Sunday, July 31, 2011
Monday, July 25, 2011
...are blisteringly idiotic articles about how the NCAA does business.
Look--everyone with any sense of moral fiber and a concept of human decency and decorum has misgivings about the way the NCAA masquerades as a "Scholar Athlete" institution but pimps out their indentured servants as if they were professional athletes, reaping the same financial benefits of professional leagues with the added bonus of forcing the top 18-20 year olds in the country into a free-labor agreement which means that these students netting hundreds of millions of dollars for this conglomerate of major institutions are paid el zilcherino besides a negative-opportunity cost tuition remission. I mean, or something like that.
That still doesn't excuse this sort of inane argumentation. This article by some chotch named David Whitley, employed by the last company to employee woman-beating know-nothing Jay Mariotti, attempts to make the argument that since the NCAA (and the schools therein) function(s) as a corporate entity, there is absolutely no reason to behave at all otherwise in any aspect of their dealings. It also has a lot of shitty jokes.
Enough preamble. Let's get down to biznass:
The sky is again threatening to crash in on the Big 12 Conference. According to hypocrites...
Hoo boy. An article taking down NCAA hypocrites! Certainly he must be talking about how Ohio State athletes caught breaking no-payola rules got to play in the Sugar Bowl because Ohio State is a big money university, whereas the Baylors and Boise States of the world get ass-jammed at the slightest hint of violations. Certainly an article exposing hypocrisy in college sports would be against the sweetheart deals and selective enforcement major moneymakers are privy to, right? After all, any other hypocrisy in the sport pales next to that hypocrisy, right? Right David? Oh wait...
Anyway, Messr Whitley is going to take half past forever to actually get to his main point in doing just the opposite, so let's kill some time playing a new FJayM game I've invented. It's called: "Rimshot or Tumbleweed?" I'll tell you the answers at the end if you feel like playing at home
...it’s all Bevo’s fault.
Bevo is Texas’ mascot and the name behind the new Longhorn Network. ESPN’s brainchild is set to debut next month, giving eager fans nonstop coverage of everything from football to women’s cross country to Mack Brown shaving in the morning.RIMSHOT....OR....TUMBLEWEED?
It’s also giving other conference members the heebie-jeebies.RIMSHOT....OR....TUMBLEWEED?
They are grousing about how the network will be an unfair advantage. Texas A&M and Oklahoma are floating rumors they might bolt to the SEC if something isn’t done to rein in Bevo.RIMSHOT...OR...TUMBLEWEED?
Ok. Feel free to scroll down to see how you did. Let's get on with the asinine article.
After the Texas A&M Board of Regents met Thursday, school president R. Bowen Loftin emerged to express grave concern over the Longhorn Network televising high school games and unduly influencing young studs to sign with Texas.Wow! Yeah...that sounds like a reasonable concern, doesn't it? You're essentially giving the university carte blanche to engage in unprecedented and unfair recruiting tactics. Coaches at other colleges aren't even allowed to have recruits over to their house for a can of soda, but Texas can dangle nationally televised games for high school stars as an incentive for coming to play for Texas? I mean, yeah...that totally seems like it's beyond the pale. So that can't possibly be what the other schools are being hypocritical about, right? After all, a TV deal's a TV deal, but when you use that for recruiting that's pretty over the line.
Certainly Whitley's not saying that this TV deal should be considered the exact same as every other NCAA TV deal, right?...
“If we have an unequal playing field for various schools, that we think is a problem,” he said. “That creates uncertainty.”Oh wait...so...that's exactly what he's saying. Texas A&M and Oklahoma got 20% more money than, say, Baylor with their new TV deal, therefore it's completely hypocritical for Texas A&M and Oklahoma to complain about Texas using their new TV deal for recruiting.
The official school position: Unequal playing fields are a problem if we’re not equal. Otherwise, they’re just dandy.
This whole crisis sprang from the deal conjured up to save the Big 12 last summer. Nebraska and Colorado bolted and Texas was threatening to join the Pac 10.
That conference wouldn’t allow the Longhorns to start their own network. The Big 12 would, and commissioner Dan Beebe negotiated a sweet new contract with Fox.
It will pay Texas, Texas A&M and Oklahoma $20 million a year. The other seven conference members will get $14 to $17 million.
The Big Three also got to split about $20 million in buyout fees from Colorado and Nebraska. Baylor and the rest of the Big 12 got approximately squat.
Does that sound like the makings of an equal playing field?
Not quite, but A&M and Oklahoma were the beneficiaries. Now they’re saying the Longhorn Network epitomizes everything wrong with college football -- greed, self-interest, recruiting overkill.
There’s something to that, but what would you do if you were Texas?Well, shit, I mean, lord willing someday I WILL be Texas. Imagining that glorious day when I AM Texas, I suppose I would probably take the extra money and promotion such a TV deal provides and try to get an edge in recruiting doing it.
Certainly, it doesn't seem to me that Texas A&M and Oklahoma are arguing that Texas is ethically bankrupt in trying to get an edge in a sport where everyone gets an edge. But certainly OU and A&M are right to be concerned with why the NCAA would allow Texas to use a national television network as a recruiting boon. Certainly Whitley doesn't mean to argue that Texas should be able to do whatever it wants, right?
He spent the week assuring Big 12 members that it will be mere coincidence if a Longhorn Network satellite truck parks across the street from the home of a five-star recruit. However that issue is resolved, the Longhorn Network will only make the richest athletic department in America richer.Say what? Look...I'm no Commie...and I don't think there's anything wrong with the best universities getting their own private TV deals that give them a disproportionate financial payout from their higher-demand games bringing higher ratings than lower-demand schools. Considering my Alma Mater it would be asinine for me to make that claim.
So is that wrong?
Not if you’re a capitalist who believes in equal opportunity.
But we're not talking about Texas making money. No one--as far as I can tell--is complaining that Texas is getting more money. From Whitley's own article...you know...the one going on right now:
After the Texas A&M Board of Regents met Thursday, school president R. Bowen Loftin emerged to express grave concern over the Longhorn Network televising high school games and unduly influencing young studs to sign with Texas.
You (presumably) typed that sentence, Mr. Whitley. Where in the process of typing that sentence do you see anything about A&M or Oklahoma complaining about Texas getting too much money? Also from your own cocksucking motherfucking article:
The league gave you its blessing to start a network. Along came ESPN waving a $300 million contract over 20 years. It will televise minor sports, coach’s shows, pep rallies, tailgating and generally be a 24-hour infomercial for Bevo.
It also plans to show one to three football games a year, along with 18 high school games. That’s what got the sabers rattling, especially after an ESPN honcho told an Austin radio station the Longhorn Network would target top recruits for good old UT. Those plans are now on hold as Texas officials try to calm fears.
Bolded for emphasis. Fuck. I'm not going to finish this article. The rest of it is soapboxing about how Texas has more fans and is thus entitled to more money.
No shit, asshole. That's the way the world works, and the NCAA is, above all other things, a business. We get it. I doubt anyone but the most dyed in the wool ostriches with their head still buried in "These kids are kids first, athletes second" sand would disagree.
But Christ on a Cracker, Whitley, you read the article you just wrote right? The money isn't the issue. The NCAA has pretenses to fairness vis a vis recruiting being separate from financial pull. That's the issue. Now we all know that's a suspect pretense, and we all know hypocrisy abounds in the NCAA. But what OU and A&M are doing (and don't get me wrong, OU and A&M aren't pure as the driven snow themselves) but what they are doing is trying to hold UT to the standards the NCAA purports to exact on its institutions. Seems to me that is what any non-moron will see when they see this controversy.
Here's what Whitley sees: "A&M and OU got more money from the Big 12 deal than a lot of other schools, therefore they are hypocrites for trying to hold Texas to the recruiting regulations all other institutions in the country are expected to abide by."
Let me leave you with, perhaps, the most obnoxious sentence in this article, then I'll relieve the suspense you all were feeling and reveal the answers to the RIMSHOT OR TUMBLEWEED game. But first, dickless is going to wax Adam Smith-ic:
What was Texas supposed to do, tell ESPN to give its $300 million to Kansas State?Go fuck yourself, David Whitley.
4.) Totally hilarious rimshot
Sunday, July 17, 2011
Friday, July 15, 2011
There is out of touch, then there's really out of touch, then there's plain batshit lunatic your-opinion-is-so-wrong-I-can't-quite-express-it out of touch. Look, I am as annoyed at the NFL as anyone, and I like soccer a lot, but.... no. No, no, no, and again, no. Shut your mouth, guy.
And only the willfully evil
So if the NFL goes on strike,
It seems that the beautiful game is ascendant everywhere in America except perhaps in the minds of some American sports journalists.
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
He's been in the news lately I guess. The best part about it (by which I mean the only non-stupid part about it) is that everyone has something to say about him, and they're all wrong. Join me for a brief tour of all opinions unsupportable, inane, or both.
Thursday, July 7, 2011
Bask in the glow of Gregg's mind-bogglingly stupid stance on how we should form public policy.
In the case of The United States v. Roger Clemens, the government thinks it's helping somebody. Not metaphorically or symbolically, but literally. The government thinks this is good. This is something we want.
No, the government thinks it's something the government wants, because the government really doesn't want people to perjure themselves in front of federal authorities.
This is helping.
Yes. A conviction will help, because the next time some asshole like Clemens is in front of Congress or a grand jury they'll be less inclined to be like GRRRRRR I AM ANGRY AND I LIKE LYING SO I WILL LIE NOW AND THEN I WILL THROW THIS PIECE OF A BROKEN BAT AT ORRIN HATCH BECAUSE HE'S AN ASSHOLE.
The government thinks this trial will remind everyone -- that's you, and that's me -- that lying under oath is wrong.
Assuming Clemens is found guilty or pleads to something, will it not? Will that result make you say "Nah, fuck it, I'm going to keep on perjuring myself anytime I get a chance. It's a fucking rush."
The government also thinks this trial will serve as a lesson for all you kids out there that steroids are bad. Don't take them, little Johnny Ballplayer. This is your reminder. That's what the government thinks.
Here's what I think about The United States v. Roger Clemens: I think the government's case is run by idiots.
This isn't a Tea Party rant about Big Government sticking its nose into our affairs. And this isn't a liberal plea for compassion toward Clemens, because he has been through so much already. No. This is neither of those.
I don't think you could find 10 people in the entire country with knowledge of the basic facts of this case who hold that "liberal" opinion.
This is steroid fatigue. That's all this is.
I see. The government's interest in showing people that lying to Congress will not be tolerated bores you. Hey everyone, Gregg is ready for something new- can we get some fresh news going on here? Can't the government just let this go and do something awesome like bomb the shit out of North Korea or give free money to everyone?
I'm tired of the whole issue, and I'm preaching to the choir because I know you're tired of it. And the irony doesn't elude me, because here I am complaining about steroid fatigue even as I slog through another set of steroid-story dumbbells.
I'm not tired of it. I want blood! Let's see this fucker get strung up! Eat a penis, Clemens. You're the worst.
Maybe I'm the dumbbell.
Nah. The government is the dumbbell, because this is stupid.
No, you were right the first time. Also- what's with the government worrying about all this terrorism stuff? Ugh, it's been like 10 years. Can't they busy themselves with something else? Terrorism this terrorism that. BORING.
Christ. What a fucking asshole.
Wednesday, July 6, 2011
Here's your topic. Derek Jeter: is he classy? Sources say: definitely. But as there is no statistic for classiness, my basement-dwelling brain that has never played a game of baseball in my life can't figure out how to measure classiness. I'm also going to go out on a limb (this time I'm actually serious) and say that class is the kind of thing you can only discern by knowing someone pretty well. Like, you have to know them better than 99.9% of the people who claim Jeter is classy know him. But I dunno, maybe I'm crazy. Talk me off the ledge here.
Labels: crap about the yankees
Monday, July 4, 2011
You're shitting me. How did they overcome his absence? Shortstops with no range who can rake to the tune of .260/.324/.324 don't just grow on trees, you know. He's actually accumulated -0.1 Baseball-reference WAR so far this year. The Yankees should have been expected to get ever so slightly better simply by having him get hurt.
Saturday, July 2, 2011
According to noted movie critic and cultural savant Bill Simmons, as published on the Official ESPN Spinoff Blog For Stuff That In Many Cases Is (Somehow) Too Stupid To Be Published On ESPN.com, the following people are not movie stars: