Uncategorized

Bring Me the Stats of Biff Pocoroba

by Jon Fain

Paul was a big boisterous guy with a blonde brush-cut, a little older than me, a Vietnam Vet who got hired as the shipping and receiving clerk at the wallpaper company. Soon after he started, he came in to work in a St. Louis Cardinals jersey.

You didn’t see many of those around Boston, and when I asked about it, Paul told me he wore it “in solidarity!” During the previous year, 1981, after a couple of months of games, there had been a strike in Major League Baseball. The strike settled, and teams resumed play and completed a second short season. The Reds and Cardinals finished with the best winning percentages in the National League, but overall records didn’t matter, only the division winners made the playoffs. Cincinnati and St. Louis finished second in their divisions in both seasons. The Cardinals got especially screwed because in the second short season, the Montreal Expos through a scheduling fluke played and won one more game than the Cardinals, and so St. Louis got edged out for the division by a half-game.

Numbers mattered to Paul, who was something of a math savant. Maybe it was hereditary; he had two older brothers who worked at MIT. In Vietnam, Paul had been in Army intelligence (“insert joke here!”), tasked with deciphering troop and supply levels from captured soldiers’ documents. As the wallpaper company shipping clerk, he was always writing into notebooks, which I assumed at first was something like the weights and costs of everything he sent out. I would find out that they were about something else.

Paul loved baseball, although claimed he’d never played. He was not a fan of any team — he hated the Red Sox, their followers and “quirky bandbox!” especially. He didn’t seem to care particularly about individual players. He did like some of their names, however. One favorite was “Biff Pocoroba!” that he shouted for a while as a salutation whenever he saw me coming. But his real passion showed itself in a different way. The notebooks he kept weren’t for shipping — they were for stats.

Whenever Paul had a free moment, you’d see him tossing dice on the top of boxes of wallpaper pushed together. It wasn’t craps. He had created a dice baseball game, and if you came by, he’d invite you to play. Which basically meant you rolled the dice when it was your team’s turn, sometimes one at a time, and Paul would tell you what happened, less in a radio announcer’s play-by-play than a basic just-the-facts narrative. Every roll of the dice meant something different according to score, baserunners, numbers of outs, what inning. There were rolls for home runs, walks, strikeouts, and double plays. He eventually gave me a copy of a “rulebook” filled with charts, descriptions, and drawings that I still have. In it he says once you become fluent with the rules you can play a nine-inning game in nine minutes.

Paul designed his game to reflect actual big-league averages over many seasons and set up a seven-team league that played a 150-game schedule. You had to admire the rigor of his obsession. The most striking thing — in a manner of speaking ­— were the rules that described hit batsmen. If you rolled a two with both dice, then with a single die a four, it meant the batter was hit by a pitch. Then you rolled both dice to determine the extent of the player’s injury. If you rolled doubles next, the batter was injured and had to leave the game. But then, if a 12 was rolled three times in a row — like Roy Chapman, the only one it happened to in major league history — the player died from the injury. According to Paul’s rulebook, the “odds of a potential death in dice baseball are precisely 60,466,176 to 1.”

But the best part was that before Paul started each of his “seasons” he went to the Boston Public Library and looked through telephone books from around the country, to find names for players. He kept detailed stats in those notebooks of his, memorizing what happened in each game and recording the results when he was finished. He charged himself 10 cents admission for each game he played, and then, after going through the season and having playoffs, wrote checks to all the people whose names he had borrowed for the team that was the champion, and mail them to their addresses from the phone book. He didn’t send any note or anything, just the checks. I asked him what happened, and he laughed and said they usually just cashed them.

The wallpaper company had been in process of moving its whole operation across the country to San Francisco when Paul joined us, and like me, he had turned down the offer to relocate. A few years later, I’d moved out of town, but while walking down Comm Ave one morning after being back in Boston and spending the night at a friend’s, I heard someone call out my name from the street.

Paul was passing by on his bicycle, headed to work. We talked for a few minutes, one of those cool times when you’re unexpectedly in the presence of someone you knew for a while and liked a lot. And then they go away on their bicycle again.

Later, since I’d told him where I’d moved, I hoped that he might hunt down my address, add me to one of his teams, and if we won the championship, I’d get a check for my playoff share. I’d cash it with pride, remembering a great season. But I never heard from him again, and he’s one of those who’s even eluded any internet search.

Who knows? Maybe he ended up in St. Louis. I can see him in that replica Cardinals’ jersey, throwing dice and keeping track of hits, runs, and errors. And the occasional hit batsman, of course.

Jon Fain is a writer and editor living in Massachusetts. Some of his recent publications include short stories in A Thin Slice of Anxiety and The Argyle Literary Magazine, flash fictions in The Broadkill Review and Midsummer Dream House, micro fictions in Blink-Ink and ScribesMICRO, and a chapbook of flash fiction, Pass the Panpharmacon! from Greying Ghost Press. He has stories forthcoming in Yellow Mama, The Twin Bill, and elsewhere.

Running with Greeks

A Review of Sabrina Little’s The Examined Run: Why Good People Make Better Runners
& Andrea Marcolongo’s The Art of Running: Learning to Run Like a Greek

by Scott F. Parker

As runners, Andrea Marcolongo and Sabrina Little have almost nothing in common. Little is an elite

runner, with five U.S. national championships and a silver medal in the World 24-Hour Championships to her credit. Marcolongo, by contrast, was bookishly inactive life prior to, somewhat quixotically, taking up running in her thirties. But as students of running, both writers recognize the happy congruence between their sport and the culture of ancient Greece that is their first common passion.

That their two books should arrive in the same publishing season (Marcolongo’s in translation from the Italian) suggests to this hopeful reviewer the possibility of a shifting societal attitude away from the treatment of running as one more of life’s endeavors to be efficiencied and technologized into optimal performance (At one point in her book, Marcolongo wonders whether coaches think they’re working with athletes or machines.) and toward an activity that can be seen foremost as an expression of human nature.

Many authors before Little and Marcolongo have gone to literal and historical Greece in their writing about running. What sets these new books apart is that they are not satisfied with summarizing the legend of Philippides’s ultimate run from Marathon to Athens; instead, each in her own way engages seriously with the philosophy and literature of ancient Greece. Why? Simply, it turns out — and maybe we shouldn’t be surprised — because the Greeks have something to teach us.

Little, a philosopher by profession, noticed the convergence between the virtue ethics she studied and the virtues that running promoted in her life, and from there began a systematic inquiry into the relationship between running and moral virtue that resulted in The Examined Run.

From the outset, Little makes it clear that running is a human enterprise that happens in the context of a human life, a point she makes succinctly later in the book: “We are not just runners. We are humans.” This simple-seeming point is crucial for Little’s project, which “attempts to restore to sport a vision of the good life and how running fits in.” Equally important for Little is the recognition that humans are embodied beings. What counts is accepting our physical constraints and working with them, not transcending them through some disembodied act of will. As she writes, “we can create something beautiful within the limits we have. This would demand that we think about sports and life in richer, broader ways than the rhetoric of limitlessness affords us.”

According to Little’s assessment, running, like sports in general, tends to be too narrowly concerned with results that it assumes are distinct from an athlete’s broader well-being. But any athlete who pays sufficient attention to the experience of athletics will observe the many ways in which their sport is enmeshed with the rest of their lives and the tensions can arise between success and well-being. An unbalanced devotion to one’s sport, to pick the easiest example, comes at the cost of trade-offs to one’s other interests, be they social, familial, intellectual, or whatever other dimensions of human life contribute to the good life. Relatedly, the culture of running that concentrates its attention only on performance reduces the person who runs to its limited conception of a runner. It can be as dehumanizing as an employer seeing employees as abstract sources of labor. But in response to any book or podcast or coach that addresses only the abstract running body we can say that there are more things in being human than are dreamt in any training schedule. Little, never one to objectify, theorizes from experience when she writes of running’s effects, “But it was not just my body that changed. My character was edified, too.”

Recognizing Little’s claim about the effects of running extending beyond the physical, important questions follow about what constitutes character, virtue, and the good life. Little’s Aristotelianism holds that “virtues are excellences suited to the kind of being we are, and, in the classical tradition, they are constitutive goods of our nature. They are a means of becoming higher versions of ourselves, rather than turning us into something else.” That is to say that through the exercise of virtue we can become better versions of ourselves, even one of Aristotle’s virtuous persons, who “has a correct conception of the good, is motivated to perform these good actions, and does indeed perform them.” Virtue, by this understanding, is the stuff of theory in action. For Little, as for Aristotle, “both moral and intellectual virtues are acquired rather than natural.” And they are acquired through practice: “We develop good characters in the same way that we become better runners.”

This takes us to the core of Little’s argument and her original contribution to the discourse of virtue ethics: the recognition that running — not uniquely, but unmistakably — leads to a virtuous circle by which it cultivates better character, which cultivates better running. For example, Little argues, running promotes the virtues of resilience, joy, perseverance, and humor, which then become performance-enhancing virtues for the runner.

We could apply Little’s framework in the case of someone like the elite runner Kara Goucher, whose testimony against Alberto Salazar revealed a multitude of coaching violations. It’s possible that Goucher developed her patience (she had to wait years for her testimony to lead to sanctions against Salazar) and courage (to speak out when a successful outcome was not guaranteed but the enormous emotional cost on her was) at least in part through running, those being two of the virtues Little returns to in her analysis. Multiple studies have found that professional ethicists are no more ethical than the average person. From an Aristotelian vantage, it’s easy to observe that knowing a lot about the subject of ethics is far removed from developing one’s virtues through deliberate practice. If Little has the research funds available to her, it might be worthwhile to conduct a similar study of runners. Does the evidence support her first-hand experience and philosophical reflection? Are there a higher percentage of Gouchers among us than the general population? I, for one, would be curious to know.

In the same spirit of recommending a life that balances body and mind, Little once again follows the path of the ancients: “This is why Plato, Aristotle, and the classical tradition that succeeds them include poetry as a humanizing complement to gymnastics — because gymnastics alone would form young citizens of brutes.” The approach one takes to running determines the degree to which it will positively shape one’s character. The mind must be engaged as well as the body, and along certain specific lines that The Examined Run both identifies and attempts to engage. The opposite is true as well. Reading this book without then going for a run would be like reading recipes online and never stepping foot in the kitchen. People do it. But we don’t call it thriving.

While Little’s loadstar is Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, Andrea Marcolongo’s is Philostratus’s Gymnasticus. Philostratus — “The Athenian” — was a Greek writer in the Roman era, whose treatise includes accounts of early Olympic games. But it’s as “the first sports manual” that Marcolongo reads Gymnasticus. And she is delighted by what she finds in it: “He wasn’t trying to tell us how to play sports, or in what sequence to exercise our mortal muscles, or why we should exercise, compiling a list of practical benefits. At its core his book seeks to understand what sports are — and therefore what we talk about when we talk about physical activity.” The echo of Murakami is intentional, as the echo of Philostratus will be, too, in The Art of Running, which takes the very approach Marcolongo identifies in the Athenian.

That Marcolongo would take her lead from such an obscure source is explained by her first love and the subject of her first book: the Greek language. Marcolongo is a journalist by trade, and what she lacks in knowledge about running she makes up for in curiosity and essayistic spirit. Planted unapologetically in the center of her own very particular perspective, Marcolongo sees running through a beginner’s eyes, without the assumptions and blind spots of someone who has grown up in the sport.

It is this love of the Greek language and Greek history that, when she takes up running during the pandemic, prompts Marcolongo to register for the Athens Marathon, which serves as a framing device for the book and, one gathers, an effort made significantly for the sake of the book that would result. She will train to retrace the famous route of Philippides’s from Marathon, and along the way she will respond from myriad sides to the question of why we (herself now included) run.

Since Marcolongo doesn’t bury the lede, I see no need to. She comes quickly to the realization that “When I run, I’m not getting on with my life; I’m living.” Running for her is an end in itself. She could stop the book right there. What else is there to say, really? Well, how about unpacking the nature of the end in itself: “Every time I go for a run, long or short, my body and, by some miracle, my head along with it — that’s what runners mean when they talk about ‘mental health’ — does everything in its power to reach its one goal: to live life to the fullest, or at least far more than my body is permitted to when it’s planted in a chair. . . . This completeness of motion, pace Philostratus, is a love of life. Nothing more, nothing less — and therefore everything.”

As if that were not enough already to get us all out of our seats, let me offer one more glimpse into what it’s like to see running as Marcolongo does: “Running is the most contemplative activity there is. Once upon a time people considered it a mystical form of pilgrimage. Finally at a remove — freed — from the thousands of daily distractions, we’re left to contemplate only two landscapes when we run: the interior landscape of emotions and physical sensations, and the exterior landscape of streets, trees, rivers, and, for those lucky enough, mountains and seas.” The fact that the author of this fine sentiment could be someone who runs with earbuds, as Marcolongo reports doing, beggars my belief. But much of the charm of The Art of Running is Marcolongo’s idiosyncrasy. Her wandering mind sometimes wanders into some strange claims, such as “I’ve never heard a runner sing the praises of running while running.” But even when I don’t agree with her, it’s so refreshing to read someone thinking original pretenseless things about running.

Marcolongo’s beginner eyes also let her see things many runners take for granted. For instance, the fact that we take off most of our clothes and then run in public spaces, where we are sure to be seen by countless others. That’s unusual. “‘I’m going for a run,’ a phrase every runner uses, means crossing the threshold of polite society, which as a matter of decorum bars us from attending to our bodily needs in public, and visibly invading spaces where physical exercise is, as a rule, alien.” Most running books, needless to say, fail to address such fundamental dimensions of the sport, something Marcolongo does as routinely as she laces up her shoes. Then again, most running books fail to recognize that “we all need a little poetry in our lives, especially when we’re running.”

That is the enduring lesson of these two books—that the inner life of the runner is not separate from the outer, the two are entwined in the nature of the human. Understood broadly — and how would we want to understand but broadly? — running is about what it means to be a human being. The Examined Run and The Art of Running make this plain and, what’s more, offer to assist in attuning our mental and physical, not to mention our spiritual, faculties.

Happy trails, everyone.

Scott F. Parker is the author of Run for Your Life: A Manifesto and The Joy of Running qua Running, among other books. His writing has appeared in Runner’s World, Running Times, Tin House, Philosophy Now, the Believer, and other publications. He teaches at Montana State University and is the nonfiction editor for Kelson Books.

On Going With

A review of Lindsey A. Freeman’s Running

by Scott F. Parker

Reading Lindsey A. Freeman’s Running is like running a 5K. You know it’s going to be a short race, and once you start you don’t want to let up until you finish, no matter how much you’re hurting. In other words, I couldn’t put it down, even if a few times I wanted to throw it out the window.

Then again, it’s harder to write a book than to read one. Maybe Running is a marathon, and it takes the runner/author a few miles/chapters to get the nerves out and find a good pace. It does get off to a slow start. Freeman, a sociologist at Simon Fraser University, has an academic’s habit of throat clearing and qualifying her prose beyond common decency. There’s even something of a lit review by which Freeman seems to want to establish her right to write the book. And too often her own thoughts are followed by the assurance that Foucult or Barthes once thought something similar. Meanwhile, we’re a few chapters in before Freeman really begins what is a vivid, insightful, and above all knowing reflection on running, her love for which is manifest and contagious.

It is love that propels Freeman. Running belongs categorically to Duke University Press’s Practices series, books that “are by and about amateurs in the original sense — those who engage in pursuits out of sheer love and fascination.” Freeman was a successful collegiate runner, but it is not her past accomplishments (briefly discussed) that impress as much as her devotion and appreciation. Freeman’s expertise, as one hopes from a work of literature, stems from the quality of her attention to experience.

Running is a lovely assortment of occasional pieces about the wide-ranging experience of being a runner. Runners will recognize their own practices in Freeman’s stories and reflections. And non-runners, I suspect, will come to appreciate what it is that draws us runners so steadily to this activity. How could they not when they encounter passages like “With my senses heightened the world itself seems supercharged: in spring, the grass greens even brighter; in summer, limbs unfettered by jackets and tights relish the heat; in autumn, the fallen leaves crunch with a pleasure that travels from my feet up my spine; and in winter, the freshness and freedom of being warm outside when moving wins over the chilly start to the run.” Any runner knows these moments as some of the rich pleasures of running. And we all point, as Freeman points, to such intangibles when we try to sincerely explain why we run.

This question — what it is about running that inspires such love and fascination — is the mystery Freeman’s ode plums so well. Despite rejecting essentialist arguments,^[1] time and again Freeman limns aspects of running that resound across the usual identity categories.

Take just one example: “In most areas of life, you can’t show how much you want or love things, but in running, and especially in racing, there is the opportunity for this kind of near-naked display.” Exactly right and profound enough. But the passage continues, with Freeman ever attentive to the dynamic between the metaphorical and the literal: “This showcase of desire, effort, and personality is made all the more vulnerable for the fact that, in racing, you are often not wearing much clothing.” Aha! That feeling and that insight are undeniable yet, as far as I know, previously unarticulated. Maybe not every runner has that experience in common, but just about any runner could.

Superficially, Freeman and I have little in common, and yet I cannot read her book without recognizing her running and my running to be one running. We can, as she writes, “touch and be touched by others who love” what we love.

I am very happy to have taken up Freeman’s invitation to “go with me,” in no small part because she and I do not always see things the same way. Who wants a book that wins them over too easily or that they dumbly agree with? If I want to think my own thoughts only, I can always run alone.

^[1] Freeman is so dismissive of Christopher McDougall’s argument that humans are “born to run” that she refuses to even mention him or his bestselling book by name.

Scott F. Parker is the author of Run for Your Life: A Manifesto and The Joy of Running qua Running, among other books. His writing has appeared in Runner’s World, Running Times, Tin House, Philosophy Now, the Believer, and other publications. He teaches at Montana State University and is the nonfiction editor for Kelson Books.

 

What Did Coach Mike Leach Have That Bill Belichick Lacks?

by Daniel A. Hill

When The Athletic published its anonymous NFL players poll mid-season in 2023, one stunning result emerged. Did you see the poll results in response to the question, “Which current coach, aside from your own, would you want to play for?” Way out ahead was the Pittsburgh Steelers’ veteran coach Mike Tomlin at 26.4 percent. Second was the Miami Dolphins newbie coach Mike McDaniel at 14.6 percent. Left barely cracking the ranks of the top coaches being picked was the New England Patriots coach Bill Belichick. The Gray-Hoodie Grouch came in 12th place at 2.1 percent, quite the come-down for the guy hovering just behind Don Shula and George Halas in the race to be the all-time, winningest NFL coach.

Now, you might quibble with the results. If you’re a pure stats guy, you can say: well, a poll result based on input from only 72 players in a league with 1,696 players on the league’s active rosters covers only 4.2 percent of the waterfront. That’s a good point to make.

Nevertheless, stick to that rebuttal and you’ll be missing the boat here. For more than three seasons now Belichick has been drowning in the mediocrity that plagued his early days as a head coach for the Cleveland Browns, and I think I know the reason why. A contrasting example, the explanation, lies down in Key West, Florida, in a bar called Capt. Tony’s Saloon. There you’ll find that despite a history of famous guests ranging from Bob Dylan to Al Pacino and Dan Marino, only four stalwarts have been honored by having their bar stools hoisted on high. Between stools stamped with the names of Ernest “Papa” Hemingway and two U.S. presidents, John F. Kennedy and Harry Truman, you’ll find another stool bearing the name of a pirate who dressed up as a college football coach.

Meet the recently deceased Mike Leach.

Pegged as a “quirky, offensive mastermind,” the Dolphins newbie coach McDaniel has a profile that echoes the only pro or NCAA football coach I’ve ever known: the one-and-only Coach Leach. The Athletic quotes an NFL player saying of McDaniel, “He seems like a pretty fun coach to play for.” Could the same be said of Leach? There’s a lot of rah-rah, macho bullshit that goes on around teams — football foremost among the sports guilty of guys who would rather have an enema than admit to fear — so I can’t say for sure. What I can draw on is this when it comes to assessing Leach: a three-and-a-half-hour phone call with the guy as I drove from Salem, Oregon to Seattle; a nearly five-hour stint together in Capt. Tony’s; and three full days on site at Washington State’s stadium during the coach’s preseason camp.

The maverick I experienced on each of those occasions could be fairly described as borderline crazy, Sybil in cleats, somebody harboring a split personality. What kind of guy talks your head off while you’re navigating the #5 northward to Seattle and then, when you meet up at 10 p.m. at Capt. Tony’s, says barely a word until the clock strikes midnight? That’s Coach Leach for you in a nutshell.

Go into Capt. Tony’s now and the bar’s owner, Joey Faber, will tell you that Coach Leach told better stories than Hemingway and was way smarter than those Democrats that Leach, a die-hard conservative, never once spoke of to me. How to get Coach to talk, I pondered. The guy was nursing his favorite drink, grape vodka and water, barely making eye contact with me or Joey or anybody on the planet. I figured I had to join Coach Leach in outer space somewhere, so I finally broke the ice by asking him: “What’s your all-time favorite play, the one you ran that delighted you the most?”

Then I had my guy.

Leaning against the bar counter, Coach Leach pushed his finger along the top of it in a straight line. “Down the sideline,” he said, “flat out — bomb.” Only that wasn’t the play the Coach was proud of. “Down the sideline,” he said, “flat out — bomb.” No, I was only half drunk and hearing right. The Coach had run the same play for the second time in a row, and it still wasn’t the play he was so mighty proud of. “Down the sideline,” he said yet again, “flat out — touchdown.”

I looked into Coach Leach’s eyes looking for an answer that might only exist in the stratosphere. “I ran the play three times,” my drinking companion explained, “and each time with a different receiver. Fresh legs. I did it knowing the cornerback wouldn’t be subbed out. So, the guy was gassed, and we scored.”

If anyone else was still in the bar between 2 a.m. and when we parted ways an hour later besides Joey, who hovered, sometimes joining in, I didn’t notice. Once Coach Leach got going, you got comments like “If a pine cone war breaks out, you don’t really have any choice but to engage in it. I mean, there’s no neutral countries in pine cone wars.”

For those who knew Coach Leach well, that kind of comment wouldn’t be surprising at all. Leach will always be famous for having created an alternative universe peopled with favorites like the Apache chief Geronimo, the gonzo journalist Hunter S. Thompson, and the abstract painter Jackson Pollack, who hailed from Coach Leach’s home state of Wyoming. What was the Coach saying when he talked? It beats me. Go ahead and parse comments such as this one following a lost game: “It’s a little like breakfast. You eat ham and eggs. As coaches and players, we’re like the ham. You see, the chicken’s involved, but the pig’s committed. We’re like the pig; [officials] are like the chicken. They’re involved, but everything we have rides on this.” Go ahead and parse that press conference remark and tell me whether the guy was taking an indirect swipe at the officiating or merely hungry for his next meal. Who was Coach Leach? A Pepperdine University trained lawyer who looked a little like Archie Bunker and could talk like Yogi Berra.

If you get the impression that Coach Leach was an extremely extroverted Introvert, you’re on to something I think. When the guy did talk, he didn’t talk; he yapped. By comparison, nobody’s ever said that of Coach Belichick. Look at him on the sideline on Sunday during a Patriots game and what you see is nearly all that you hear: a scowl.

Truth be told, Coach Belichick isn’t human; he’s the Pillsbury Dough Boy cooking up mischief, bereft of the Dough Boy’s big smile. Asked to explain his success, Coach Doom-and-Gloom, the Gray-Hoodie Grouch, explained his formula as consisting of only two basic ingredients: 1) coach the players you have, not the ones you wished you had; and 2) keep it simple so your players don’t “fuck it up.”

I alone, however, know the secret of Belichick’s success. He’s a thief. While Coach Leach’s mind was until he died last year at age 61 a bank waiting to be looted, Belichick was and will always be a thief who cracks the safe in the wee hours of the morning. Not for him the bad odds of going in as a “hands-up,” free-shooting bank robber operating in broad daylight.

How did I arrive at my theory that distinguishes villainous, pirate-loving Saint Leach from the Criminal Mastermind holed up in Foxboro, Massachusetts? By getting Coach Belichick’s foremost accomplice to squeal in a manner of speaking. Of course, I’m now talking about Deflategate. In mid-January of 2015, I’m in San Francisco. More specifically, I’m in the West Coast studio of Bloomberg TV about to go live based on my recent front-page coverage in The New York Times.

The media likes fresh angles. So, while the article explored my use of facial coding to help pro and NCAA Division 1 sports teams draft, trade, and coach players more smartly, my recent appearance on ABC’s “Good Morning, America” focused on what politicians’ expressions can tell you about their emotional make-up. Now the producers at Bloomberg TV plan on having me walk through the signature expressions of Wall Street titans like Jamie Diamon and thieves like the Bernie who Madoff (with yours and everybody else’s money).

Then, only just a few moments before I’m scheduled to hit the airwaves myself, Tom Brady holds a brief press conference. Looking on in the Bloomberg studio, I see a guy uncharacteristically nervous as hell. A guy who is normally a combination of dimly lit smiles and full-on, cocky smirking, is betraying fear. Again, again and again his mouth pulls slightly wide, a tell-tale sign of anxiety.

For instance, during the Deflategate press conference, a reporter asks: “When and how did you supposedly alter the ball?” Even as the question is being asked, Brady swallows hard and the right side of his mouth stretches laterally, back towards the ear. Then as he answers, here’s what happens: (mouth pulls wider) “I didn’t” (mouth widens slightly more) “you know” (both eyebrows shoot upwards) “have any, uh… ” (mouth both widens again and falls open). “I didn’t hold onto the balls in any way.”

With a voice quavering at times, Brady will go on to offer other, not exactly on-point denials. One example is when he says, “I didn’t alter the ball in any way,” which Allysia Finley recasts in a Wall Street Journal opinion piece as follows: “Of course, you didn’t. Your ball boys did. That’s what flunkies are for: Doing things you don’t want to get caught doing and then taking the fall.”

Similarly, note Brady’s careful words when asked if he had cheated: “I don’t believe so. I feel like I’ve always played within the rules.” On Bloomberg TV just a few minutes after the Deflategate press conference ends, what kind of appraisal do I give on the air? How culpable might Brady be? Seeking a point of reference, I cite an old Second City comedy skit. In it John Belushi is playing U.S. Senator Howard Baker during the Watergate hearings. “What I want to know,” Belushi drawls, “is what did the President know and when did he stop knowing it?”

In the TV studio, I can hear the camera crew struggling to muffle their laughter. What I don’t hear, of course, is Belichick chuckling because he never does.

 

Locate photos of Coach Leach on game days and you can see what I see. Success is greeted by smiles that tend to be tentative half-smiles, the sign of an introvert. Meanwhile, play calling gone awry leads to mostly mild dismay. The eyebrows will lower in concern, and the mouth tends to either fall slightly ajar in a sign of mild surprise or there’s a faint raising of the upper lip that expresses mild disgust and anger. In short, as the guy stands with his hands on both hips along the sideline, Leach resembles a fairly docile brown bear hoping to eat some more honey sooner than later.

In contrast, Coach Belichick ups the ante on anger — an emotion that at its finest, inspires overcoming injustices but that at its worst becomes a matter of seizing control of one’s circumstances and outcomes, however one must, in a supreme case of the ends justify the means. What does anger look like in Belichick’s case? The Patriots long-time head coach pinches his eyebrows together hard. His lower eyelids are taut and straightlaced. His lips will not generally press together gently like Leach’s did. Instead, they bulldoze each other — leading to a bulge that forms below the lower lip. Throw in the upside-down smile created when your chin presses upwards, and you’ve got the complete picture. With his arms characteristically folded across his chest, the Gray-Hoodie Grouch becomes Fortress Belichick, inaccessible to mere mortals like you and me.

With Belichick, there is no joy in Mudville — just a long rap sheet full of allegations that have mostly resulted in either fines, suspensions, or other penalties lodged against the Patriots as a team, rather than against a coach who’s never been a glorious role model. Take a hard look. When it comes to competitive misconduct, Coach Grouch qualifies as a repeat offender subjected by the League to ever smaller financial hand slaps that ended altogether as he accumulated more Super Bowl trophies:

The 2007 Spygate scandal, e.g., signal-stealing in a game against the New York Jets. A $500k fine.
The 2012 case of grabbing a ref’s arm at game’s end to protest a call. A $50k fine.
The 2014 Deflategate scandal when underinflated balls help Patriots receivers grip the ball in the wet weather and keep Payton Manning’s visiting Indianapolis Colts on defense. No fine.
In 2015, headset malfunctions the visiting Steelers consider intentional sabotage. No fine.
In 2019, the Cincinnati Bengals video scandal in which a Patriot’s staffer is more interested in filming the sidelines, looking for signal calling, than in recording the on-field action. No fine.

And amid all these allegations of infractions, I’m leaving out the trick plays Coach Belichick the Conniver has called, many of which subsequently led to changes in the NFL’s rule book.

What a clever bastard.

Is Coach Leach really a saint? It’s complicated. But the answer is NO if you endorse his suspension in 2009 by Texas Tech for the sin of apparently ordering one of his players, Adam James, to be locked up in an equipment closet after James had sustained a concussion in practice. What a fool, you might say. What was Leach thinking? Why keep a player “out of the light” when his dad is a former NFL player and an ESPN analyst ready to shed plenty of limelight on why he believes his son’s alleged “humiliation” got so out of hand?

 

Okay, so I’ve now dawdled long enough here, dirty dish water circling the drain. You want the goods. Why exactly is Belichick failing lately, and what is it that Leach had that the Grump lacks.

To go there, let’s first acknowledge that what Super Bowls galore, 300-plus-wins Coach Belichick is IS a defensive genius. He’s a thief whose lineups and schemes succeed by stealing from opponents the plays they most want to run by shutting them down, hard. How else is the guy a thief? He’s rightfully “stolen” ideas from football books, 400 of which he donated to the Naval Academy after his father (a long-time coach) finally died. He’s also less righteously stolen opponents’ play signals and the lives of players and assistant coaches by demanding even longer hours than other NFL teams commit to.

Most of all, though, the Gray-Hoodie Grouch has stolen and locked away happiness to a degree that Mike could never abide. There I did it. I slipped. I called Coach Leach Mike because you could.

Who would dare call Belichick Billy Boy? Not I or anybody who would want to be on his team for long. The guy’s been so omnipotent. So gruff and hard-nosed. Tough. More than ready to damn with the faintest of praise. “Do your job” has been the Patriots’ mantra. Should you question authority, well, forget it. Belichick has reigned as the deviser of game plans and offensive play calls, and as the de facto general manager handling every trade and whom to draft. Which is why penalizing the team instead of also continuing to fine Belichick himself makes no sense. After all, there’s, frankly, ZERO separation between the Patriots as a team and Belichick as the team’s God almighty.

Why has the Gray-Hoodie Grouch reigned for so long in Foxboro? Success breeds tolerance. When the Grouch’s assistant coaches have tried to implement his brand of stern discipline elsewhere, what’s happened? The answer is some pretty awful failures. It’s one thing to lose. It’s another thing to have your players pop champagne bottles or light up cigars in the locker room when you get fired, as reportedly happened to a pair of the Grouch’s former assistants turned head coaches in the NFL.

Again, was Coach Leach a saint? I can’t say yes. In Pullman, Washington, I watched the losers of drills be forced to wear pink, pull-over mesh jerseys. Pink = wuss. That was the logic, screwy and sexist as it was and for once I didn’t want to catch Mike’s glance for fear he would sense my dismay. Nor did the Coach intervene when I warned him that one of his offensive linemen wasn’t gelling with his teammates and looked downright, catatonically glum, a hint that turned into a suicide attempt a few weeks later.

That said, how can you not like a guy who adored pirates and for whom time meant next to nothing? Legend has it that Coach Leach once stayed on a call for 90 minutes with someone who had dialed a wrong number. In contrast, Coach Belichick’s Naval Academy family ties are reflected in the Patriots’ military-style order, rigorously imposed, a culture where no insubordination is allowed, the AFC’s western division Raiders’ eyepatch-and-cross-swords pirates logo be damned.

 

A shipshape, uptight defensive mindset can have its merits in football as elsewhere in life. But going on offense rewards also having other attributes you can call on. That’s where Coach Grouch is vulnerable. For the longest time, Tom Brady could paper over the divide. Not one of Belichick’s Super Bowl victories came before Brady arrived in Foxboro or after he left. Meanwhile, Brady obviously went on to win it all again with the Tampa Bay Buccaneers — oh, no: pirates again — in 2020, right after saying goodbye to the only NFL head coach the star quarterback had known.

In a New York Times Magazine profile of Coach Leach, the Moneyball author Michael Lewis happily described the Coach’s pass-happy, Air Raid offense as “a mood: optimism. It is designed to maximize the possibility of something good happening rather than minimize the possibility of something bad happening.” Not by chance did Leach’s quarterbacks at Texas Tech, Washington State and, finally, Mississippi State all thrive. In Don Coryell’s San Diego Chargers offense, led by quarterback Dan Fouts, the NFL had seen a similar vertical attack mode beginning in 1978. But never had college football seen such an explosion of passing yards, and the idea that fourth down might represent just another opportunity to spread four or five receivers along the line of scrimmage.

In Coach Leach’s scheme, quarterbacks were meant to hunt for treasure on the high seas. The guy taking the snap from center might select as much as 70 percent of the plays being run given Leach’s approach: “You’re out there on the field. You can see the way the defense is lined up better than I can.”

The Gray-Hoodie Grouch doesn’t see the situation like that. What more than anything else apparently caused Brady to leave for Tampa Bay? He wanted to be allowed some input regarding how the offensive schemes would unfold. Out the door went a long-term, successful relationship. In a way, the end of the Belichick-Brady bromance was not unlike how during the making of the Abbey Road album, John Lennon suggested to Paul McCartney that George Harrison’s strides as a singer-songwriter meant The Beatles should move to four songs apiece on future albums. McCartney ignored the idea, cementing the band’s dissolution.

Poor draft picks. Lousy trades. Paying too much for some players and not enough to land others on the roster. It can get ugly fast. At age 71, is it possible that more than Coach Belichick’s arteries are hardening? Lately, he’s been favoring assistant coaches he already knows too well, raising the specter of inbreeding. Might the goal of eclipsing Coach Don Shula’s record for all-time victories be in jeopardy now that Patriots owner Robert Kraft has grown tired of so much losing?

You could never fault Coach Leach for having an open mind, always exploring. Can you imagine Belichick stepping in for a television weatherman like Mike once did during his time in Lubbock, Texas? Who among the coaching ranks ever sought to discuss Moby Dick and the shape of cornflakes at almost the same time? Who else was ever quoted at a press conference as saying, “There’s nothing balanced about 50 percent run, 50 percent pass, because that’s 50 percent stupid”? And furthermore, did so after winning with a game plan that led to zero net yards gained from rushing the ball.

The truth is that Coach Belichick, Mr. Doom and Gloom, can never buy that kind of care-free attitude at any price and wouldn’t attempt to do so. The Gray-Hoodie Grouch is way too busy consigning players to his doghouse for minor infractions of team rules to bother. At Belichick’s inevitable Hall of Fame induction ceremony, coaching giants like his former colleagues Bill Parcells and Nick Saban may laud him. But there’s something small and pinched about the Foxboro Fortress that not even the sweetest words will relieve.

P.S. As nearly predicted in this essay written during the 2023-24 regular season, Bill Belichick ended his 24-year run in Foxboro and did so 15 victories shy of surpassing Don Shula’s all-time wins record. The big shock was that none of the eight NFL teams with a head coach slot open post-season hired Belichick. Maybe if Coach Grouch hadn’t wanted to retain his distinction as the only head coach in the league with complete control over his roster, he might have secured a new job. As it stands, however, Belichick’s failure to resign any player he drafted in the first three rounds since 2013 looms as a black eye, indicative of someone who’s better at diagramming x’s and o’s than deciphering the magic of what makes a player tick.

Daniel A. Hill is the author of 10 books including Emotionomics, which features a foreword by “The Simpsons” co-creator Sam Simon. He’s also served as an analyst of U.S. presidential candidates and debates for the past 20 years for major media outlets, including The New York Times, CNN, Fox, MSNBC, and Reuters as well as the programs ABC’s “Good Morning, America” and NBC’s “The Today Show.” For his work studying athletes for teams in professional and NCAA Division I sports, he received a front-page profile in The New York Times. Other media roles have ranged from frequently appearing as a guest on PBS’s critically acclaimed show “Mental Engineering” to hosting the podcast “Dan Hill’s EQ Spotlight” on the New Books Network (NBN), the world’s largest book review platform. His previous essays have been noted with honor in three editions of The Best American Essays.

 

 

FUN, FUN, FUN!

A Review of Taro Gomi’s Run, Run, Run!

by Scott F. Parker

Taro Gomi was already a household favorite in my family, thanks to his classic Everyone Poops, which we have long quoted and laughed at and learned from. The art in Gomi’s latest book to be translated into English from the original Japanese, Run, Run, Run!, a board book, is reminiscent of his best-known work. Plain-colored backgrounds, in this case white, featuring simple figures in action, in this case mostly running, don’t just illustrate the story but play a crucial role in its telling.

The narrative announces itself from the start: “It’s time to race!” Five children approach the start line and await the starter’s signal. From the moment the gun fires, it’s only a page until the first child crosses the finish line, where she receives a flag numbered 1. But wait, the text tells us, “Running is fun!” Are we really at the finish line already? The book just started. As the second, third, and fourth runners accept their numbered flags, the last runner continues past the finish line. The next several pages see this runner take to city streets, neighborhoods, fields, and forests. If running is fun, Run, Run, Run! asks, why would anyone stop?

Eventually, though, if you run far enough you come back to where you began, as the child in the book does, approaching the finish line a second time. This time, however, a dog that has been following the child since the farm surges into the lead and claims fifth place in the race, bumping our hero back to sixth. This is how far behind our hero has fallen: finishing sixth in a five-kid race.

Meaningless childish silliness? I don’t think so. Or, rather, not just. Gomi’s runner is not merely eccentric. The child understands what the race is and what it’s for but chooses, despite this, to break out of the race’s constraints entirely. The reader’s expectations about the narrative are revealed as this child asserts the right to make new rules. Why can’t a race be run without racing? Why can’t a book start one story only to tell another? Run, Run, Run! is as liberatory to the adult reader as it is perfectly sensible to the child reader.

What could be more sensible, more logical, than to explore the world by foot, to proceed according to what’s fun, to run your own kind of race, to be your own kind of self? Does it sound childish. Great wisdom usually does.

Scott F. Parker is the author of Run for Your Life: A Manifesto and The Joy of Running qua Running, among other books. His writing has appeared in Runner’s World, Running Times, Tin House, Philosophy Now, the Believer, and other publications. He teaches at Montana State University and is the nonfiction editor for Kelson Books.

The Personal is Political as Memoir

A Review of Caster Semenya’s The Race to Be Myself

by Scott F. Parker

In another world, Caster Semenya’s memoir might have told the archetypal story of an athlete working hard with her considerable natural talent to overcome obstacles and achieve success. Needless to say, Semenya did just that in the course of setting numerous records and winning three world championships and two Olympic gold medals at 800 meters.

But in this world, Semenya’s memoir, like her career, gets totally subsumed by gender controversy. For all her accomplishments on the track, Semenya is far better known for her disputed status as a woman. “To put it simply” Semenya writes, “on the outside I am female, I have a vagina, but I do not have a uterus.” This fact was revealed by a gender test given in response to suspicions about Semenya’s race results. “I found out, along with the rest of the world, that I did not have a uterus or fallopian tubes. The newspaper reported I had undescended testicles that were the source of my higher-than-normal levels of testosterone.” The official diagnosis was a variant of DSD (difference in sex development) condition known as 46XY, which is to say Semenya has male chromosomes.

Despite this seemingly undeniable fact, Semenya devotes much of The Race to Be Myself to asserting her status as a woman. Take two typical passages: “I know I look like a man. I know I sound like a man and maybe even walk like a man and dress like one, too. But I’m not a man.” and “I want everyone to understand that despite my condition, even though I am built differently than other women, I am a woman.” The claim lands squarely on Semenya’s sense of identity. She was raised as a girl, accepted as a girl, and understood herself as a girl and then as a woman, and therefore takes herself to be a woman, regardless of what anyone else says: “To be honest, I didn’t care then, and I don’t care now what the medical findings are.”

Even the most sympathetic readers will notice that this emphasis on identification, no matter how understandable, avoids the central question, which is not how we define woman as such but how we define woman in track and field. The definition itself is relevant because women are protected from having to compete against men due to their relative physical disadvantages. A better analogy than to say LeBron James’s genes give him an unfair advantage over his competitors but we don’t ban him from the NBA would be to say that we have weight divisions in boxing to give more people a chance to compete. Following this analogy, Semenya simply has the misfortune of belonging to a class too small to field its own division within the sport. If this is unfair to Semenya — and it is — wouldn’t it be similarly unfair to the other athletes to let her race against women?

If you’d rather gain access to Semenya’s experiences of the extraordinary events of her life than engage such arguments, The Race to Be Myself feels mostly like a missed opportunity. As she writes, “it is hard to think of another athlete at the elite level who has endured as much scrutiny and psychological abuse from sports’ governing bodies, other competitors, and the media as I have.” Yet the book largely neglects the emotional toll that this experience placed on her in favor of defensive posturing. The greatest exception to this tendency comes in the book’s strongest chapter, “Nothing,” which depicts the low period in Semenya’s life after her private medical records were made public. “How do you explain what it feels like to have been recategorized as a human being? That one day you were a normal person living your life, and the next day you were seen as abnormal?” Yes, how do you explain that? I would love to find out.

Scott F. Parker is the author of Run for Your Life: A Manifesto and The Joy of Running qua Running, among other books. His writing has appeared in Runner’s World, Running Times, Tin House, Philosophy Now, the Believer, and other publications. He teaches at Montana State University and is the nonfiction editor for Kelson Books.

The Being and the Doing

A Review of Brendan Leonard’s I H♡TE RUNNING and You Can Too

by Scott F. Parker

Maybe I should consider it a sign. I was walking by a table of books at a church fundraiser when the word running caught my eye. Stopping, I read the full title, I H♡TE RUNNING and You Can Too: How to Get Started, Keep Going, and Make Sense of an Irrational Passion. It looked, from premise to design, a little cute for my tastes. But one term in the subtitle intrigued me: irrational passion. It is one of the motivating concerns of this column to make sense of precisely that. Plus, the book was $1, and it would go to the church.

It didn’t take me long to realize that, assumptions be damned, Brendan Leonard is my kind of running writer: “This is not a how-to book or a memoir of a very fast person who has stood on podiums at the finish lines of races. It will not tell you how to train for a race, how to eat during, before, or after running and/or racing, or what kind of shoes to buy or clothes to wear, or what kind of stretches to do before or after running.” Pausing briefly to remember that some fast people write great memoirs, what I really want to say here is Amen. When it comes to reading about running, give me the intangibles every time.

But Leonard is being slightly ironic in his disclaimer. I H♡TE RUNNING most definitely is a how-to book; it’s just not about how to run a certain way or toward a certain outcome. It’s more elemental than that — it’s actually about how to be a runner. To wit:

Isn’t it more complicated than that? Not really. As Leonard explains, “At some point, every person was running zero miles per week.” Like Lao Tzu before him, Leonard recognizes wisdom disguised as the perfectly obvious: the way to get from zero to more than zero is to start. It’s impossible to argue against such clear insights. But the point isn’t to nod your head, it’s to take to heart.

Leonard challenges our conceptions of what it means to run so that we will be liberated to run. Here he is quoting Bart Yasso, the former chief running officer of Runner’s World: “I often hear someone say, ‘I’m not a real runner.’ We are all runners; some just run faster than others. I have never met a fake runner.” If you’re inclined toward ordinary language philosophy, you’ll see right away what Yasso and Leonard are up to. So many of us are insecure about our status as runners. Are we real runners? But we don’t stop think to about the implied contrast of real in that question. Do we mean that we are slow runners? That we are occasional runners? That we haven’t ever run marathon? Maybe we are slow, maybe we don’t run every day, maybe we max out at three miles. But these are just three ways of modifying what we are: runners.

This might start out as semantic, but one of Leonard’s key psychological insights is that it quickly becomes ontological. Noticing what words mean and using them precisely can produce a change in our self-conception. And that change in self-conception can propagate quickly in behavior. If I am a runner… I run. Or here is one of Leonard’s helpful charts:

The question then becomes, Why be a runner? Why run?

To this, Leonard offers several answers. There is the undeniable: “Either you think doing hard things is worth it to some extent, or you don’t.” The inspirational, by way of Alex Lowe: “‘The best climber in the world is the one who’s having the most fun.’ I think that ethos can apply to anything we do, including running.” The realistic: “Yes, I hate it most of the time, but maybe once during every run, I have a few seconds, or a minute or two, where I find myself thinking, ‘You know, this isn’t so bad.’” Different runners will lean into different reasons. And perhaps reasons is the wrong concept to apply here. We run because running is in our nature. We can but don’t need to tell a story about how it got in our nature. It’s enough just to notice that it’s there. If you do, the rest follows:

 

Scott F. Parker is the author of Run for Your Life: A Manifesto and The Joy of Running qua Running, among other books. His writing has appeared in Runner’s World, Running Times, Tin House, Philosophy Now, the Believer, and other publications. He teaches at Montana State University and is the nonfiction editor for Kelson Books.

On Balance

A Review of Mylo Choy’s Middle Distance

by Scott F. Parker

At the same time, during high school, that Mylo Choy learned about running the most efficient line when cutting in from an outside lane during an 800m race, they “became interested in expressing more with less” in their drawings. This minimalist aesthetic maintains in Choy’s graphic memoir, Middle Distance, which is as sparse in its narrative as it is in its illustrations.

The book, then, is not unlike its subject — running. In the same way that the simplicity of running is the source of its depth, Middle Distance’s simple style creates the space for the rich experience of reading it. There is a whole felt world beneath the surface of this one runner’s outline of a story.

This is not to suggest that Choy’s work is vague or impersonal. To the contrary, the particular details of the style and story are crucial to its success. Choy chooses not to linger on their Buddhist upbringing or their nonbinary identity, but these aspects of the author’s life uniquely contextualize the role running plays in it and support Carl Rogers’s claim that “What is most personal is most general.”

Choy started running in sixth grade when their gym teacher sent the class out for a state-mandated timed mile. Choy’s response was immediate: “I felt free. A new way to be in my own world.” From this day on, running would be a source of meaning and stability in their life. “When I ran,” they write, “I could process my feelings without words, and without anyone else. It gave me the feeling of power in my own life.”

Of course, running doesn’t go only well for Choy. Training for the New York City Marathon, they get injured and are forced to give up running for what turns out to be years before working their way through a long, slow rehab that eventually culminates in their completing the NYC Marathon.

But this is not a story of mind over matter, or the conquering will of the heroic athlete. This is a subtler book than that. It’s about listening to what is and learning how to trust the world and expressing oneself through authentic acts. This period of struggle when they are not running is profound for Choy. They, like many runners, are not the same person when they are not running. And their return to running doesn’t return them to the person they used to be. Running the NYC Marathon leads Choy, instead, to a mature perspective and a mature sense of self that recalls the Buddhism of their childhood. “I never lost my love for running. That love taught me to look for a middle way.”

Choy’s running, finally, is quiet, balanced, receptive, and wise. As is their book.

Scott F. Parker is the author of Run for Your Life: A Manifesto and The Joy of Running qua Running, among other books. His writing has appeared in Runner’s World, Running Times, Tin House, Philosophy Now, the Believer, and other publications. He teaches at Montana State University and is the nonfiction editor for Kelson Books.

Pair of Poet Laureates to Judge Our 2024 Contest

Indeed it has been 50 years since the mid-1970s. In a decade sometimes shaded by the turbulent 1960s, history was nevertheless made. If it predates you, Google it. On the sports and leisurely front, maybe you kicked off the decade “Truckin” somewhere “to hang it up and see what tomorrow brings.” The Miami Dolphins brought joy to their fans with a perfect 1973 season. ABC trumpeted thrills and agonies into our living rooms through the Wide World of Sports. And Title IX opened doors for female athletes.

We want to hear your stories from the 1970s. Or read your well-researched literary essay or narrative poetry. We’re not checking IDs on submissions. Sport Literate will be awarding two $500 prizes — for the top selected poem and best essay — within the broad yesteryear theme. We won’t be prescriptive beyond that, except to say that poets and writers should, of course, be looking at the bell bottoms’ decade through some sort of sporting lens.

Our guest judges, Jack Bedell and Sydney Lea, are both SL veterans and contest winners themselves. They also happen to be former state Poet Laureates. We’re thrilled to have their keen eyes for both poetry and prose on board as they pick winners from our short list of finalists. SL editors will read through submissions and send a handful of anonymous finalists to them for the final call.

Jack Bedell, our essay judge, served as Louisiana Poet Laureate from 2017 to 2019. A professor of English, Jack coordinates the Creative Writing program at Southeastern Louisiana University, where he also edits Louisiana Literature and directs the Louisiana Literature Press. His published work, in numerous journals, has been included in Best Microfiction and Best Spiritual Literature. His latest collection is Against the Woods’ Dark Trunks.

Sydney Lea, our poetry judge, served as Vermont’s Poet Laureate from 2011 to 2015. The author of 23 books, Syd was the 2021 recipient of his home state’s most prestigious artist’s distinction: the Governor’s Award for Excellence in the Arts. A former Pulitzer finalist and winner of the Poets’ Prize, he is the founding editor of New England Review.

Contest guidelines:

• We think the $30 reading fee is a reasonable pot builder.
• All entrants receive a two-issue subscription (a $20 value), beginning with the issue you’re submitting for. Plus, two back issues. Current subscribers can extend subscriptions or gift one to someone else.
• All submissions should come through Submittable (on our website).
• Poets can send up to three poems per entry. Please place all in one Word document.
• Writers can send one essay per entry. Enter as many times as you like. A million times if you like.
• We’ll consider a chapter of a book, though your essay should read as a standalone piece.
• All entries will be considered for standard publication.
• Previously published work is acceptable. Just let us know where it first appeared.
• Submission deadline: midnight, June 30, 2024. We may extend this one time to July’s end.
• In addition to your subscription, you get two back issues — an oldie (of our choosing) and something more recent. If you have a preference, let us know. Otherwise, you get what you get.
• Note: We can mail issues only to U.S. domestic addresses. So if you live abroad, maybe you’ve got a cousin in the States. You can, however, still enter the contest.
• Another note: If we do not receive enough quality submissions, we reserve the right to cancel the contest and return all entry fees. In that case, you would still get the two-issue subscription and the back issues.

Game: A Sport Literate Anthology

Years in the making (literally), Game: A Sport Literate Anthology, features 25 of our favorite essays from our first 25 years (1995-2020). Arranged alphabetically by sport, Jay Lesandrini leads off with his baseball short, “Waiting on Deck.” Mark Pearson’s wrestling piece, “The Short History of an Ear,” wraps up the collection. Coincidentally, both those essays were published in our “15th Anniversary Issue” in 2010.

In between our lead-off hitter and reflective wrestler, you’ll find the work of Anthony D’Aries, Justina Elias, Lucy Ferriss, Benedict Giamo, Linnie Greene, Jeffrey Hammond, Michael J. Hess, William Huhn, Mark Anthony Jarman, Michael Kula, William Loizeaux, Rachel Luria, Lance Mason, Michael McColly, Allessandra Nolan, Virginia Ottley Craighill, Liz Prato, Cinthia Ritchie, Bill Roorbach, Frank Soos, Robert Wallace, and Mark Wukas. It’s full of several of our “Best Americans,” along with their good humor, occassional heartbreak, and really wonderful writing.

To get some of the best of our best all within a 228 page collection, you can order the book for $24.95, plus $5 for shipping and handling. Pick it up through PayPal below.

Should that link not work, send us a message at billsportliterate@gmail.com and we’ll figure it out. Or go old school, sending a check, made payable to Sport Literate, to our Michigan home base: 1422 Meadow Street; Mount Pleasant, MI 48858. Or go new school and Venmo… @William-Meiners-3.