news know that the current speculation about American Airlines is whether they might be filing for bankruptcy before the end of the year (not likely, but still significant that the topic is even being broached), not what kind of raises they are going to give their employees.
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
Another Rudy Story
Although we hear the term "student athletes" used a lot, and the term may be relevant for non-revenue sports, for the major college sports of football and basketball most of the players are at least semi-paid semi-professionals. It is true that some players start out as nonscholarship walk-ons, but even there most of them are recruited walk-ons, given preferred admission to the university if not a scholarship. And once in a while an unrecruited walk on tries out for the team and makes the team, occasionally turning into a star, such as Mike Sherrard at UCLA back in the 1980s.
However, for a player without playing aspirations to join a major university's football team, literally plucked out of the student body, at the end of his college career, is almost unprecedented. But that is the case with UCLA placekicker Tyler Gonzalez, whose only previous brush with college sports was as a student manager of the soccer team. Obviously it takes a perfect storm of circumstances for this kind of event to occur. In this case the circumstances were a combination of injuries and unexpectedly poor performances by the scholarship kicker, Kip Smith and injuries to walk-on backup kicker Joe Roberts. UCLA still had a talented kicker in Jeff Locke, who is also a top notch punter and kickoff specialist. But a new reserve kicker was needed so the call went out to the student body. One of the football managers knew that his roommate had been place kicker in high school four years previously. And Tyler Gonzalez would have loved to play soccer or football at UCLA, but he was not Division 1 caliber in either sport. So Gonzalez, a senior, went to the tryout, and when he made a field goal with the entire team watching, he was awarded a berth on the team
Just making the team was amazing, being written up in all of the local newspapers. But with Jeff Locke doing a credible job of place kicking on top of his other duties, Gonzalez was unlikely to see game time. Still I saw him warming up before the game before the games at the Rose Bowl and when I went up to the Stanford game, so at least he was getting accustomed to the atmosphere of being at the stadium with the team. Then Locke's placekicing sputtered, missing PATs and field goals. The different technique needed for place kicking was affecting him. So the coaches announced last week that Gonzalez, based on his accuracy in practice, would do extra points and short field goals against Washington State.
By game day, the Gonzalez story was big news. On the national network telecast of the game on Fox, the studio pre-game lead-in story was Gonzalez. Host Kevin Frazier invited viewers to tweet their thoughts about the soccer manager-kicker using the tag #CanHeKick. Co-host Marcus Allen literally could not keep a straight face over the thought of someone "washing soccer uniforms the week before" doing the kicking in this game. Meanwhile UCLA fans like myself were anxious. What if the game came down to a PAT or short field goal. The players said they knew Gonzalez would be nervous kicking in actual game conditions and they were trying to keep hin calm.
At first it seemed like it wouldn't matter, as Washington State marched up and down the field against UCLA, holding the ball for over 12 minutes in the first quarter to UCLA's 2 minutes plus in two "three and out" possessions. Miraculously, though, UCLA was only down 6-0 as all two WSU drives inside the UCLA 10 yard line netted the Cougars were two short field goals. Then when Kevin Prince replaced the injured Richard Brehaut in the second quarter, the Bruins scored a TD to tie the game 6-6. Gonzalez comes in to kick the PAT and it's perfect.
Bruin fans were so delirious to take the lead in a game in which they had been seemingly so badly outplayed that they probably didn't notice the activity on the field. Gonzalez' UCLA teammates mobbed him. And a big defensive lineman ran onto the field and carried Gonzalez off the field. Just like Rudy.
However, for a player without playing aspirations to join a major university's football team, literally plucked out of the student body, at the end of his college career, is almost unprecedented. But that is the case with UCLA placekicker Tyler Gonzalez, whose only previous brush with college sports was as a student manager of the soccer team. Obviously it takes a perfect storm of circumstances for this kind of event to occur. In this case the circumstances were a combination of injuries and unexpectedly poor performances by the scholarship kicker, Kip Smith and injuries to walk-on backup kicker Joe Roberts. UCLA still had a talented kicker in Jeff Locke, who is also a top notch punter and kickoff specialist. But a new reserve kicker was needed so the call went out to the student body. One of the football managers knew that his roommate had been place kicker in high school four years previously. And Tyler Gonzalez would have loved to play soccer or football at UCLA, but he was not Division 1 caliber in either sport. So Gonzalez, a senior, went to the tryout, and when he made a field goal with the entire team watching, he was awarded a berth on the team
Just making the team was amazing, being written up in all of the local newspapers. But with Jeff Locke doing a credible job of place kicking on top of his other duties, Gonzalez was unlikely to see game time. Still I saw him warming up before the game before the games at the Rose Bowl and when I went up to the Stanford game, so at least he was getting accustomed to the atmosphere of being at the stadium with the team. Then Locke's placekicing sputtered, missing PATs and field goals. The different technique needed for place kicking was affecting him. So the coaches announced last week that Gonzalez, based on his accuracy in practice, would do extra points and short field goals against Washington State.
By game day, the Gonzalez story was big news. On the national network telecast of the game on Fox, the studio pre-game lead-in story was Gonzalez. Host Kevin Frazier invited viewers to tweet their thoughts about the soccer manager-kicker using the tag #CanHeKick. Co-host Marcus Allen literally could not keep a straight face over the thought of someone "washing soccer uniforms the week before" doing the kicking in this game. Meanwhile UCLA fans like myself were anxious. What if the game came down to a PAT or short field goal. The players said they knew Gonzalez would be nervous kicking in actual game conditions and they were trying to keep hin calm.
At first it seemed like it wouldn't matter, as Washington State marched up and down the field against UCLA, holding the ball for over 12 minutes in the first quarter to UCLA's 2 minutes plus in two "three and out" possessions. Miraculously, though, UCLA was only down 6-0 as all two WSU drives inside the UCLA 10 yard line netted the Cougars were two short field goals. Then when Kevin Prince replaced the injured Richard Brehaut in the second quarter, the Bruins scored a TD to tie the game 6-6. Gonzalez comes in to kick the PAT and it's perfect.
Bruin fans were so delirious to take the lead in a game in which they had been seemingly so badly outplayed that they probably didn't notice the activity on the field. Gonzalez' UCLA teammates mobbed him. And a big defensive lineman ran onto the field and carried Gonzalez off the field. Just like Rudy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)