Fire Jay Mariotti

CEO of giant company shows joePa mourners how giant companies placate the public after shit goes down

2012-01-27T05:53:00.001-08:00

Nike's Phil Knight spoke at Paterno's memorial service. He delivered a message about where blame should go for the Sandusky debacle that's pure, sweet, delicious corporate PR bullshit. It's amazing.

Commenting on those events, Knight said, "it turns out (Paterno) gave full disclosure to his superiors, information that went up the chains to the head of the campus police and the president of the school.

And when they didn't do anything, Paterno's duty remained fulfilled. Nope, nothing else to do at that point. No reason to follow up , go to the cops, confront Sandusky or ban him from your facilities. Once you've talked to a few people about the problem it's time to sit back, pop a few cold ones, and unfurl the "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" banner.

The matter was in the hands of a world-class university, and by a president with an outstanding national reputation."

World-class universities being well known as the kind of entities that are outstanding at conducting internal investigations into important and respected members of the football program.

Knight added,

With all the empathy Tony Hayward used when discussing the Gulf oil spill,

"...this much is clear to me. If there is a villain in this tragedy, it lies in that investigation and not in Joe Paterno."

/standing ovation

You see everyone, there's no PERSON at fault here. Certainly not the person you're all here to celebrate today. No no no, this scandal is much bigger than any one identifiable human. The problem is with the system! It's the process that's really to blame for all the rape and continued enablement of rape that happened here! It's really all about the way stuff happened and specifically not the humans that let it happen. Put another way: mistakes were made, specifically not by your hero. But isn't it time for the healing to begin? Let's start that healing process by pretending like Paterno didn't do anything wrong. That'll make everyone (except the rape victims) feel better.

To be fair to Knight, he pretty much had to address the scandal in his speech at some point. And saying "Joe screwed up" would have been met with a loud barrage of gasps, boos and fainting women. But this is just comically brilliant message-shaping from a guy whose job demands that he excel at it. I hope the people in that crowd appreciate the magic they witnessed in that moment.

How about nobody writes about Joe Paterno for a while

2012-01-24T21:31:00.001-08:00

There are way too many people out there acting like he endorsed child rape or something, people who want to brand him as only a half step worse than an actual pederast. Those tend to sensationalize the story of Paterno's passing by saying things like HOW CAN YOU CELEBRATE THE DEATH OF A GUY WHO WAS BASICALLY THE WORST PERSON EVER????? Those people are idiots.

On the other hand, people who insist that Paterno was a saint and that his gargantuan mistakes should not be held against him at all are equally idiotic and even more out of touch. Many of these people, like Ivan Maisel, have their fingers in their ears and are yelling LA LA LA 409 WINS LA LA LA CAN'T HEAR YOU. It's fucking sad.

A man's death demands that we look to his life -- not just the last 12 weeks, swollen and inflamed by the heat of the vengeful -- but 62 years of coaching young men at one university. A legacy covers more than 12 weeks.

Yeah. It covers all 62 years, the last 10 of which Paterno spent with direct knowledge of Sandusky's crimes. And yet Sandusky's access to PSU facilities was never revoked. Paterno never did more with what he was told than talk to some higher-ups and call it a day. Fuck you, Maisel, for trying to frame the problem as being one that only matters since it came to light 3 months ago. It's nearly an implication that the real tarnishing of JoePa's legacy is that Sandusky was eventually caught. "A legacy covers more than 12 weeks." Yeah, no shit it does. Fuck you.

The crimes at stake here are two clicks past heinous. Penn State, not to mention the entire State College community, mishandled the Sandusky case in a way that will haunt town and gown for many, many years. People are angry. They want a pound of flesh.

Sure. And some of that flesh should come from the guy who was in charge of the football program this whole time, don't you think?

And that anger has fueled the pumps that continue to spew vitriol at Paterno, even as the justice system in Pennsylvania continues to exonerate him.

This is the most laughable sentence in the whole article. "Has the justice system charged him with a crime? No. Conclusion: LEAVE JOE ALONE, HE DIDN'T DO ANYTHING WRONG!"

The Sandusky case has rubbed raw all of us who have children, or once were children. Paterno, the most powerful man on campus, is one more person who looked and did not see, who listened and failed to hear.

He's one of the three or four most important and powerful people who looked and did not see, who listened and failed to hear. He's not some campus security guard who heard a third hand rumor that child rape was happening somewhere on campus and failed to unearth it. He's the guy who was told who was raping someone when and didn't do anything about it. Don't try to blend everyone at PSU who isn't Sandusky into one amorphous blob of "aw shucks, we done goofed, too bad!" It's pathetic.

But it should not cancel all that came before it.

No one worth listening to is saying it should.

It should zero out neither Paterno's six decades of achievement at Penn State nor his lifetime of leadership and beneficence at the university.

Notice which one is listed first. Say Paterno is at the pearly gates right now (or whatever your mind's manifestation of a place where you get judged in some kind of afterlife is, I don't give a shit) and whoever's working the door is giving him a hard time about how he mishandled this debacle. Which do you think he's going to bring up first, that he was a good leader who shaped and improved a lot of lives, or that he was good at getting other people to be good at a fucking sport? I hate to be preachy about it. But if you're someone who's very pro Paterno and you want to defend him from his attackers/celebrate his life, you'd sure as fuckballs better not start by bringing up anything related to football.

Yet a legion of men, who know him much better than any of his critics, continues to defend him. Some are gray of hair and round of stomach, others are younger than Paterno's five children. All of them wore blue and white. They arose to stand by his side when Paterno no longer could stand up for himself. Paterno was the coach who molded them. He instilled a beacon of light to guide them in their lives. He was the man who made them men.

All of that is very good and important stuff, and it's the kind of stuff that makes Paterno someone who will probably one day be remembered more for good than bad. At the same time, no fucking shit his former players are defending him. It's not exactly a slam dunk argument-ending accomplishment to point out that the guys who were recruited by him and lived and died with him for 3 or 4 or 5 years think he's great. JUST SO YOU KNOW, HIS FAMILY KNOWS HIM BETTER THAN YOU DO AND THEY ALL STILL THINK HE'S SWELL! THAT OUGHTA TELL YOU SOMETHING RIGHT THERE!

The Sandusky scandal has revealed that Joe Paterno missed in real time what may be seen so plainly in hindsight.

It should have been plain as fucking day in real time. That's the problem here.

The scandal has cast a shadow over a brilliant coaching life.

Stop bringing that up.

The 409 victories, while record-setting, are not the full measure of the man.

Jesus fucking Christ.

The young men he left behind, the campus to which he devoted his life, a campus whose leaders shoved him aside in the panicky, feverish days after the scandal broke,

Great drive-by pot shot at those on campus who realized "Oh shit, our coach could and should have stopped a bunch of child rapes and didn't. We're going to have to fire him I think."

also give testimony to the life of Joseph Vincent Paterno.

The whole of his life renders the seismology of modern-day journalism moot.

No, it's not moot. It's one aspect of his legacy. All the good stuff he did is another aspect. As time goes on the media and public will balance them. Paterno fanboys and people who hate ugly truths can say that the pesky media's insistence on reporting the scandal is rendered moot by all the good stuff Paterno did, but fortunately they're completely wrong.

The facts of a 62-year coaching career

Again.

were shaken. They did not topple over.

No, they didn't and shouldn't topple over. On the other hand, to the extent that they were shaken, they will probably remain that way forever (as they should). And the Ivan Maisels of the world will keep sticking their heads in the sand like Bob Costas any time someone says something bad about Mickey Mantle. Fucking sad.

Wow, this was really just an angry downer of a post. Can't wait to see what Simmons writes about the Super Bowl this week. Maybe if I beg and plead with him he'll do a whole mailbag about it (and Tom Cruise, and how good he is at gambling, and how much his readers love him).

Simmons mailbag that was written a week ago? Don't mind if I do

2012-01-19T19:55:00.000-08:00

I can't do any more TMQRs. Not this season. I'm done beating my face against that razor-sharp wall. (Sorry about the line spacing issues. Unlike Murray Chass I am not a professional blogger so I don't really know how to fix stuff like that in html.)

I wasn't planning on writing another all-NFL playoff mailbag until Nate in Phoenix sent me the following e-mail:

"Congrats on your great start in your eternal quest to go 11-0 against the spread in the playoffs. Of course, last weekend's success now means that you'll have to do a second straight all-NFL mailbag. Don't upset the applecart. You have been repeatedly warned."

PLLLLLEEEEAAAAASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE BILL WE LOVE YOU, YOU'RE JUST LIKE US

Q: A thousand years from now, will people build scenes of the 2010 NFL-Draft in front of their houses just like they do with the nativity play now? In the Pittsburgh game, they played in the stadium that's closest to heaven (Mile High). Tebow threw for 316 yards. Rothlisberger's interception came on 3rd and 16. Pittsburgh's time of possession was 31 minutes and 6 seconds. Tebow's average yards per completion was 31.6. Someone named John told Tebow to pull trigger on the final TD. And Demaryius Thomas, the target for Tebow's game winner, was born on Christmas.
— Matthias Lahn, Germany

People who think like this and feel the need to point out their thoughts like this to others should be sterilized. We don't need more unclever people making unprofound observations about mildly interesting coincidences. The world is already stupid enough thanks to the [insert political party of your choice here]s!!!!!

Simmons's answer to that question is kind of funny, it's 600 words about how terrified he was of the Broncos. While it's easy for me to mock that viewpoint five days after the game took place, none of the Pats fans I know were even remotely worried about that game. I have no idea what that means but I suspect it has something to do with Simmons being a fuckass.

Q: The Saints/Lions game is happening as I'm writing this — in fact the Lions are up 14-7 with just under four minutes to play.

In the first half. PROOFREAD YOUR EMAILS, AMERICA.

Game over, Saints win. Why? The camera just showed Stafford with his hat on backwards. Brim-to-the-Back Guy cannot win a Super Bowl, and I don't think there's any way Brim-to-the-Back Guy out-duels Drew Brees in the Superdome.

What a great Simmons premise. I'll bet he loves it. Hey, this has nothing to do with sports- let's break it down!

Has any Brim-to-the-Back Guy won the big game?

Roethlisberger, twice.

Some'll claim Big Ben,

They'll be right.

you can't exactly say he was the leader of those Super Bowl teams.

Aw, he already forgot his own question. Kinda feel sorry for the fella.

You've got your finger on the pulse; you've the mighty combined forces of Grantland and ESPN's crack research teams. What say you?
— Michael Keeney, Madison, WI

SG: This was such a brilliant observation

Exactly.

that, for about nine seconds, I thought about stealing the point entirely and pretending I never heard of Michael Keeney of Madison, Wisconsin. We don't need a crack research team for a verdict here: The only elite QB with less of a chance in a big game than Brim-to-the-Back Guy is Brim-to-the-Side Guy.

Marky Mark? Non-responsive answer that's even less interesting and relevant than the original question. Nnnnice. Quick, bring up Tom Brady!

In fact, the secret of Tom Brady's maturation into a franchise QB wasn't dropping to the sixth round; it was when he decided to stop being Brim-to-the-Back Guy, Your move, Matthew Stafford.

He's too busy banging sorority girls to care.

Q: Please stop referring to defensive backs as "d-backs." It's "db's" or "Defensive Backs." I'm sick and tired of listening to podcasts where you ramble on about how bad the "d-backs" are in the Patriots' secondary. On second thought … nevermind. Keep up the good work.
— Chris B., Sacramento

SG: Thanks, d-bag.

Pwned! Oh Chris B., how does that burn taste? Burny? It's cute how Bill flirts with his readers by making fun of them.

Q: I re-read your 2011 NFL Preview column and counted up your "Relatively Bold Predictions." You had at least one per game, and some with multiple parts, which I counted separately. By my math, you're currently 6 of 24. I'm naming you my "NFL Preseason Preview MVP."
— Alex, Centreville

SG: (Searching for a comeback.)

Oh my! Speaking of the burniest of burnsauce, there it is again! Kobe, Bill will not sleep until everyone out there realizes your probably-deserved 2010 finals MVP was not at all deserved. LOL 6 FOR 24 MORE LIKE ZERO FOR A MILLION

Q: Can we say that a top running back is no longer needed to win a Super Bowl? Here are the last 10 Super Bowl winners and their running backs:

It all adds up pretty reasonably. None of the past 10 winners had what you might call an elite RB except maybe the Patriots in 2004 with Corey Dillon or the Colts in 2006 with Joseph Addai. And Addai is a real stretch. Good point, emailer. Now quit while you're ahead.

Also, the Colts, Giants, Saints, and Packers all won the Super Bowl AFTER losing Edgerrin James, Tiki Barber, Deuce McAllister, and Ryan Grant. Does this make the case that having a top running back, if you are a contender for the Super Bowl, actually hurts your chances?
— Brian R, Dubai

You are the stupidest person alive and I hope you wander into the Arabian Desert and disappear forever.

Q: I just read your newest mailbag. I was disappointed because I spent most of it reading the bold text. You are an excellent and intelligent writer.

Heh heh heh

Your readers, typically, are not.

Boy, I'll say!

I would like to hear more from you and less from them.

Can I interest you in a podcast featuring Bill and his friends guessing point spreads?

Please consider my concerns.
Sincerely, Finney.
— Finney, Clemson

The ironing is delicious.

SG: I'm guessing Finney didn't enjoy the last few e-mails. And for the record — the mailbag is my favorite column to write and has been since 1997. So there.

What?

Q: An idea for the 18-game schedule: each team plays 18 games, but (except for kickers and punters), no player can play in more than 16 games during the regular season. And this should be strongly enforced — if a player plays in even one play in a game, that [truncated for stupidity]

Your weekly solution to a problem that doesn't exist.

Q: Every mailbag I find myself hoping I can make it through without you incorporating the term "nodding" in some way, shape, or form into your response. I have yet to come across someone who overuses "nodding" as much as you. Perhaps for the new year you can find a new phrase to express yourself with (you used "nodding" in the the first mailbag of 2012 — i was holding out out hope it would be "nodding" free, but it's never too late to change, heck, just put it to bed for a month even!). If you do this, I will "nod approvingly." Thanks.
— Edward R., Washington DC

My God. This man needs a job, several hobbies, and some recreational drugs.

The mailbag ends after he makes his picks; no "Yup, these are my WACKY readers!" emails. While I think that probably makes the column better, I kind of missed reading some chode's sex story that almost certainly didn't happen. I WAS BANGING TWO MODELS, I LOOK OUT MY BEDROOM WINDOW, AND THAY-UH'S JON FACKIN' LESTAH, WALKIN' HIS UNICAWRN! I'm also worried about Amy from Jacksonville. How is that poor made-up woman going to know that the mailbag is over?

Fucking idiot thinks Alex Smith should have made fucking idiotic play

2012-01-16T20:35:00.000-08:00

Mike Florio, peddler of ridiculously misguided moral indignation, guy who has the reading comprehension skills of a 5th grader, the floor is yours.

While perusing Peter King’s always-indispensable Monday Morning Quarterback column,

MMQB is completely dispensable (unless you're looking for discussion of designer coffee, the Red Sox, fruit-flavored beer, and The Office). Big Daddy Drew's writeup of MMQB is indispensable (if you like to laugh).

I remembered a point that got lost in the frenzy of weekend football action.

This point got lost because anyone who tried to make it in front of the people they watched the game with was immediately laughed out of the room.

The thrilling finish we enjoyed on Saturday shouldn’t have happened.

In MMQB, King takes a great look at the bowling-ball block from 49ers tackle Joe Staley on Saints safety Isa Abdul-Quddus that cleared the final portion of Alex Smith’s path to the end zone for a 28-yard go-ahead touchdown run.

Really, King's writeup had little to do with the point Florio's trying to make. He just wanted to do some networking during his post by posting a link to King's column. Coincidentally (OR IRONICALLY?????), King himself constantly networks within his columns, although I can't recall him networking with Florio at any point. Probably because Florio stinks, big time.

But Smith arguably

Florio loves misusing "arguably." Unfortunately, there is nothing arguable about what Smith did on the play Florio's about to address.

should have gone Brian Westbrook, taking a knee at the one with 2:11 to play. (And, yes, 2:11 was left on the clock when Westbrook infamously sacrificed a touchdown.)

THAT PROVES HE SHOULD HAVE DONE IT! TEBOW THREW FOR 316 YARDS AGAINST THE STEELERS! COINCIDENCE??!?!?!?!?!!?

The clock would have trickled to two minutes, the Saints had only one timeout, and the Niners would have been able to milk the clock under 40 seconds before kicking what would have been the game-winning field goal.

Game winning field goal, huh? Well that settles it. Good thing that hypothetical field goal that would have gone through the uprights at :38ish would have won the game. The TD "drive" highlighted by the Jimmy Graham catch and run that the Saints put together in real life after the Smith TD took :34. But a game winning field goal is a game winning field goal, so I guess it wouldn't have mattered if the Saints had scored that TD or a similar one after the hypothetical FG. The game would already have been won.

Instead, the 49ers left the Saints and quarterback Drew Brees way too much time — and Brees took full advantage of it. Fortunately for the 49ers, Brees took too much advantage of it.

Looks like the Pro Football Talk editor had MLK day off.

Instead of having to pull the latest Dwight Clark/Terrell Owens rabbit out of their hats, the 49ers merely should have had to keep the Saints from scoring a field goal with roughly 30 seconds on the clock.

Something they doubtless would have done, except for the fact that the Saints scored a TD in roughly 30 seconds in that same situation in the real game. In a tie game, and if you're going to be able to run the clock down to :01 before the kick so that the worst case scenario is overtime, I say don't score the TD. In all other situations, you've got a lane to the end zone, fucking take it or risk being labeled the second biggest asshole in sports history after that one guy who returned the fumble the wrong direction and threw it out the side of the end zone.

Florio's post in its entirety should have read: "Remember that time Westbrook took a knee instead of scoring because doing so meant the game was over as long as Philly didn't fumble any of the next three snaps? Alex Smith wasn't in nearly that same situation on Saturday, but still, that Westbrook play was awesome."

PS- the Cardinals arguably should have let the Rangers score more runs in the game 7 of the WS, because then they could have produced a more memorable finish if they came back to win.

Dear Bill, Please print my question, you're the best, I heart you, we're equally insufferable

2012-01-10T20:39:00.000-08:00

I tried to use <3 instead of the word heart in the title, and Blogger thought I was trying to write in html and crashed. Well then. You learn something new every day. Anyways Bill did a mailbag last week. His mailbag columns are a special kind of Hindenberg, because they give him a chance to show off to his readers just how much his readers love him and think like him. I'm about to take several cheap shots at the people who had their emails published. I do this not because I think it's funny or worth my time to pick on these chuckleheads (although that may well be the case) but because their emails are just an extension of everything that makes Bill Bill. He has millions (or perhaps even thousands or hundreds) of emails from which to choose when he's throwing these things together. And he always picks people who write like him, think like him, and care more about which "The Bachelorette" contestant teams are like than what's actually going on in sports. Sure, a mailbag column looks a lot like a two way exchange, but in this case it's really just Bill talking to himself.

Ahhhhhh, Round 1 of the playoffs. My annual dream to finish 11-0 against the spread.

He's actually off to a 4-0 start (and correctly picked all four winners). He was also seven games under .500 during the regular season. Always sad when you're worse at picking against the spread than a round piece of metal with a president on one side and a building on the other.

My beloved Patriots getting a much-needed week off. Four games in 28 hours.

Madness! It's like a normal regular season Sunday-Monday, but a few hours shorter!

What's better than this?

Conference championship weekend? The first four days of March Madness? The MLB playoffs? The World Cup? Actually we shouldn't count the World Cup since it only happens every four years (BUT FIFA AND THE IOC ARE INSANE IF THEY DON'T CHANGE THAT TO EVERY THREE! JUST LOOK AT THE SITUATION NOW, IT'S BROKEN! MY DAUGHTER WANTS TO WATCH SPORTS SHE DOESN'T CARE ABOUT 33% MORE OFTEN!).

To celebrate, should we bang out an all-football mailbag before diving into the Week 1 playoff picks? I'm on the fence.

Should I spend a few hours fawning over myself, offering dumb ideas to fix things that aren't broken, and recycling the same jokes I've been using for a decade? I dunno, I've got a lot of other shit to do today.

Let's take one or two e-mails from readers and see how it goes.

YOU TEASE.
Q: I was in a meeting this week where the head hancho wanted to chew some people out and burn them.
This email sounds shopped. Or written by a complete douchegobbler.
What did he say? He said, "Sit down fellas, it's about to get crispy!" can we turn "It's about to get crispy" into an everyday saying?
— Michael S., Chicago
Mmmm. Douchegobbler it is.
SG: Great start. Really strong. Just need a little more prodding and we should be good.
"That sounds like something obnoxiously unclever I would say."
Q: Heard you talking on your podcast about adding a second bye week in the NFL (instead of going to an 18-game schedule). Here's my twist: for both bye weeks, EVERY team would be off. Not only would it eliminate the advantage of some teams having better bye weeks than others, but we could call them "Save the Marriage" weekends. Or, we could make a mandatory rule that all weddings would have to be scheduled for those 2 weekends only.
— Mike T., Danville
I can't tell which aspect of Mike's email is more embarrassing: the "It's the end of my world when I can't watch football every Sunday" angle, or the "Wish us fellas could do something about these darn wives of ours, always nagging us and ruining our fun! We're totally incapable of simply talking it out with them and reaching a compromise, so excuse me while I propose a solution that involves NFL executives fixing the problem for us!" angle.
SG: As much as I love the idea of "Save the Marriage" weekend … I mean … no football on Sunday? Come on. That's a little overboard. Allow me to tweak your idea: 18-week schedule, two bye weeks per team … but we'd have to pick one Sunday in October, November and December with a shortened schedule (maybe 12 teams get a bye), then everyone else plays in games starting at 4 p.m. EST or later. Couldn't that work as three pseudo-"Save the Marriage" days? Hey honey, you have me until 3:45 today! What are we doing?
UH OH! THE OL' BALL AND CHAIN IS ON MY CASE AGAIN! Gonna have to spend some time with her I guess. Shucks! Marriage is hard! If only I had communication skills and the ability to stand up for myself!
Embarrassing.
Q: Doesn't Tim Tebow remind you of Tom Cruise? There's a hyper, uber-personality to both. They're both devoted to small, intense religions (Scientology and the Church of Bob Tebow),
Huh?
yet we know very little about what goes on in both religions. Neither person seems quite "normal."
No celebrity seems normal, you fucking clod.
It's almost like both are acting and saying things that they expect real humans would do and say.
Tebow and the hype tornado that follows him everywhere he goes are a lot of things--(often) insufferable among them. But I really don't get a disingenuous vibe from him. Of course, Adam in Tampa's whole point here is not to say anything intelligent or profound but to get published in the mailbag. Accomplishing this goal sometimes requires a reader to write a question involving a celebrity and an athlete and just kind of making things up as he goes along. YUP THESE ARE BILL'S READERS.
Their careers don't really make any sense anymore, yet they're still considered successful.
In what way does Cruise's career not make sense? He was a sort of rich movie star. Now he's a really rich movie star. You are saying nothing at all while talking about famous people. This question sure as hell sounds shopped as well.
Their fans are cult-like in their devotion and their inability to question either.
Who are the cultishly devoted Cruise fans? Teenage girls in the late 80s?
Oh, and they're probably both repress—
— Adam, Tampa
HO HO HO! SPICY!
SG: I'm stopping you right there. Great call with Tebow and Cruise, although you could have added that (a) they both have names that sound like they were made up in a Hollywood pitch meeting; (b) they make the same face when they're running; (c) Cruise's euphorically over-the-top performance as the cornerback in All the Right Moves was a dead ringer for Tebow's euphorically over-the-top performance for the 2011 Broncos;
Holy shit, how are we still talking about this? I would rather listen to Skip Bayless talk about Tebow for a day straight than keep reading this.
Q: We all know that Tom Cruise runs in all his movies.
Grantland: for people who can't get enough Tom Cruise.
He runs aggressively and earnestly. There are countless youtube montages of him running. In MI4:GP (Imax) he outran an exploding Kremlin. But, how fast is Tom Cruise? He's obviously in great shape and does his own stunts, so he can't be slow … but he's also 5'6", so he has short legs. Still, I argue that he's actually really fast. Like a former DI defensive back who's now 50 fast. Not necessarily NFL fast, but still fast. Is there an answer to this?
Code for "I'm as vapid as you are, can you publish this please?"
How disappointing would it be to find out he was actually just average speed?
Not disappointing in any way, shape, or form?
— Max, NYC
SG: You can't answer this question without stumbling into a larger debate that has vexed Cruise fans for decades …
Someone shoot me in the heart.
Is Tom Cruise a good athlete?
Yes, that's what those late 80s teen girls were all worried about.
Here's my take: You know those short guys in high school who stayed in great shape, played D-back in football, served as a co-captain for the wrestling team, tried really hard with everything they did … and yet, if you played hoops with them, they were all over the place?
YES! EXACTLY! No. He might as well have said "Did you go to high school with me? Remember Chas MacGonaghcle, the short athletic guy who wrestled and played football and tried hard but sucked at basketball? Threw up at that one dance? Him."
That's Cruise. That means he probably topped out at a 4.9 in high school, maybe a 4.85 in college, a 5.0 in his 30s, and now, probably something in the 5.3 range, only every time he finishes the 40, it seems like he did it faster than that (only he didn't).
This answer, I shit you not, goes on for three more paragraphs. It's the longest one in the mailbag. My brain is bleeding just from explaining to you that it exists.
Q: Is Tommy Boy more or less funny now because he was trying to save the town of Sandusky, OH? If find it less funny now, in light of the sullying of the name of Sandusky?
— Jeff H., Mableton, GA
Everyone who's seen the movie already made that connection. None except you asked whether it affected how funny the movie is, because that's idiotic.
SG: Here's how I know it's less funny — i am typing so fast tht i don't even care aobut misspellings b/c I wnt to get away from this qeustion so badly.
I love it when Bill meta-writes. Great bit. Lofty bit. Magical bit.
Not bothering to include the question for this one. The answer is all you need.
SG: I still can't believe the NBA failed in San Diego. If I were an evil kajillionaire, I'd build a state-of-the-art NBA arena downtown — only 10,000 seats, suited specifically for basketball — almost like a killer college hoops arena but with a few more suites —
Yeah, with as wild as Chargers and Padres fans are, I'm sure you'd have no trouble packing the place some of the time if the team was playing well.
and steal someone else's NBA team and rename it "The San Diego Zoo."
Oops, nevermind, that's a worse mascot than Padres.
What marquee free agent wouldn't want to play for the San Diego Zoo? Who has a better chance of getting Dwight Howard next summer — the Milwaukee Bucks or the San Diego Zoo?
Maybe the most Simmons thing Simmons has ever Simmonsed out of his Simmonshole.
Q: After watching my Broncos somehow (painfully) back into the playoffs, I had a thought: What if teams could trade their playoff spot? Here's how it would work: any team that makes it to the playoffs with a .500 record or worse would be eligible to trade their playoff spot to any team in their own conference in exchange for that team's first round pick. The cost of the spot goes up (truncated for dumbness)
This is the worst idea I've ever heard, and the NFL playoffs might be the Platonic ideal of something that is not broken and doesn't require fixing.
TELL ME THE DOWNSIDE!?
— Brett, Bentonville, Ar
Like I said, he chooses people who talk and think like him. "Lakers send Kobe to the Thunder. Thunder send Westbrook, cash, a protected first rounder in 2019 and some socks to the Hawks. Hawks send Josh Smith and some scratch tickets to Philly. Philly sends Iguodala and an unprotected first rounder in 2031 to the Lakers. WHO SAYS NO? WHO HANGS UP THE PHONE? I SPENT 45 MINUTES CONCOCTING THIS ON THE TRADE MACHINE, SOMEONE VALIDATE MY EXISTENCE NOW."
SG: I can't. I really love this idea,
Of course you do, you don't give a shit about sports.
If the Eagles want Denver's Round 1 AFC home game, they can trade for it.
Why not? WHO SAYS NO?
Anyway, I threw this idea at my buddy Gus — a lifelong Broncos fan — who texted me back in 1.993 seconds, "Yes. I make that trade. We have no chance this year but good pieces. Draft picks would help us build."
Surprise among surprises that Bill is friends with someone like Gus. I especially like his revelation that if this atrocious idea ever came to pass and the Broncos could obtain draft picks in exchange for their playoff spot, those draft picks, stay with me now, tell me to slow down if you need more explanation, would help the team build.
Q: The best part of reading your mailbags was scrolling to the bottom to see what nutjob earned the last place spot and was granted the infamous, "Yup, these are my readers!" tagline. Why did it randomly disappear? Has your new fancy website changed you that much already? How am I supposed to know when the mailbag is over now?
— Amy, Jacksonville
Well, a good hint might be if your browser window won't scroll down any further and you've already read all the words on the screen. Another indication that it's coming to an end is if the questions stop asking about Tom Cruise and start including obviously fabricated sex stories. Anyways, if it is seen here in its entirety, this is my favorite Simmons mailbag submission of all time. I doubt this could ever be topped. Look at it, it's perfect. It fawns over Simmons, references a lame bit of his, and contains a proclamation that the person who wrote it only ever read the mailbag to enjoy that bit. And then it ends. Just like my patience for this nonsense.

BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

2012-01-07T16:13:00.001-08:00

Jesus Christ.

Deadspin writer not named Drew Magary attempts to talk about the NFL. Of course he fucks it up.

2012-01-04T21:59:00.000-08:00

As you may or may not remember, last Sunday, the Texans played a meaningless game (for them) against the Titan and fucked it up in comical fashion in the closing seconds. No big deal, right? Not so said Deadspin writer Timothy Burke.

Wow, so apparently the guy in charge of Deadspin on the last day of the NFL season didn't know that Houston had no stake in the game. The post was quickly deleted and Burke offered this explanation on his Twitter.

I really enjoy the condescending tone he takes. No need to tell me that I'm horribly wrong because I obviously know I made an error. I just happened to write a blog post, which included a video, and hit publish before realizing it. Brainfart, lol.

Part of me feels like I'm nitpicking, but this is also Deadspin, a website that rips into ESPN, NBC, or any other sports news outlet if they happen to make a slight mistake in any one of the million graphics they use in a day. Not only that, but it'd be one thing if Houston had only clinched minutes before on some vague Strength of Victory tiebreaker, but the Texans made the playoffs WEEKS ago.

I just can't get over Burke's stupid sounding explanation "this is what happens when I don't get to have lunch." Wrong. Writing "their" instead of "they're" is what happens when you don't get to eat lunch. Getting a well known fact wrong is what happens when you're a writer who's more worried about impressing your legion of snarky, dipshit commenter fans than actually following the league you're writing about.

Heyman breaks down a trade, fails to understand the relative value of players involved, cashes another paycheck

2012-01-04T20:11:00.000-08:00

[Note added after posting: as I am only marginally less fucking stupid than Jon Heyman, Chris W had to point out to me that the Cubs didn't even get $3 MM in salary relief. They've got to pay Volstad (or non-tender him, which wouldn't surprise me given how dumb the trade is in the first place) and he's arbitration eligible for the first time. Last year Jason Hammel and Kevin Slowey, two pitchers who are slightly better than Volstad but probably comparable, got 2 years $7.75 MM and 1/$2.7 MM respectively in their first years of eligibility. Put the bubbly on ice, Cubs fans. IT'S GONNA HAPPEN HOPEFULLY.]

As Theo Epstein frantically rushes to establish that the two BoSox titles of the '00s were not of his making (A damaged but talented Carlos Zambrano for a guy who might maybe be a #5 starter on his best day and $3 MM in salary relief? Hot sizzle!), Heyman provides this incisive analysis:

The agreed-upon trade between the Cubs and Marlins of volatile former star Carlos Zambrano for talented former phenom Chris Volstad

The word "talented" needs to be moved back in the sentence so that it's next to "volatile."

works for everyone.

In the sense that it works well for the Marlins.

The Cubs get rid of the volatile Zambrano, who had lost his friends in the clubhouse after losing is way on the mound last year.

Even if the Cubs never wanted him to start another game for them, he's still worth a hell of a lot more than Chris Volstad. It's essentially a contract year for Zambrano. He has a 2013 option that vests if he's in the top 4 in the 2012 Cy voting, in which case you'd like him on your team in 2013 anyways. Otherwise he's gone in 10 months. You eat $15 MM of his $18MM salary and all you get in return is Chris Volstad? Holy moly, how much were the Marlins going to pay if the Cubs asked for nothing but salary relief in return? What a crap trade.

The Marlins give up Volstad, whose great promise has seemed to dissipate the past few years to the point where he was an unacceptable 5-13 with a 4.89 ERA for the Marlins in 2011.

Yes, it "seemed" to dissipate since his very good rookie year in 2008. Since then he's had one sort of barely acceptable season, and two where he was replacement level or worse. 88 starts since the beginning of 2009, ERA just under 5 (in the NL, in a mild hitters park), WHIP over 1.40, bad strikeout numbers, cumulative WAR of 1. Can you say "future 6th/7th inning guy?"

This trade represents a fresh start for both right-handers.

That's true. Could you have thought up that angle on your own? Heyman hopes CBS doesn't think so.

ESPN has SOME shame? Oh wait, no, ESPN has zero shame

2012-01-02T21:52:00.001-08:00

The title is a quote from Chris W, uttered when I linked him to this story. It wasn't that big a deal on its own, nor is event that is the subject of this post, but if you put all these little puzzle pieces together they form a giant mosaic of questionable decisions that contains the phrase WE ARE A BUNCH OF CHODES when you step back and look at it.

There's a great quote from Those Guys Have All the Fun that I literally spent 25 minutes trying to find tonight. For the life of me I couldn't. It's from one of ESPN's top executives, perhaps John Skinner, and the essence of it is "We absolutely do not let our business relationships color our editorial and reporting decisions. No way. The two sides of the network are completely separate from one another." Again, I'm not quoting exactly, but the phrasing is somewhat similar; it's got a "methinks the lady doth protest too much" tinge to it.

Obviously the above link is a nice little anecdotal rebuttal to the exec's claim. An even better anecdote comes from an editorial decision ESPN made last week. If you frequently read internet weblogs on the world wide web you've already heard about it, but I had to make my own post on it so I could use that terrible and unclever mosaic metaphor in the first paragraph. If you somehow hadn't heard about it yet, here's the gist: every late December Sportscenter does a big "year in review" episode. Among the items in said episode is a tribute to those in sports who have passed away in the previous 12 months. Pretty standard stuff. This year, however, ESPN didn't include any hockey players. None.

Now granted the list of people they did include is reasonably short and has some legendary figures like Joe Frazier. But there are also some not-that-famous names on the list. Hideki Irabu? Walt Hazzard? Both guys who left a mark on their sport but were not marquee names. Derek Boogaard didn't have a very long or storied career but his death was sensational and brought some pretty troubling sport-wide issues to light. A couple other active players died, and some dudes who are in the HOF. Meanwhile, the Lokomotiv Yaroslavl plane crash was about as devastating and brutal as sports-related deaths get. Not a single peep from the Four Letter. Hmmmm. Could it have anything to do with this? Five will get you ten that it did. Of course, by the time the Stanley Cup Finals roll around and WNBA highlights are leading SportsCenter, it'll be a distant memory.

MVP This, MVP That

2011-12-27T18:57:00.000-08:00

One of the toughest arguments to settle in baseball is that of the Most Valuable Player award. Does it go to the absolute best player in the league, or does it go to the best player on a team that makes it to the postseason (i.e., the player created the most value by being the biggest reason Team X made the playoffs as opposed to missing them). It's incredibly subjective, and despite being a major advocate of the former, I've little choice but to accept the latter's point of view as....somewhat valid. After all, they're right in the sense that being awesome and pushing your team to .500 and still nowhere close to the playoffs as opposed to like .450 doesn't do all that much for your team except morale and jersey sales. Stuff like this kind of makes that argument look really stupid though.

Anyway, for this year's NL MVP, the argument is simple. If you wanted to pick the player that generated the most wins, it's Kemp. If you wanted to pick the guy who did the best job of leading his team to the postseason, it's....Roy Halladay, or something? And if you want to pick the guy that did the best job of leading his team to the postseason and come from the planet Tardulon where "pitchers" are not "players", it's Braun. Fine. Argue that last point if you want. But don't do it like Tracy Ringolsby. You see, even though you would think a guy wearing an obnoxious cowboy hat in his profile picture would act like he's way smarter than you and have a my-way-or-the-highway attitude towards his own opinions, well.....heh....stereotype's right on I guess.

Thank goodness Milwaukee Brewers outfielder Ryan Braun was able to claim the National League MVP.

That's the way it is supposed to be.

Says you, my friend. Says you. Why don't you go ahead and tell me why?

Braun was No. 1 on 20 ballots and No. 2 on 12 ballots. Runner-up Matt Kemp of the Los Angeles Dodgers was voted No. 1 on 10 ballots. One ballot had Braun's teammate, Prince Fielder, and one had Justin Upton of the Arizona Diamondbacks in the No. 1 slot.

There is no argument over the worthiness of Braun.

Really. None huh? Matt Kemp was the best individual player in the National League. That seems like it's a decent argument!

There's also no argument about the wonderful season that Kemp put together, but it's hard to buy the claim that he was the NL MVP.

Why?

He was the Player of the Year, honored by the Major League Baseball Players Association and by voters for the Hank Aaron Award, which goes to the best position player in each league.

Oh, because he won an award that says he is the best player in Major League Baseball, a set of players that contains the subset of National League players, and an award that says he is the best position player in the National League, a set of players that includes National League Most Valuable Player, Ryan Braun.

BUT THERE'S NO ARGUMENT OVER THE WORTHINESS OF RYAN BRAUN WITH RESPECT TO HIS DESERVITUDE OF THAT AWARD.

He also was honored by the Dodgers, who signed him to an eight-year, $160 million contract extension just a year removed from when members of their front office and previous coaching staff questioned his attitude and wondered whether he could be a part of an eventual contending team.

Could not be less relevant. But at least this sentence didn't contradict your premise.

Braun had a sparkling season. But MVP stands for Most Valuable Player. Put an emphasis on the term "valuable." Why is that so hard for anyone to understand?

I picture Tracy Ringolsby beating his peers senseless with a baseball bat while reading that last sentence.

For all the newfangled forms of statistical analysis that have been developed, there is still one stat that has the ultimate value in baseball, and pretty much any other sport: victories.

And those newfangled statistics say that Kemp was worth more victories than anyone in the National League. That's why they invented things like WAR and WARP and DERRRRP and NERDVAR, to translate player performance into victories.

The Dodgers didn't win. They finished third in the NL West. Players on third-place teams don't even get postseason shares anymore. That's how much value a third-place finish has.

THEY DIDN'T WIN, PEOPLE!!!!!! HOW HARD IS THIS FOR YOU TO UNDERSTAND!?!??!?!?!? I AM ASSUMING YOU HAVE NEVER WATCHED A FULL MAJOR LEAGUE SEASON, AND THAT IS WHY I AM HALF-JOKINGLY INFORMING YOU THAT MATT KEMP DIDN'T GET ANY POSTSEASON SHARES!!!!!!!!

[At this point in writing the article, Mr. Ringolsby stopped writing to smash several expensive items in his living room with a baseball bat]

Anyway, back to reading about what place the 2011 Los Angeles Dodgers finished in. I mean, uh, the NL MVP.

There is the claim that without Kemp, the Dodgers would have finished somewhere in Baja California.

Ah. Addressing the opposition's argument. This is good. Now, Tracy, how would you go about arguing against this claim? How do you assert Ryan Braun's superior value?

This begs the question of how poorly are the Dodgers run that a team with the Cy Young Award winner, Clayton Kershaw, and the Hank Aaron Award winner, Kemp, couldn't even find itself in a pennant race.

Of course. By going off on a weird tangent about how Ned Colletti is a dunderfuck.

The Dodgers were out of the NL West race before Memorial Day. They didn't spend a day in first place after April 4. They were 14 games below .500 by July 6, and never were more than three games above .500.

The Dodgers were a "meh" team that finished in third place.

The Dodgers had to paddle upstream just to inch above .500, finishing 82-79.

The Dodgers were a "meh" team that finished in third place.

The Dodgers were never closer to first place than 10 games after Aug. 6.

The Dodgers were a "meh" team that finished in third place.

They finished 11-1/2 games out.

The Dodgers were a "meh" team that finished in third place.

They had a winning record against only three teams with winning records: Atlanta (5-2), St. Louis (4-3) and Detroit (2-1).

The Dodgers were a "meh" team that finished in third place.

Have you ever heard of being succinct?

Anyone out there think that whether the Dodgers had a winning record against the Phillies or Giants has anything to do with whether Ryan Braun or Matt Kemp should win the fucking MVP???

Good.

(This "stat" of his is even stupider than it sounds. The Dodgers only had 6 NL opponents with records above .500. They were even with the Giants and had the upper hand against Atlanta and St. Louis. In the AL, they only played 2 teams with a winning record and won the season series against one of them. What exactly does this prove, even external to the MVP argument?)

Braun and the Brewers, meanwhile, won the NL Central. They faced the pressure of being a preseason favorite, and Braun and his teammates handled it well.

You know what, Tracy, you can have this point if you want. One can certainly argue that there's more value in performing well in a high-pressure pennant race than performing well on a middle-of-the-pack team. Like I said, I don't agree it should be a criteria for winning the award, but it's a legit argument that's tough to absolutely disprove given the subjectivity. Fine. That's pretty much all you need to say about the Brewers....

They knocked off the NL West-champion Arizona Diamondbacks in the Division Series before being upset by eventual world champion St. Louis in the Championship Series.

....but what would this column be without a bunch of superfluous sentences?

As Braun was quick to point out, it was an award that was about more than him. It was his teammates, his manager and coaches, and even the Brewers ownership who played a role in his claiming the MVP award for the Brewers for the fourth time, joining Rollie Fingers in 1981, and Robin Yount in 1982 and 1989.

"A reason I won is they put a better team around me," he said.

Ryan Braun's response to the media's questions about him winning the award, in no way, argue that he, not Matt Kemp, is the MVP. If anything, putting this comment here only adds fuel to the fire that people besides Braun were responsible for him winning the award.

Kemp put up strong numbers, hitting .324 with 39 home runs and 126 RBI, but Braun's numbers compared quite nicely. Braun did, after all, lead the NL with a .597 slugging percentage, .994 OPS, and 77 extra-base hits. He was second with a .332 batting average, drove in 111 runs, hit 33 home runs and stole 33 bases.

The two were pretty similar at the plate (with probably a slight edge to Braun). Ryan Braun plays left field. Matt Kemp plays center field. That is a very important difference that tips the scales in the favor of Kemp. So don't go the stat route. You won't win that one.

And he was nervous while he wait at home in Malibu, Calif., for the announcement Tuesday .

"I woke up early and went for a drive," Braun said. "From about 9:30 a.m., on I sat outside my home with my cell phone and home phone, hoping I would get a call from a number I didn't recognize."

He got the call.

Uh huh, great.

Kemp didn't, although he did receive 10 first-place votes, 16 second-place votes and six third-place votes to finish second ahead of Fielder, and Upton. Braun, Kemp, Fielder and Upton were the only players who were included on the ballots of all 32 voters from the Baseball Writers Association of America.

Fittingly, Braun won.

"Fittingly, Braun won?" Really? Well, here's what I took away from this article. Go ahead and stop me if I oversimplified.

1) Kemp is the best player in the National League
2) The Dodgers were kind of mediocre and finished in third
3) The Brewers won their division
4) Braun is excited to be the MVP
5) Braun attributes much of the award to his teammates and other members of the Brewers organization
6) Statistically, the two players were pretty similar, however "newfangled" statistics also exist.

And THAT is why it's so fitting Braun won.

Something something something Jon Gruden THIS GUY

2011-12-26T21:59:00.000-08:00

First of all, in regards to my last post, what are two of the eleven front page main sidebar stories on ESPN right now? "Ryan confident in Sanchez, Schottenheimer" (which sounds kind of like "Hitler confident in Final Victory" in a German paper published in March of 1945) and "Giants' Tuck: I still hate the Cowboys." Let's run down my checklist again: 1) nope, no substance whatsoever 2) obviously the Tuck article is nothing but manufactured drama 3) yep 4) yep and yep 5) admittedly, whether or not Sanchez is the Jets' QB again in 2012 requires a little speculation; as for the Tuck article it can go straight to hell and 6) yyyyyyyyyup. Thanks for staying consistent ESPN--please never change. I don't know what I'd do without you.

The real reason I'm writing this and not a legitimate post is because I was busy watching Saints/Falcons all night. Besides the whole Brees record thing, the game had major implications for the fantasy league I run. Wouldn't it be fucking fascinating if I told you in gruesome detail what those implications were and who stood to win or lose money? Of course not; fortunately for you, I have self-awareness than 80% of fantasy football players lack. Anyways, eventually Brees and the Saints did their thing and the record fell. Which led to a funny/sad sequence of analysis from Gruden and the special needs children with whom he shares the booth.

First they heaped praise on Brees. They'd been doing it all game though, so they needed to move in a different direction after the first 45 seconds. They noted that Marino's record was great and stood for a long time. Then they noted that Marino told them before the game that he was happy for Brees (aw shit, you think? of fucking course he said that). Then Tirico noted that while the game has changed and become more pass-friend since Marino set the record, Brees' yards/game is higher above the league average this year than Marino's was in 1984. At that point it was almost like they were talking more about Marino than Brees. Then they cut to commercial. When they got back, Gruden spent a good two minutes talking about how great Marino was at everything and how "No one can throw like he threw." It really progressed pretty quickly from "Let's celebrate this!" to "Whoa, not too much! Let's make sure we didn't hurt the feelings of the multimillionaire and HOFer who set this record when Brees was in kindergarten but also Brees is good too!"

I say this sequence was funny because I legitimately enjoy Gruden. His overwhelming positivity can get old but it's a harmless flaw, not something that ruins a game he calls. It's more of a "oh great, here he goes again" thing than a "I'm about to put golf club through the TV" thing. Along with Collinsworth and a handful of guys (and one lady who does college games for ESPN) whose names I don't know but whose voices I can recognize, I feel he's one of the few color commentators who adds to the game rather than taking away from it. He explains things without sounding like a moron or a blowhard. He's also self-deprecating despite being a Super Bowl winning coach and I appreciate that. So listening to him carefully cover everyone in the booth's tracks and make sure America knows how great Dan Marino is, when everyone knows Marino is great and also that he retired more than a decade ago, was funny.

At the same time, it was sad. What the fuck, you know? Why? Marino doesn't work for ESPN. He didn't recently die. He's not some amazing super charitable person who deserves flawless respect and adulation every time his name comes up. He's a guy that held a sort of significant record for 27 years. It was broken fair and square by a guy most fans like. While my point is certainly not that Gruden and Co. didn't give Brees his due--they absolutely gave him his due throughout the entire game--their tiptoeing around the good name of Marino was obnoxious.

I mean I understand that Gruden is connected to Marino in two ways- they're both in broadcast media based around the NFL (or as I call it, the snake oil business), and they're both former participants in the sport. So obviously one of them is going to watch out for the other pretty intensely. I just don't think this was the time or place to do it. Saying "Marino was great, and played under a different set of rules, but the record now belongs to Brees and it's his night" would have been enough. I really didn't need to be reminded that Marino had a quick release or hear about how all the young QBs Gruden has interviewed for MNF are in awe of Marino's abilities. Those would be good subjects for, you know, a pregame segment about how good Marino was. Why insert that into the moment, you know? Fucking media types.

Of course, at least the moment the record was broken Tirico and Gruden and Jaws got excited. The only thing worse than a misguided ode to the former record holder is something like Joe Buck's call of the final out of the 2008 World Series. With all the energy of someone working behind the desk at the DMV: "And the Phillies... are World Series champions." (Couldn't find it on Youtube, I hope Bud Selig gets hit with a meteor someday soon.) At least THAT didn't happen.

Real post coming... soon? Who knows. Man I'm lazy.

Is this the least worthwhile article in the history of sportswriting? Scientists say: maybe

2011-12-21T21:04:00.000-08:00

Allow me to indulge my Simmons jealousy by making a definitive and undoubtedly comprehensive list of all the things that make ESPN's brand of writing/reporting patently fucking worthless:

1) style, style, style, style.... substance? nope, no substance, but plenty of style

2) manufacturing "drama" from irrelevant sound bites

3) pandering to mouth-breathing football fans

4) beating tired or trite stories to death

5) speculating about things that require absolutely no speculation or even thought

6) spending 90% of their time talking about things that are going to happen and 10% on things that already happened, when it should be the other way around (which is sort of a subset of item #2)

Well, now we have this. I'm not sure I've ever seen all six items simultaneously on display in such spectacular fashion. (Note that I'm not bitching about the New York-ness of it since it's from ESPNNewYork.com.) As Greggggggg would note, Rex Ryan is a fat loudmouth so if the Jets lose on Saturday that's why. Unless they win, in which case Tom Coughlin's red-faced screaming and shouting is to blame. Unless Ryan was wearing more cold-weather clothing than Coughlin, in which case all bets are off.

What I'm trying to say is that ESPN can eat a bag of moldy taints.

Embarrassing

2011-12-18T21:01:00.000-08:00

ESPN employs a few legal analysts whose job is ostensibly to explain complicated judge-y court-y crime-y stuff to viewers/readers. It's a practice that makes sense in theory, but is utterly worthless in reality if they're going to let lawyer/writers like Lester Munson run wild with editorial commentary that's full of total horseshit. That's what happened here. I have no idea who Munson's dog in this fight is; could be federal investigator Jeff Novitsky, could be someone on the prosecution team, or maybe he just hates the judge who oversaw the trial and sentencing. In any case, I don't have much time to break it down but if you want to read the whole thing, just know that it reads like something a government PR rep might write in the aftermath of an expensive and relatively fruitless investigation/prosecution.

Q: Isn't a sentence of 30 days of home confinement a sign that the agents and the prosecutors failed in their pursuit of Bonds?

A: No. His sentence is not the result of any failures by federal agents and prosecutors.

Wrong.

There is no doubt that Bonds used steroids, and there is no doubt that he lied to the grand jury about his use. The problem that led to the conviction on only one count and a deadlocked jury on three counts of perjury was not the quality of the work of the agents and prosecutors.

Some of the work they did was quality. Much of it was shitty. If you're looking for some light reading that might make you think that the investigation was perhaps I suppose not handled quite as professionally as it could have been I guess, try this.

The problem was the refusal of Bonds' personal trainer, Greg Anderson, to testify against him.

If you can't close a case against someone without a key adverse witness's testimony, and you fail to get that testimony, you have fucked the dog. You did not conduct a quality prosecution. This is like saying "We didn't lose to the other team, they just scored more points than us."

For reasons that are not yet known, Anderson went to jail twice instead of offering evidence against Bonds.

Here's a theory for you, Columbo: maybe Anderson's refusal to testify has something to do with money changing hands between him and Bonds (and the fact that the two of them are buddies, sure). Anderson didn't feel comfortable perjuring himself in front of the grand jury so he figured he'd just do his time for contempt of court instead. I'm sure he sleeps soundly at night, and I'm sure Bonds made sure he was taken care of financially during, between, and after his two stints in prison.

Anderson's refusal to testify prevented the prosecutors from connecting Bonds to positive drug tests and other compelling evidence of Bonds' use of steroids. If Anderson had testified, Bonds would have been convicted quickly on all four charges.

But don't follow Occam's Razor on this one, people Munson desperately wants to fool: this is absolutely not the fault of the investigators and prosecutors involved.

In the face of Anderson's conduct, the prosecutors -- who occasionally stumbled --

Yeah.

rallied brilliantly

Brilliantly?

at the conclusion of the Bonds trial and obtained the conviction for obstruction of justice

Which is just as good as a conviction for perjury, as long as you don't care about establishing that Bonds actually lied under oath.

and were one vote shy of a conviction for perjury.

Put that one on your resume, prosecutors involved.

This outcome, even with the light sentence, is a triumph for investigative agent Jeff Novitzky and prosecutors Jeff Nedrow and Matt Parrella.

Jesus Christ. This sounds like a North Korean newspaper reporting on its soccer team's performance in the 2010 World Cup.

The government will not be asking a higher court to change this outcome.

No fucking shit, you fucking spin artist. They already have the option to retry Bonds on the perjury charges the jury deadlocked on. Bonds hasn't been let off the hook for those yet, so there's no need for the government to appeal. Not that they'd be able to buttfuck their way to a conviction the second time around anyways (should they get the chance). If the outcome of the trial was "guilty on obstruction of justice, but not guilty on perjury," you can bet your sweet bippy they'd be appealing along with Bonds.

It is Bonds who will be filing the appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The fact that he's appealing a relatively insignificant charge to avoid spending 30 days under house arrest because he has the money to do it is, again, not something over which the feds should be high-fiving each other. Read the rest if you want. It's fucking bizarre. And sad.

WMTMQR: Still banging my head against this wall

2011-12-13T20:15:00.000-08:00

And the Denver Broncos looked really, really finished when they took possession with 4:34 remaining in regulation, trailing by 10. Denver hadn't scored in the game. Tim Tebow had misfired on 11 consecutive forward-pass attempts. Despite having the league's No. 1 rushing offense, Denver coaches ordered punts on fourth-and-1, fourth-and-1 and fourth-and-2.

And the football gods allowed them to win? Awful inconsistent of them if you ask me. It's almost as if they don't fucking exist, and that punting on 4th and 1 against one of the league's best run defenses isn't actually a moral transgression on par with mid-level war crimes.

Denver has become the NFL's top rushing team, and the running game often starts slowly. In the first half the defense is fresh, and may stop the run. By the fourth quarter, the front seven is tired and becomes vulnerable. So it's not just craziness in these Denver comebacks, though craziness surely is a big factor in the entertainment value. It's tactics. Denver is using tactics that are likely to result in an explosion of yardage late in the game.

Which tactics? You mean "running a lot?" There are several teams doing that. (Even in this PASS WACKY version of the NFL!) And I'm pretty sure the idea that defenses get tired is 1) not anything new, 2) not a tactic that is only likely to work if the offense is focused on the run, 3) not really "likely" to result in an explosion of yardage late in the game; a better choice of words would be "slightly more likely than an offense based solely on heaving the ball deep on every play."

Opponents need to realize this, and "roll" their defenses -- bringing personnel out to rest -- from the first quarter on.

Thanks for the advice, Lombardi. Every team already does this every single game, especially visiting teams in Denver. I don't think it's much of a secret that it's harder to breathe at higher altitudes.

Denver's use of the high-school-style zone-read option also forces defenses to defend all 11 Broncos players on rushing downs. Usually in the NFL, on a rush down the defense defends only 10 players.

And unless they're playing the Panthers, they cease defending the quarterback the moment he hands off the ball. There's this popular tactic you might have heard of called play action passing that is partially dependent on that phenomenon.

Against the Broncos, all 11 offensive players must be defended.

/watches video of Drew Brees handing off and the defense's reaction, then watches video of Tebow running the zone read

Yep. Completely different. The zone read works well for Tebow because he's big and fast and good at it, not because defenses are "forced" to defend him while by contrast they can ignore other QBs after the handoff. Your expert analysis of this situation is a bunch of fucking white noise.

By the fourth quarter, defenders are more winded than they would be against a standard offense.

No. Except for the altitude factor.

And in other NFL news, by the third quarter at Green Bay, the Packers led Oakland 43-7. That means if the game had been played under National Federation of High Schools rules, the timekeeper would have switched to "running clock" in which the clock almost never stops, shortening the contest. The running clock, used when the margin is 35 points or more, is the most common mercy rule found in high school football. The Packers reached it in the third quarter!

I'm not sure that last sentence needed an exclamation point. Plenty of teams have done that to the Raiders since Rich Gannon and Tim Brown retired.

Sour Redskins Plays of the Week: "He held the ball too long." That's what every TV commentator said of quarterback Rex Grossman, who was sacked in the end zone for a safety by former teammate Andre Carter in the New England at Washington collision. Time the play -- Grossman was starting his throwing motion at three seconds. The problem was not that he held the ball too long.

Considering a sack in that situation meant a safety, it kinda was. The QB has to treat that situation differently than if the line of scrimmage is the 20.

The problem was that undrafted free agent emergency left tackle Willie Smith, filling in for the megabucks Trent Williams (suspended for failing drug tests), did an "olé" block, all but stepping out of Carter's way.

NOOOOOOOO! WILLIE! HOW COULD YOU???? Why were you not inspired by every Jeff Saturday who has gone before you? More importantly, what did you do to Gregg to get him to call you out as a shitty player considering your incredibly Gregg-friendly credentials? Also, typical of Gregg to not realize that the real problem was that the Redskins called a play that gave Grossman a chance to hold the ball in the end zone and stare down Santana Moss as he ran a triple move thirty yards down the field.

Later, score tied in the third quarter, New England faced third-and-12 on the Washington 37.

You don't need a sack here -- the Patriots are already out of field-goal range.

Stephen Gostowski's career long is 53 yards. So no, not really.

Nevertheless, Washington big-blitzed.

A tactic that has never worked in football history, except for the three or four times it worked for Dallas against Eli Manning on Sunday night and the four or five times it worked for the Seahawks against Sam Bradford last night (yeah I watched some of that game, what's it to you?).

Gronkowski ended up covered by linebacker Ryan Kerrigan, catching another easy-looking touchdown catch to set the single-season record for touchdowns by a tight end. Just to prove this was no fluke, on the play, Washington corners Josh Wilson and DeAngelo Hall just stood there watching Gronkowski run the final 10 yards to pay dirt.

Neither were nearly close enough to Gronkowski when he caught the ball to try to stop him from scoring. Both would have been flattened like traffic cones in the way of a garbage truck if they were close enough and did actually try. But it's more fun to write from the perspective of GRRR WHERE'S THE HUSTLE THESE GLORY BOYS ARE SO GLORY BOYISH

Sweet 'N' Sour Playoff-Clinching Plays of the Week: The Houston Texans had never made the playoffs. Trailing Cincinnati 19-13 with 18 seconds on the clock, out of timeouts, third-string quarterback T.J. Yates at the controls, Houston faced third-and-10 on the Bengals 23. Incompletion. But Cincinnati corner Adam Jones, who grabbed a receiver during his route, did a theatrical hands-in-the-air gesture, meaning "I didn't commit a penalty." Then the flag flew -- Jones talked the officials into penalizing him! As TMQ points out, football players should never make the hands-in-the-air "I didn't do it" gesture. This only notifies the zebras you did, in fact, do it. Always act nonchalant! Very sour.

Watch football for, like, 45 fucking minutes. You'll see a DB make the "I didn't do it" gesture and not get flagged.

Gregg's editor: "You know Mr. Easterbrook, it's not really good to try to prove all your points and hypotheses with scatted anecdotes."

Gregg: "Huh?" /eats paint chips, makes anti-Semitic remarks

Last year when TMQ mocked the highfalutin flavor claims of wine tasters -- notes of "buttered toast" was my favorite -- oenophiles protested that tasting terms don't mean a drink actually tastes like toast or fruitcake, they signify the presence of flavors that aficionados recognize. Maybe. I still doubt most wine snobs could tell a merlot from a cabernet in a blind tasting, let alone identify "aftertaste of pomegranate."

Whoa, twat-on-twat crime. Brutal. Usually they all stick together. They must have kicked Gregg out of their bridge club or something.

Everyone knows the San Diego Chargers turn it on as the holidays approach, and they are 34-17 in December in the past decade. But the team that owns Christmas month is the New England Patriots, who are 42-7 in December in the same span.

Interesting- two of the best regular season teams of the last ten years have also been good at the end of the regular season. Sounds crazy but I'll hear you out. It's a free country.

Possibly this is because while other NFL teams move to their practice bubbles when the weather turns nasty, the Flying Elvii continue to practice outside.

Or because the Patriots have had a Hall of Fame quarterback, a great coach, and plenty of other great players for the past decade.

The worst Decembers of the past decade are Detroit (13-37) and Oakland (16-35). Detroit is always indoors at home, Oakland's home offers ideal weather. Both teams fold when it's cold outside.

Both teams have folded at every possible opportunity during every month of the season for the past decade. But I like your theory too, it's a lot more clever and wrong.

Lend Me a Tight End! Four NFL teams -- Green Bay, Houston, New England and New Orleans -- routinely use multiple tight end sets. Their combined record is 43-9. Why does the rest of the league not notice? P.S.: It's working for Stanford, too.

Yeah, other teams! Just sign Rob Gronkowski and Aaron Hernandez, or Owen Daniels and Joel Dreessen! It's not that hard- how are you too stupid to figure it out?

Arizona leading San Francisco 21-19 with 2:14 remaining in the fourth quarter, the Squared Sevens,

Gahhhhhhhhhhh

one of the league's best rushing teams, faced third-and-1 near midfield. San Francisco went incompletion, incompletion, game over. On the day, the Forty Niners averaged 4.3 yards per rush and 3.4 yards per pass attempt. Why, with the game on the line and just one yard to gain, not rush?

Yeah! It's not like that yards per rush figure came from plenty of runs on 1st and 10, or 2nd and 3, or dozens of other down/distance combinations that don't involve a defense that's got 8 guys in the box! It's science: if you gain 4.3 yards per rush, every rush will result in 4.3 yards. Come to think of it, the 49ers should have simply run on every play- they'd have scored a touchdown on every possession. It's so simple.

I love Charles Barkley, I just wish blogs would stop posting about him

2011-12-09T15:12:00.002-08:00

As the Bears try to stop Tim Tebow from his sixth straight victory on Sunday amid a fever pitch of attention on the polarizing Denver Broncos quarterback, Charles Barkley made a plea to Chicago: Stop the madness.

"I want to make a personal plea to Lance Briggs, Brian Urlacher, Mr. [Julius] Peppers, please stop the madness," Barkley said Friday on "The Waddle & Silvy Show" on ESPN 1000.

OK, so you were on ESPN radio talking about Tebow.

"I'm just so tired ...

And you're tired of hearing about Tebow?

I like Tim Tebow. He seems like a good kid, and I wish him success, but I am Tebowed out."

That's fair enough, but aren't you just-

"It's clearly a media-driven story," Barkley said. "They just want you to argue about Tim Tebow. Dude, let the kid play."

Again.

"It's clearly a media-driven story," Barkley said. "They just want you to argue about Tim Tebow. Dude, let the kid play."

And one more time.

"It's clearly a media-driven story," Barkley said. "They just want you to argue about Tim Tebow. Dude, let the kid play."

Words fail me.

"If he can play, good. If he can't play it will show. But to have this argument every single day after five or six games is just ridiculous.

"Tim Tebow is a good player. I wish him luck, but if I don't ever hear the words Brett Favre or Tim Tebow again it won't be enough."

ENOUGH ALREADY! Stop it with the Tebow, media members using media to distribute their opinions about Tebow all the time! If you media types would just shut up about the guy Chuck would really appreciate it. To be fair, he obviously said all this in response to someone asking him his Tebow-related thoughts so it would be kind of hard to avoid the issue. On the other hand, my man Drew Rosenhaus knows a little something about how to convey that you don't want to answer something. All you have to do is command the questioner to ask the next question.

ThMTMQR: Just when I was ready to leave him alone

2011-12-08T02:22:00.000-08:00

Holy squashed bear balls, this is one of Gregg's worst (or best?) performances ever. He outdoes himself several times on several familiar topics. Man. Whew. (Larry B slowly runs hand over top of head while puffing cheeks out) This reads like a "best of" clip column. I almost don't know where to begin.

What are the Packers' secrets? First, the personnel:

Note his use of the word "secrets."

• Great players:

WHOA! TED THOMPSON, YOU'VE BEEN EXPOSED! BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD, THE CAT IS OUT OF THE BAG!

All championship teams must have a few. Rodgers and Charles Woodson will be Hall of Famers. If they continue to perform at their current levels, Clay Matthews and B.J. Raji could be, too. Donald Driver and Chad Clifton have had great careers, and Greg Jennings is getting into that territory.

• Undrafted players:

The only surprise is that he didn't list this ahead of "Great players."

The Packers have 16 on their roster --

I'm not going to look it up, but I'm going to guess that's just about par for the course for most teams.

Jarrett Bush, Tom Crabtree, Evan Dietrich-Smith, Ray Dominguez, Rob Francois, Brett Goode, Ryan Grant, John Kuhn, Jamari Lattimore, Tim Masthay, Brandon Saine, Sam Shields, Shaky Smithson, Vic So'oto, Tramon Williams and Frank Zombo. Football is a team sport,

And most of those guys contribute to the team by making four special teams tackles a year while high-drafted megabucks glory boys Rodgers, Jennings, Raji, and Woodson (all first rounders besides Jennings) make all the plays.

and for team sports, little-known role players are as important as great players.

In the sense that you need some on your roster to make special teams tackles so your star players don't get hurt covering punts, yes.

Unlike highly drafted crybabies who think the rules don't apply to them -- Exhibit A, the Detroit Lions --

How predictable. How fucking predictable, you know? Didn't hear a lot about the Lions and their highly-drafted crybabies when they were tearing shit up earlier this season. Now that they've hit a rough patch he's right there to tell us all about it. Gregg Easterbrook : the Lions :: Jay Mariotti : every team in Chicago and everywhere else.

undrafted players listen to the coaches and give you what they've got.

Shoot me in the fucking eyeballs.

• Home-grown:

Largely irrelevant. Good players are good players are good players. Building through the draft is sometimes cheaper than using free agency, and always a source of pride for the fans (especially mouth-breathing bulldozers like Packer fans) but no more a secret to fielding a championship team than "having a historic stadium" is.

Many Green Bay players were late choices, selected by a point in the draft where many teams were just winging it.

No need to justify your point with examples! That takes lots of work.

• Green Bay won the Brett Favre mess: Had the Packers not shown Favre the door, Rodgers would have departed. Offloading the franchise's most accomplished player was wrenching.

Sure. Still not a secret. "Hey, they traded away a legend because he was getting old and there was a capable replacement waiting in the wings. Maybe if the Rams could figure that out for themselves they wouldn't be so terrible!"

Leaders make decisions for the future rather than the present -- if only those in Washington, D.C., thought this way --

Look at those clowns in Washington, clowning everything up with their clowniness LOL

and Green Bay made a smart decision for the future regarding Favre.

• The only NFL roster with five tight ends, as TMQ has noted before: Green Bay has five tight ends, and has won 18 straight games. Why don't other NFL teams notice this rudimentary fact?

Because simply signing more tight ends won't make your team better unless those tight ends are actually good? The Lakers won titles in 2009 and 2010 while starting two 7 footers- WHY CAN'T OTHER TEAMS NOTICE HOW SIMPLE IT IS?!??! Just sign two tall guys, sit back, and collect your ringzzzz

Multiple tight ends allow for multiple offensive sets that confuse defensive game plans. All contemporary defensive coordinators have some experience dealing with multiple wide receiver sets. Most don't have experience dealing with multiple tight end sets.

If by "multiple" you mean two, you're patently wrong. If you mean three or more, you're still wrong.

• Aaron Rodgers:

Already listed, and the opposite of a secret.

Plus Rodgers is handsome. Just as the football gods are propitiated by cheerleaders with sex appeal, the gods also smile on handsome quarterbacks. Rodgers, Tom Brady, Cam Newton, Drew Brees -- it may not be fair, but this seems to be the way it is.

Explain John Elway then.

There are two other big factors:

• Mystique: The Packers have won four Super Bowls, 13 conference and/or league titles. Green Bay has the oldest consistent winner in football. The place is Titletown. Vince Lombardi is looking down. The Packers exist in a college-town atmosphere -- they are even the sole NFL franchise with college cheerleaders, not professional cheerleaders, on the sidelines. The aura around the Packers is unmatched by any other NFL organization.

The Saints just won a Super Bowl. The Cardinals were two minutes from winning one. Who gives a shit?

• Bicycles: Packers players ride bicycles to the opening of camp, an annual summer ritual attended by thousands of children. Cheesy? Well, it is Wisconsin. Corny? Gets the season off on a fun note.

My God.

In his seven weeks of starting, Tebow has committed just three turnovers. Eagles quarterbacks Michael Vick and Vince Young have 13 turnovers in the same period; Ryan Fitzpatrick has 12 turnovers in same period.

That's undrafted all effort no glamour Harvard alum (chip chip cheerio I have a cleft asshole!) Ryan Fitzpatrick to you, buster.

Sour Play of the Week: Godfrey Daniel, what happened at the end of regulation in Arizona? Game tied, Dallas completed a pass to the Cardinals' 31 with 26 seconds remaining, holding two timeouts. Then Garrett appeared to ice his own kicker by calling timeout just before his team's kick was launched -- good, but wiped out by the coach's timeout. Dallas kicked again and this time missed; Arizona prevailed in overtime. Godfrey Daniel!

Any clue as to who or what Godfrey Daniel is? Me neither. So I Googled. Topical.

Several times during the contest, Newton ran the zone-read option play. Considering Newton and Tebow, this action is advancing from gimmick to standard NFL strategy.

Two out of thirty two teams (the only two with big QBs who ran as much as they passed in college) are using it? Sounds commonplace to me!

So when big-college sports programs hire coaches, appeal to the TV audience may mean a lot more than technicalities such as having players in class and getting their degrees. Ohio State just hired Urban Meyer, who has proven TV marketing appeal. According to the News-Suns of Springfield, Ohio, Meyer's contract includes maximum annual bonuses of $550,000 for victories and $150,000 for players' academic achievements. This suggests that football is 3.7 times more important than education at Ohio State.

Are you kidding me? Only 3.7 times? If I were dean of students at tOSU and the university officially announced that figure I'd pop some champagne. I wouldn't be surprised if they shut down their entire academic arm (except student athlete support services) within the next ten years and just focused on sports. How much money does the chemistry department bring to the university? Thought so.

Stop Me Before I Blitz Again! St. Louis blitzed seven; San Francisco threw a 56-yard touchdown pass to Kyle Williams for the icing score. Arizona blitzed seven; Dallas threw a 5-yard touchdown pass to Dez Bryant.

There's your weekly anecdotal evidence that blitzing never works and should be discarded.

Sure, the blitz sometimes produces a big play for the defense -- New Orleans got a sack against Detroit by rushing seven.

Whoa! From out of nowhere! What's with this new fair and balanced approach?

But on the big blitz, a big play for the offense is as likely.

It's a 50/50 proposition, folks. Close the book on that one. No further research need be done. Well, maybe one anecdote just to really get the point home.

The 36-yard late third-quarter catch by Tony Scheffler that put Detroit back into its game at New Orleans came against a mega-blitz.

Yyyyyyyup. 50/50.

Washington has not only put the younger generation on the hook for at least $14 trillion in debt -- now young Americans may end up on the hook for money squandered in Europe. TMQ asks again: Why aren't voters under age 30 outraged about this?

They're too busy being enraged about minor changes to Facebook?

/shakes fist at damn neighborhood kids playing on his lawn

Manly-Man Play of the Day: Tennessee led Buffalo 17-10 midway through third quarter, Flaming Thumbtacks facing fourth-and-1 on the Bills' 18. Tennessee went for it and converted. The result of the drive was still a field goal, but Titans coach Mike Munchak sent his players a message that he was challenging them to win, as they did.

And there's your weekly anecdote that going for it on 4th down is a great idea no matter what every time. Even when you do it from your own 29 in overtime and fail. If the Falcons make the playoffs, you can bet your house, dog, and savings that Gregg will attribute it to that loss against the Saints. If they don't make the playoffs, you can bet those same items that Gregg will fail to mention it but will also continue to point out that cheer-babes are mega hott (especially when they don't wear much clothing!).

Arkansas finished sixth in the BCS, ahead of Boise State, is a megabucks insider school, yet didn't reach the BCS either. In the Razorbacks' case, because LSU and Alabama made the title tilt, by BCS rules no other SEC school could enter. But that shows the BCS isn't entirely rigged -- Arkansas, an insider, is out.

I cannot think of a stupider conclusion to draw from those facts. Not one. You could use them to conclude that it was actually space aliens who assassinated JFK and you'd still be closer to right than Gregg.

Skins-Jets note: Pass rush specialist Aaron Maybin, who had zero sacks in two seasons at Buffalo, has six sacks in his first nine games with Jersey/B, leading Rex Ryan's pressure-obsessed defense in the category. Maybin hit Rex Grossman to force the fumble that turned the game in the Jets' favor.

Buffalo used the 11th overall selection of the 2009 draft on Maybin, then rarely let him on the field, criticized him relentlessly in public, then waived him early this season. Nonsensical? Not if Buffalo's new front office, which took over shortly after the Maybin choice, is more concerned with protecting its high-paid jobs than with winning.

1) And there's your weekly reminder that Gregg actually thinks coaches do things besides try to win.

2) I love when he has to grapple with the resume of a player like Maybin, who was a mega-bucks first round pick but was also waived.

The Bills are 5-7 and last in the NFL in sacks. If everything about their season was the same except they'd simply kept Maybin, the Bills might be in the playoff hunt.

No.

But to the coach and general manager, lining up excuses for losing was the first priority.

Also no.

Undrafted Quarterback Plays of the Day: Undrafted Miami quarterback Matt Moore threw a touchdown pass

Undrafted because he transferred, got hurt a lot, and only had one quality college season.

to undrafted Miami receiver Davon Bess

Undrafted because he's tiny and not that fast. Although I admit that that shouldn't have been the case.

versus Oakland. Undrafted Tyler Palko threw a touchdown pass against Chicago.

And what an artful touchdown pass it was! I'm sure he planned to throw it off Brian Urlacher's hands and into the waiting stomach of Dexter McCluster. Just a few paragraphs later, in his "Hell's sports bar" bit:

They endlessly re-saw Kansas City getting its sole touchdown on a fluke Hail Mary on the final snap before the first half.

YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS GRRRRRRRR

In the Carolina-City of Tampa game, undrafted quarterback Rudy Carpenter, called up from the practice squad just hours before the contest,

And now we're congratulating undrafted QBs for successfully handling snaps.

handed off to undrafted tailback LeGarrette Blount.

Who went undrafted because everyone thought he was too small and untalented to make it in the NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE. Or perhaps everyone realized that he was incredibly talented but was also a loose cannon asshole who punched an opponent in the face on the field after a loss. (Not that that Boise State guy didn't deserve it. I'm sure he did.) One or the other.

Class of 1983, Meet Class of 2012: Sports touts, and Indianapolis Colts faithful, are focused on the destiny of Andrew Luck in the 2012 draft. Landry Jones will be available too.

Landry Jones is fucking terrible. I'm pretty sure Oklahoma State's good-not-great defense made that clear on Saturday.

Matt Barkley may come out of college, and this season he's looked like he was expected to look when he was the most sought-after prep player in the country. Don't forget Case Keenum,

Probably not NFL material

Russell Wilson

Probably not NFL material

and Robert Griffin,

OK, he rules

all of whom have spectacular touchdown-to-interception ratios.

That's six quarterbacks with a legit shot of going in Round 1, plus a realistic shot of at least one Hall of Famer among them.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA. That's great. There are 23 QBs in the HOF from the modern era, only 11 of whom entered the league during the Super Bowl era and only 9 of whom took a snap after 1980. Luck seems pretty awesome. Those other guys could be anywhere from pretty great to Alex Smith to Matt Leinart. Happy hunting, teams with a QB vacancy next spring. Gregg realistically likes your chances.

UH OH! This literally worries me

2011-12-05T20:15:00.000-08:00

If you're in the greater Jacksonville area tonight (and good gravy I hope you aren't because that's a shitty place to be), watch out for a flying Ron Jaworski. During the fourth quarter of tonight's broadcast he announced that he was

literally blown away (!!!)

by the play of rookie QBs this year. Then they went through a sequence of graphics that showed the stats accumulated by Andy Dalton, Christian Ponder, and Blaine Gabbert, and Ron was forced to admit that OK fine it's really just Dalton. Dalton's been good--good enough to cause a fat old man to go airborne? Apparently.

Also, left the TV on ESPN after the game and subjected myself to about eight minutes of Sportscenter before Stu Scott's vocal mannerisms caused me to turn it off. In those eight minutes I learned that Robert Smith's Heisman ballot (he actually has a vote, this isn't just a bit for the show) goes as follows:

1) Trent Richardson

2) Montee Ball

3) R. Griffin III

I guess that's what Andrew Luck gets for playing on the west coast and for not having any flashy wideouts (at least after Chris Owusu went down) who can catch 80 yard bombs and make him look super duper badass. Cue up Brent Musberger lamenting Luck's failure to "give us a Heisman moment!!!!!" But yeah, if he's not top three on your ballot... you and Robert Smith can go soak your heads together.

Shit like this just makes me happy that spring training is 11ish weeks away

2011-12-05T08:48:00.000-08:00

I wanted to post something extensive about the BCS title game mess but sadly I couldn't really find anything worth wholeheartedly attacking. My stance: it's annoying that the game is a rematch, I would rather have seen Oklahoma State, but it's not the greatest injustice in the history of sports. (What is that greatest injustice, you ask? Easy. Jimmy Rollins over Matt Holliday for 2007 NL MVP.)

Anyways, the two closest calls came over at CBSSports, where Dennis Dodd wrote a piece titled "Blame voters -- not SEC -- for having LSU, 'Bama in title game." A bold stance to be certain. What? Voters (and really, you can call the people who organize the computer rankings voters too given how screwed up some of their results are and the fact that they don't have to disclose their formulas if they don't want to) are responsible for the championship game matchup? I was ready to blame greedy Wall Street bankers, illegal immigrants, and the moon. But then the article had some good points; Okie State had the better resume, but the SEC has a lot of street cred and voters are influenced by that. It also pointed out that most SEC fans are insufferable cunts--can't go wrong with that one. (Not you, Biggest Ruckus. You're cool.) So Dennis is off the hook this time.

Troll extraordinaire Gregg Doyel wrote a similar piece about how Okie State got screwed simply because they don't play in the SEC. He wandered all over stupidland to make his points, my favorite part being:

Because Alabama is in the SEC, and the networks love the SEC. They have reason to, given the top-dollar TV contracts given to the SEC, but it's more subtle than that. Familiarity breeds appreciation, which explains the unfathomably bad songs that make it into the Top 40. Why are they there? Because the radio plays them. Why does the radio play them? Because they're in the Top 40. It's a vicious cycle that has resulted in Katy Perry in your eardrums, and Alabama in your favorite bowl game.

LEAVE KATY PERRY ALONE! SHE HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS! But like Dodd, Doyel had some points. So yeah, it is what it is. The whole BCS hierarchy continues to be at best fucking worthless and at worst a corrupt money-funneling scheme for big bowl and big conference execs. I bet we have a playoff system of some kind within ten years, because any time the season doesn't end with two and exactly two undefeated teams, there's going to be a shitstorm. But it'll take a while for people (execs of the non-AQ conferences, powerful coaches, NCAA execs who aren't greedy assholes oh wait there probably aren't any) to get angry enough to actually do something about it.

Really, I'm just pissed that LSU won and Houston lost this weekend. Because of one or both of those things didn't happen, man, we'd have really seen some quality (and justified) bitching and moaning today. Sigh. Maybe next year. In the meantime: TEBOW TEBOW RODGERS PACKERS NFC EAST LOGJAM STEELERS RAVENS TEBOW JIM HARBAUGH PEYTON MANNING'S BABYNECK SAINTS TEBOW WILD CARDS GRONKOWSKI BRADY TEBOW TEBOW!!!!! And that, plus a little NHL and NBA regular season ACTION ACTION ACTION have to get us through until mid-February. No, I will not acknowledge regular season college basketball.

Note to pretty much every football commentator on every network

2011-12-02T21:08:00.000-08:00

"Dynamic" does not mean talented, skilled, or awesome. In fact, saying someone is a DYNAMIC FOOTBALL PLAYER OUT THERE ON THE FOOTBALL FIELD isn't really much of a compliment at all. Now of course it's not an insult either. But just because it has three syllables and sounds cool when you say it doesn't mean you blithering idiots need to use it forty times a game. Thanks.

Also, was subjected to an avalanche of FOX promos while watching the Pac 12 Championship Game tonight. Turns out they're debuting a Napolean Dynamite cartoon in January. Big ups to whoever greenlit that project; it's a mere six years too late to piggyback on the moderate success of the movie. Can't wait for them to roll out a Wedding Crashers single camera reboot next fall.

The only people I hate more than sportswriters are TV and movie executives. MOAR REMAKES AND SEQUELS PLZ

I have literally (LITERALLY literally!) been waiting 32 months to write this post

2011-11-28T20:07:00.000-08:00

[In the words of Bart Scott, this post goes out TO ALL THE NONBELIEVERS. Yeah, FireJay may have seen much better days, but we're not dead yet. We're just slowly bleeding out. And we'll stop breathing only when we're good and ready.]

Give Bill Simmons credit where credit is due: he knows a lot about whether or not he is acquaintances with Jimmy Kimmel. He also sometimes occasionally bumblefucks his way into some half decent NBA analysis. In February of 2009, he wrote an article about how (and to what extent) the NBA's revenue system was broken and what fans could expect when the then-current collective bargaining agreement expired in the summer of 2011. He was right in a lot of ways; the CBA was awful for the owners, the owners were pretty awful at managing their finances regardless of the content of that CBA, and trouble was brewing.

Had he left his analysis there I wouldn't be writing this. But I remember reading his article and chuckling at some of his dire predictions regarding how things would shakeout in the aftermath of the impending lockout. I said to myself, "Assuming I don't die in a tragic sex accident between now and the fall of 2011, I'm going to rip this apart one day." And sure enough, I managed to completely avoid any and all sexual activity between then and now. Women don't dig basements I guess. Anyways, let's take a trip back to February of 2009 and look at Bill's analysis of "The No Benjamins Association." See, the problem wasn't Bill's premise- it was the comical hyperbole and scare tactics he used to try to support it. I usually don't link to Simmons (or anyone, really) but since this article is so old I'll buck the trend this one time.

I skipped my annual NBA All-Star Weekend column because I was frantically trying to finish my book. At least that's how I rationalized it. I need to finish this book. I have a deadline. I can't afford to spend that writing time on anything else. But after reflecting for a few days, I came to a sobering conclusion: The book was a convenient excuse. I could have found time to pump out that column. I just didn't want to hand it in.

See, it wouldn't have been a typical All-Star Weekend account for me. It would have been about money. You might remember me writing that the NBA was the No Balls Association two years ago.

Man, did I enjoy that column.

Now it's the No Benjamins Association. Nobody is rolling in Benjamins anymore. Everyone is scared. Money hangs over everything.

Funny twist- the theme of his whole article then was about how the NBA was triple fucked because of money, money, money. And then this week one of Bill's hand picked Grantland writers released a piece about how the lockout was never about money; it was purely about power. I will not set myself on fire while telling you stories about my kids and trips to Vegas with my friends.

[Ten paragraphs about how the league is financially screwed combined with anecdotes about how ZANY Celtics fans are when they visit other teams' arenas omitted.]

Yet declining attendance isn't even one of the league's four biggest problems right now. I would rank the top four like this:

1) Len Bias- still dead

2) Zombie Sonics! Or something!

3) Kobe won finals MVP after being the best player on the team that won the finals BUT OHMIGOD HE SHOT POORLY FROM THE FIELD IN GAME 7

4) Milwaukee's owner won't return my calls- doesn't he know that 200 of their fans who also like me signed an internet petition to make me GM?

1. The 2011 Lockout That Hasn't Happened Yet

Someone In The Know told me that 20 of the 30 NBA teams will lose money this season … and we haven't even come close to hitting rock bottom yet. Just wait until next season.

Yeah, just wait!

Which brings us to the Lockout That Hasn't Happened Yet. Unless the players' association agrees to major concessions by the summer of 2011 -- highly doubtful because that would involve applying common sense -- the owners will happily lock out players as soon as the current CBA expires, then play the same devious waiting game from the summer of 1998.

A waiting game that lasted SEVERAL MONTHS before a new agreement was reached and a shortened season with full playoffs happened. How strange that the exact same thing is going to happen this time around. But fuck being reasonable about that possibility; it's more fun to act like there's some kind of chance the league was going to miss multiple seasons (see below). Look, I'm not trying to play "nah nah toldja so" with Bill here. I probably should have posted about this article when I originally read it. But he's just so... Simmonsy. He can't just make a point; he has to try to pound his nail into the wall with a sledgehammer. And in doing so he butchers the point and wrecks his credibility.

David Stern will grow another scruffy beard. The owners will plant their feet in the sand, grab the tug-of-war rope and dig in. Only this time, they KNOW they will win. See, we learned a dirty little secret in the last lockout: An inordinate number of NBA players live paycheck to paycheck. Yes, even the guys making eight figures a year. You can play high-stakes poker with them … and you will win.

Quick tangent: You're asking yourself, "Wait, how can a dude making $8-10 million a year live paycheck to paycheck?" Easy. First,

And you can sort of imagine what it would sound like when a white guy from Boston paints a picture of how NBA players could be living like this. NOT DAVID LEE THOUGH! HE'S CAREFUL AND JUDICIOUS WITH HIS FINANCES!

Team Stern and the owners know this better than anyone. They will pick the next fight, and again, they will win. When the players' union waves a white flag and the lockout finally ends (2012? 2013?),

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

I was actually scared for a couple weeks there that the lockout could potentially wipe out this season. I don't think the odds were ever over 25%, but I was sweating a little. To pretend that it might not have ended until 2013, though, is pure lunacy.

I predict a raise of the individual salary max (to $24-25 million), a softer salary cap, a restriction on long-term contracts (can't be more than three years unless you're re-signing your own star), the elimination of opt-out clauses and the midlevel exemption, and the rookie age limit rising to 20. That's seven predictions in all … and I bet I'll end up nailing six.

Simmons predicting his own predictions will be right: least surprising thing in the history of sportswriting things. Let's see how he did.

I predict a raise of the individual salary max (to $24-25 million),

Actually sort of got this one right, in the sense that teams can now spend a larger portion of their cap figure on one guy. 1 for 1.

a softer salary cap,

Cue up the Price is Right losing horn. The cap's softness remains unchanged while the luxury tax got more punitive. 1 for 2.

a restriction on long-term contracts (can't be more than three years unless you're re-signing your own star),

He counts this as two separate predictions and he got one; teams can go five years to bring their own guys back and four if they're bringing in a new guy. That's a cut back from where things were last CBA, but not as drastic as he predicted. 2 for 4.

the elimination of opt-out clauses and the midlevel exemption,

Wrong on both counts. 2 for 6.

and the rookie age limit rising to 20.

As far as my research shows, this wasn't even discussed as part of this negotiation. Not to say the owners wouldn't prefer it to exist, but still. 2 for 7.

That's seven predictions in all … and I bet I'll end up nailing six.

Insert joke about Bill's NFL gambling skills here.

Will the league survive a yearlong disappearance?

Sure, but that's the wrong question. How about "How likely is it that the league and the players look at what happened to the NHL after its yearlong lockout last decade and say 'Fuck it, that looks like a great idea.'"

What about two years?

Again, I'm guffawing.

We're less than 29 months from starting to find out. If you think it's a good idea to disappear for even six months in shaky economic times, ask any Writers Guild member how that turns out.

The NBA lockout is like an apple, and the writers' strike is like an orange. Hope you see what I did there.

These wealthy or used-to-be-wealthy owners don't want to keep losing money just to feed their ego by continuing to own a basketball team. They will make other arrangements, the same way they would arrange to sell their favorite yacht because they didn't feel like splurging on gasoline anymore. These guys don't want to fix the system; they want to reinvent it.

No, they didn't. All they wanted was a bigger slice of the cash pie. And they got it. Most of the framework around that pie ended up more or less unchanged, to the surprise of no one with a brain. Gotta admit that sensationalism is more fun though. Moving ahead to a slightly less absurd but still pretty stupid segment of the same article.

4. The dawning of NBA Franchise Hot Potato.
Ohhhhhhhh, it's coming.

I became obsessed with this topic over All-Star Weekend and solicited input from as many people in the know as I could. Franchise Hot Potato hinges on five factors in all, although only three need to be in play.

The most Simmonsy of all Simmonsisms: there are X and only X factors that determine how the universe works. Here, let me list them for you. 1) Something about girls who are "stripper hot." 2) 80s movies! Etc.

Looking at the next 15 months only, the consensus of people in the know was that multiple NBA franchises (guesses ranged from three to eight) will move cities, get sold to new owners or throw themselves on the mercy of the league (meaning the NBA would effectively take over operations of that franchise, kinda like what happens in the MLS or WNBA).

The league took over the Hornets about 22 months after this writing but I'll give him that. Obviously no one moved cities; the Kings might next summer but it's a big might. As far as I know, there have been three ownership changes since February '09 (only one of which happened before June 2010): Bobcats, Warriors, and Nets. The Hawks deal fell through. So I guess the people on the lower end of his guessing spectrum were close to right. Still kind of absurd though. The alarmism in this piece is fucking silly. And it all comes to a head in the second to last paragraph:

So that's the climate for the No Benjamins Association right now: Murky, unpredictable and not so lucrative. And you wonder why I didn't want to write about All-Star Weekend. Looking at the big picture, the league won't struggle even 1/10th as much as the NHL in years to come -- of all the wildest predictions I heard in Phoenix, the craziest came from a connected executive

Named JackO, Hench, or something of the like.

who predicted that fifteen NHL teams would go under within the next two years (and was dead serious) --

/checks NHL website, laughs

and Major League Baseball is about to get creamed beyond belief.

Man, I wish someone had told Pujols and Fielder and Reyes about this before they hit free agency. Those guys aren't going to make any money this offseason! Also, I hope your standard for "beyond belief" is really low. MLB indeed saw a multiple point attendance drop from 2008 to 2009. And then: yeah.

The Writing on the MLB Network: So Bad

2011-11-22T18:21:00.000-08:00

So tonight I got home from my job tryna discipline kids at a Catholic school and was sort of frustrated because a couple of them had acted like jackasses and all. So I came home, in the kind of mood that I would cuss at my dog if I had a dog. I was in one surly-ass mood.

I turned on the MLB Network's Top 75 plays of 2000-2009, and everything got better. Not because of the quality of the writing (the opening monologue referenced Snuggies), but because of the groantastic puns listed to title each play. Here are some of the gems:

A barehanded over-the shoulder catch became "The [David] Wright Stuff". No doubt most baseball fans are also Tom Wolfe fans. Also noteworthy: the Mets' announcer, after seeing the catch, yelled "What the Kevin Mitchell?"
One great outfield catch was labeled "Good Will [Torii] Hunter", because Torii Hunter has a lot in common with the one guy from that one movie.
A Red Sox outfielder's catch became the "Tip of the [Gabe] Kapler", ostensibly because Mr. Kapler's alleged steroid use enlarged his head so that his hat couldn't wear it straight.
Some kind of important home run for a thirteen-team pinch-hitter became "[Matt] Stairs’ Way to Heaven".
At the outset of the show, I had jokingly made my Mets-fan roommate promise to finish his drink if a certain journeyman Mets outfielder happened upon the show. Sure enough, we had to take shots of SoCo because "Benny [Agabayani] and the Mets" made an appearance on the list for his 2000 Game 3 NLDS walkoff

That's all I've got. I'll be back someday to post again.

This is what stupid sounds like

2011-11-21T21:10:00.000-08:00

Merril Hoge on NFL Live, calling Falcons/Titans highlights from this past Sunday, had this to say about Michael Turner and his aggressive running style:

He's a tank! He's a bull in a china shop! (pause) What other adjectives could I use?

I hope that question was rhetorical. No one else on the set answered it.

Sunday night bag of things which can be grabbed

2011-11-20T13:02:00.000-08:00

Why are you laughing at the title? I didn't want to be boring and say "grab bag." OH I SEE THE DOUBLE ENTENDRE NOW. WHY I OUGHTA. First, we have a gem of logic from Rhodes Scholar and wordsmith Troy Aikman. Trailing the Packers by two points with about five minutes left, the Buccaneers went with an onside kick. It didn't work, and a few plays later Aaron Rodgers hit Jordy Nelson for a game-icing TD. But it was still a two point game when Troy said:

You know, some might say hey, Raheem Morris showed confidence in his defense being able to make a stop by going for it there, you know, with the onside kick. I think that that's an invalid argument to try to make. If you have that kind of confidence, with the time left on the clock, you kick it deep.

Which sends the more positive statement to your defense: "Hey, we're trying to get the ball back right away since that's our best shot at winning. However, if we can't, we're fine with giving you the job of stopping the best passing attack in the league on a short field" or "Uh, if we give up another touchdown the game is over, so we're going to try to make sure the Packers have to go the length of the field to score one. Onside kick? Nnnnope."

Next, we have Cris Collinsworth dropping some fantastic nonsense of the "GRRRR I HATE PLAYERS WHO TALK TRASH! THAT'S NOT HOW YOU PLAY THE GAME!" variety. In the second quarter of tonight's Eagles/Giants game, DeSean Jackson caught a 50 yard pass from Vince Young (I know! Yes, that Vince Young!) but had the gain negated because he taunted the Giants sideline after the play. Now obviously it was stupid and there's no defense for Jackson here. And Collinsworth is generally really good. But this:

Just watch! That play could decide this game!

is a little much. At the time it was 3-0 Eagles with about 38 minutes to play. The penalty gave the Eagles 1st and 10 from their own 5ish instead of from the Giants' 40ish. Jackson was being a dope, but commmmmme onnnnnnnn. Let's dial down the hyperbole.

Finally, I don't have the time or energy to parse the text of this, but just look at the headline:

Accolades aside, can Ells(bury) win MVP?

Votes aside, can Obama get second term? Stock market aside, can economy recover? Criminal charges aside, is Jerry Sandusky at risk of going to jail? And then the article goes into an MVP breakdown, the most inane portion of which is his analysis of Verlander's chances. Since the author works for ESPNBoston, yeah, you guessed it, he breaks out the "WELL IF PEDRO DIDN'T WIN IT IN '99..." tripe. The proper response to which, of course, is "go fuck yourself."

Thoughts about Paterno getting the boot

2011-11-14T01:02:00.000-08:00

Before I begin, I'd like to thank Al Michaels for earlier tonight dropping the latest edition of the stupidest, least creative, most trite joke in the history of sports commentary. The Jets had just forced Tom Brady into intentional grounding while he was in his own end zone, earning themselves a safety. The score was Patriots 6 Jets 2. Al:

Looks like we've got a game going on between the Red Sox and the Yankees!

GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR I hate that bit.

Moving on to the NCAA football scandal of the week (this time with extra horribleness and nightmares!). I didn't feel compelled to write anything else about it until I had long conversations with two different friends in the past week. Contrary to my own views, those friends both thought Paterno's dismissal was unwarranted. And since those friends constitute 20% of the blog's readership, I will respond to their concerns with what I think is the simplest, clearest way to explain that the dismissal was absolutely necessary. It's worth noting that neither friend attended Penn State, and only one has any affinity for the school (since one of his parents was a professor there when he was a little kid). I'm not dealing with blind fanboys here.

First I'll clean up a couple side points. Both friends wondered why more outrage hasn't been directed towards Mike McQueary. For the most part, I agree with them. He should be fired. Fine by me. Putting aside the fact that keeping him around would just be kind of weird, he pretty much failed as badly as Paterno did. Paterno's failure means more because of his position, mind you, but McQueary bombed just as spectacularly when it came to preventing the rape of children. Ideally he would have actually stopped Sandusky when he stumbled across the 2002 incident. Failing that, he would have immediately called the police. Failing that, he would have followed up with Paterno and the high level school administrators (who met with him after his initial report and told him not to worry his pretty little head about it) and told them that he needed to know exactly what was being done about the incident and what changes would be made going forward. If they couldn't clarify things and tried to duck and dodge behind some "Oh, we've handled it" bullshit, he should have gone to the police. Since he did none of those things he can go fuck himself. Whether it was because he wanted to keep his job and feared losing it if he pushed the issue, because he didn't know quite what to do, or simply because he honestly believed that the administration had taken care of it, his inaction almost certainly facilitated more crimes. Fuck him. So there you go, we agree on something.

The other side point is kind of a macro-level analysis of the Paterno situation and is a little bit simplistic. But I think it's worth considering. Both friends conceded that Paterno could have done more. Paterno himself concedes that he should have done more. All three of them don't think Paterno should have been fired. How about this, though- put yourselves in the shoes of the university president (or perhaps in the shoes of a potential donor, ready to write a check if you feel good enough about the school). If you're the guy in charge or a person making an important choice about discretionary income, do you really want to have the most powerful guy on campus to be someone who doesn't do absolutely everything they can to prevent child rape? Do you want that guy to be someone who fulfills his legal obligation, shakes his head sadly for a minute because one of his oldest friends is destroying lives, and then calls it a day? I'm just saying.

Now, the one thing Paterno defenders have been saying about this argument is that maybe Paterno had no idea what was actually going on. Maybe McQueary didn't make the details clear enough. Great, let's discuss that possibility. Because while this is a complex situation with a lot of different events and actors, I think the question as to whether or not Paterno should have been canned can be reduced to what happened in the aftermath of McQueary's initial conversation with Paterno. As I see it there are only three possibilities as to what happened and they all force me to the same conclusion.

Possibility #1: McQueary was crystal clear when he told Paterno about what he saw (by which I mean he didn't use ambiguous language like "they were horsing around" or "Sandusky was doing something inappropriate" but rather "he was having sex with the kid, I am 100% sure of that"), Paterno understood exactly what McQueary was saying, and then Paterno responded by sending a report up the chain of command and nothing more.

Conclusion: Fucking fire his ass. The reason is pretty obvious as far as I'm concerned. You're the boss. Penn State football and its facilities are your domain. You need to keep control of the program and those facilities at all times and do everything you can to prevent horrible crimes from happening on your watch. You've just been told that someone who is still somewhat involved in the program and has access to the facilities is raping kids. Your obligation, unless you have a good reason to distrust McQueary, is to 1) get the police involved and 2) make sure this person never again comes anywhere near your program or your facilities. Your chosen response is to kind of sort of get the administration involved and then leave the situation alone for nine years, hoping it'll just go away. Fuck you.

Look, I understand that rape accusations are serious business. Duke lacrosse scandal, etc. Every year tons of people are wrongfully accused of rape and it can have disastrous effects on their life (and subject the accusers to all kinds of liability and problems as well). But in this scenario, we're talking about Paterno getting a clear and precise account of the rape of child from a McQueary that he trusts. And if you have that, what other followup option do you have besides contacting the police? I'm not saying you do it the minute McQueary leaves your office. Maybe you talk to the university's general counsel about it. Maybe you call Sandusky and ask for an explanation. But what could he possibly say? One of three things. "Yeah, I did. I'm sorry. I have a problem." Great, call the cops. "You know what Joe, my lawyer has advised me not to answer any questions about that." Great, call the cops. Or maybe "No way! Totally untrue!" Well, now we need some expert fact finders to get involved because we have a factual dispute. I suppose the university might be equipped to handle that fact finding task... but when rape is involved, I think law enforcement is the much better option. Call me old fashioned, I just think you've got to err on the side of caution when it comes to this kind of thing if the report you receive is clear and from a trustworthy source.

Possibility #2: McQueary was crystal clear about what he saw, but Paterno didn't understand what McQueary meant. He either couldn't comprehend it or chose to believe it wasn't true because the Sandusky Paterno knew was a class act who would never do something so unspeakable. Thus Paterno responded by telling the administrators that apparently McQueary saw something weird happening but it was probably just a misunderstanding and then doing nothing more.

Conclusion: Fucking fire his ass. If you're too old and senile to understand when someone uses unambiguous language to describe a rape, you shouldn't be in charge of a college football program. If you someone uses unambiguous language to report a rape but your relationship with the alleged rapist prevents you from believing that the reporter is telling the truth, you shouldn't be in charge of a college football program. You're beyond help in this scenario. There's no better way to put it; you simply do not possess the mental abilities needed to preside over a large and powerful institution. If you're a local hero like Paterno is, you should be placed in some kind of a figurehead honorary position where your stupidity is less likely to cause horrible damage to people and society.

Possibility #3: McQueary actually wasn't clear at all. Fearing backlash from Sandusky, fearing that he wouldn't be believed, or perhaps being so traumatized by the incident that he didn't want to believe he saw an actual rape, he chose to use ambiguous language in his conversation with Paterno. He said Sandusky and the kid "were messing around" or some shit like that. Paterno heard this, understood what McQueary said, took him at his word, reported it up the chain, and then left it alone.

Conclusion: Fucking fire his ass. This is most of the same logic from #1, just taken a step back to account for the possibility that McQueary didn't present all the relevant information up front. And if that happened, obviously it's Paterno's duty to ask some fucking questions and try to get that information. There's no way that an old man and a child were doing anything that fits under the umbrella description of "messing around" in a shower but that there was nothing at all wrong with it. So ask the questions and get the answers. And if McQueary won't give them to you, get a serious investigation rolling. Contact Sandusky. (That should be done in situation #1, too.) Contact the Second Mile. Ask the university to launch an internal investigation. Do something to gather the facts. Don't just stick your head in the sand and hope it all works out.

Yeah, so there you go. I dunno. There are a lot of other ways to look at the Paterno firing but I feel like this is the simplest. When McQueary came to Paterno and the end result was a few conversations about the issue behind closed doors and an unenforceable decree that Sandusky couldn't come to campus any more... it doesn't really matter how the Paterno/McQueary conversation went. Joe sealed his fate right there in my eyes. Feel free to leave thoughts in the comments (unless you're some fuckass moron named Anonymous), or just stare at the wall for a minute and ponder how fucked up humans and life are.

Probably the most out of touch comment I've read on the Penn State riot

2011-11-09T23:18:00.000-08:00

And surprisingly (or not, to some) it comes from Michael Schur (creator of FireJoeMorgan.com and Parks and Recreation (which I think is the best show on TV)).

Yes, of course! If only this cohort of bored, likely intoxicated 18-22 year olds had kids, then they wouldn't be rioting. Somebody get these students some babies!

/takes off sarcasm hat

Seriously, when I saw this on my Twitter feed I assumed it was from Bill Simmons because its explanation was equal parts: facile, smug, and wrong. (Yes I follow both Simmons and Schur on Twitter. It's because I'm jealous of their success, you see.) As I hinted at in the insultingly sarcastic chapter of my tweet criticism, I think most people would agree with me when I say that this protest, if it can be called that, has nothing to do with PSU students' inability to empathize with the victims' parents. What it's really about is that college students do stupid shit, and football fans are the most irrational assholes in the country. The fact that the student body used Paterno's early dismissal as an excuse for mayhem and wanton destruction is probably the least surprising thing about this whole mess.

Furthermore, I think Schur's argument is weak because it'd probably take about 5 minutes of canvasing State College, PA before you found some lifelong PSU fan with kids who said something like "Joe Pa deserved better!" Maybe I'm wrong on that count, but look at this past Sunday Night Football game. 65,000 fans cheered on Ben Roethlisberger as if he were a conquering hero. Would you really want to a wager that they were only able to palate Big Ben, an alleged rapist, because none of them had ever had a mom, sister, or daughter? Would you want to bet that no one at Lincoln Financial Field had ever owned dog? Probably not. So let's chalk this one up to PSU students being shit heads and not a generalization about the childless's inability to comprehend the gravity of child rape.

Grab bag post featuring an idiot, a complete dipshit, and a guy who won't stick to his guns

2011-11-09T14:02:00.000-08:00

None deserve their own post. All deserve some ridicule.

First, you may not have heard, but Penn State had a pederast in their midst. Fortunately they dealt with the terrible situation swiftly and properly by contacting law enforcement. I think that's what happened anyways. Proving that he has his finger squarely on the throbbing pulse of America, Rick Reilly chimes in with an important message:

This is not about Joe Paterno.

No fucking motherfucking shit.

If these boys really were molested, groped and raped by a middle-aged ex-Penn State football coach, then whatever misjudgment Paterno made will be a single lit match compared to the bonfire these boys will walk in for years to come.

Many of them won't be able to trust. Won't be able to love. Won't be able to feel -- nor trust or love themselves.

Yes, everyone think of the children. And they already are. We don't need to be reminded of that in this situation; even the most callous or clueless person understands that the kids are the victims here. Paterno may be in the spotlight but it's for sensible reasons. He's the most powerful and visible person involved and the only one besides Sandusky who's nationally known. The fact that it's about the kids and not about Paterno doesn't mean the media is obligated to focus their attention on the kids or the crimes. That's an angle that's just too grisly and sad for a lot of people. The Paterno angle carries with it the possibility of some kind of justice, or at least so a lot of people will think. In short, it makes sense that a lot of the water cooler talk about this mess focuses on Paterno rather than the crimes/victims.

But of course that doesn't mean it's "about" him. The people who really do think this is about Paterno are mouth-breathing PSU alums or students who live for nothing but college football and could give a damn about anything else, including prevention of child rape. They probably (hopefully) make up less than one percent of the population.

Don't feel sorry for Paterno. He's had his life. Feel sorry for these boys, because they may never get one.

The people who feel sorry for Paterno are an even tinier subset of the tiny set of people who think this is about him. Those in that tiny subset are not worth addressing. They should be herded into a mine and sealed inside with concrete. I believe we have a label for articles like the one Rick wrote here. It should appear first in the list at the bottom of the post. He also threw this in, seemingly in an attempt to confuse me:

No, this isn't about 84-year-old Joe Paterno not taking more steps that might have stopped it. It's about everybody not taking more steps that might have stopped it. Not parents, not teachers, not uncles,

Uncles?

Enough of that uplifting story. Let's talk about Big League Stew. Yahoo's MLB blog is written by a mongoloid who goes by 'Duk and thinks that this is clever, useful analysis.

For the purposes of this post, let's say that I have just traded the ten-dollar bill that I just found on the ground for a fast-food meal at a chain burger joint.

It's nothing fancy, but it will get the job done. I hadn't eaten in days.

Furthermore, let's also suppose that I decide to walk home from the restaurant in an attempt to work off the caloric impact I have just foisted upon my system.

[two paragraphs spent extending this painful and worthless analogy snipped; don't worry, you don't need the full bit to appreciate how mind-numbingly stupid this is]

So I tell you that I'm perfectly willing to take your doggy bag if you don't want it. I might take it all the way home, but I might also throw it away. It doesn't matter, though, because you've already paid the bill. I'm on the hook for nothing.

I've also just perfectly described the strategy that Dayton Moore and the Kansas City Royals are taking in their attempts to resurrect a winner.

Are you fucking kidding me?

Finally, an article that's not truly abhorrent but just kind of bothered me as I read it because of Mark Schlabach's unwillingness to commit to his initial stance. It's a stance that I think is stupid and wrong but certainly defensible, and I'd like to see a capable writer like Schlabach fully support. Unfortunately he backpedals. Backpedals like a bitch.

LSU and Alabama are clearly the best two teams in the country and are head and shoulders above the rest. It's a shame they can't play each other again in the SEC championship game.

You want a plus-one playoff? Let the Tigers and Crimson Tide play three times this season, with the best-of-three winner claiming a national championship.

That's not how a plus one would work. Just nitpickin'.

LSU and Alabama are that much better than everyone else this season.

And we know that for sure, without any doubt; just ask an SEC fan.

If LSU wins out and wins the SEC West, critics will suggest Alabama shouldn't play for a national championship because it didn't win its conference. But when the dust settles on the college football season, the two best teams should play for a national championship, no matter the circumstances.

Strong stance. One that I think is dumb. Even if we could be sure that Alabama is better than Okie State or Stanford, Bama had its chance and blew it. If they were to rematch with LSU in the title game and win, it's kind of like... well, OK, we know both those teams are awesome and we know which was playing better in January. Can we say for sure that Bama was the best? I understand that you can never really say who the best of the best is unless they've all played each other, and a win by (not THE) OSU or Stanford over LSU doesn't forever end the debate. But to me, a rematch with a different outcome than the regular season matchup is wholly unsatisfying. And a rematch with the same result if/when OSU or Stanford was undefeated but got shut out of the title game feels even worse. I dunno, I just really don't want to see Bama play LSU again unless there are no other big conference undefeateds left.

History suggests that the odds of an LSU-Alabama rematch in the BCS title game are slim. After No. 1 Ohio State defeated No. 2 Michigan 42-39 in their 2006 regular-season finale, the Wolverines argued they deserved another chance at facing the Buckeyes in the BCS title game. But No. 3 Florida jumped the Wolverines in the final BCS standings, and the Gators routed Ohio State 41-14 in the BCS Championship Game.

Here's the difference, though: At the end of the 2006 regular season, you could argue that Florida was better than Michigan. But if Alabama wins out this season, you couldn't argue that another one-loss team -- or even undefeated Boise State -- is better than the Crimson Tide.

Sure you could. What if Stanford's only loss is by a field goal to Oregon in overtime? What if OSU's only loss is by a field goal to Oklahoma in overtime? There's definitely a debate to be had there.

Especially not after SEC teams won the past five BCS national championships.

Fucking SEC people. You cockswabbers, chanting your conference's name. GMAFB.

If Oklahoma State wins out, it will deserve a chance to play LSU for a national championship.

Wait, what?

The same goes for Stanford, if the Pokes slip up along the way.

OK. So that whole thing about Alabama clearly being the second best team out there, and them definitely deserving a rematch... tempered. Significantly tempered.

But if those two teams lose somewhere down the line, Alabama would be the most deserving team to play LSU for a national title.

And you just sucked all the controversy out of your article. That makes me angry because the ESPNiverse has trained me to zone out if a journalist isn't being intentionally contrarian or simply a straight-up asshole. Although you've let me down, Schlabach, you're still OK in my book. Just don't get my hopes up like that again.

Expert geniuses offer double top secret insider brilliant MLB free agent predictions

2011-11-05T01:01:00.000-07:00

Let's take some time to appreciate this, shall we? After all, CBS doesn't just pay their baseball analysts to sit around and look good (although the analysts certainly do that!). It pays them to formulate informed and insightful baseball analysis. And so we have this lovely chart:

We have ringleader Gregg Doyel, troll extraordinaire, claiming the Yankees and Red Sox will sign every single one of these players and that the Yankees will end up with both Rollins and Reyes. BUT WHAT OF THE CAPTAIN?????1111?11. That's some nice trollin', Gregg. As Chris W says, "Gotta love Gregg for being the Skip Bayless of the internet." Then we have Vice Shithead Scott Miller saying the Pirates will shell out cash for Beltran and Buehrle will end up in Miami. We have a presumably pretentious dude named C. Trent claiming the Marlins will come up with the cash for Pujols and that Buehrle will somehow end up with the Cubs. We have three experts who say the Padres will decide overpaying Heath Bell is a good idea and in line with their organizational philosophy. Not be left out of the fun, Miller thinks the A's will the team that gives Bell the $8 MM per season it'll take to get him. We have Matt Sndyer thinking Prince Fielder will say "Yeah, Baltimore, THAT'S where I'll spend the rest of the prime of my career." We have Larry Dobrow thinking the Marlins will say "What's the one thing we definitely don't need? Starting pitching. So let's give C.J. Wilson the $14 MM a season he's asking for, why not." There's plenty more, too. The hits just keep on coming. This might be the most spectacular display of WRONG I've ever seen in graphical format. Here, I made it slightly less stupid (and I'm being generous about the Beltran to the Marlins, Reyes to the Brewers, and Rollins to the Mariners entries):

You're welcome.

The Otherwise Great Joe Posnanski Goes All Easterbrook On Us

2011-10-31T17:18:00.000-07:00

In an ill-advised screed against the intentional walk (a right-minded complaint but with a strange hysteria that seems poorly fitted to the magnitude of the relatively infrequent free-pass), Joe drops this gem on us:

But win or lose is not the point -- I'm really not second guessing the strategy. I'm second-guessing the conviction. My old pal Herm Edwards became famous with his "You play to win the game" classic rant -- it even led to a book by that title. But I don't think many do play to win, not in any sport. You play to extend the game and hope that it works out for you. You play to delay the big confrontation until you have no choice. I don't know if it was ever different. But it sure feels like now coaching and managers try to avoid the big moment as long as they possibly can.

Oh Joe, what's next? A "Buck-buck-a-brawck" award for Ron Washington?

Also there's this:

And the incentives within the game tell you what kind of game it is. If you made pass interference a 5-yard penalty with no automatic first down, well defensive backs are going to mug receivers all over the field. If you made a half court shot worth 20 points, players would practice and practice and practice the half court shot until they could make them a staggering percentage of the time. The intentional walk is a case where the negative incentive simply doesn't work well enough. One base and no advance is not enough of a deterrent for managers, and I think that's a flaw in baseball rules.

I'm a little bit surprised at this given Joe's connection with all-around superhuman Bill James (whom Poz namechecks later in cribbing Bill's suggestion for an intentional walk rule change), who wrote the following in his Historical Baseball Abstract (fanboy alert: probably the best baseball book ever written):

[Walking every time up vs. pitching to a hitter even better than Babe Ruth in his best season with a terrible lineup around him is] not even close. Walking Ruth every time up does far, far more harm than good, even under these impossibly extreme conditions. The team for which Ruth hit .385 with 61 homers a year scored 601 runs per season, and finished with a winning percentage of .326. The team for which Ruth was walked every time up scored 667 runs per season, and finished with a winning percentage of .380. As great as Ruth was, as terrible as his teammates were, he was still nowhere near the point at which it made sense to simply walk him every time he came up to the plate.

So in other words, walking a hitter every time--even in the most extreme example imaginable--is a swing in runs produced of more than 10%. In a more realistic yet still extreme scenario (think Barry Bonds in 2001) where the hitter is not quite as good and the lineup around him is not quite as bad, it probably gets closer to a 15% edge. In a closer-to-the-mundane example of an Albert Pujols surrounded by Matt Holliday and Lancer Berkman, the edge becomes closer--pulling numbers out of my ass, to 25%. This means that managers don't walk Pujols very often.

And here's Joe arguing that we need more extreme penalties--even though the current system fits to a tee his definition of a self-correcting set of penalties--because....why? He doesn't like it when people intentionally walk people?

Hell, baseball's odd. It's an odd game. Maybe we should get rid of the intentional walk. I don't know. I don't like the INT, per se. In fact, I dislike it. Actively. But if I had to list the things that bother me in baseball, it probably wouldn't crack the top 10:

10. Payroll disparity
9. Mike Scioscia
8. Too many pitching changes
7. Umpires who are huge fucking assholes like Joe West
6. The fact that the above umpires are never held accountable because...I don't know why. Didn't the umpires' union lose their strike?
5. Long running times of games.
4. Even longer running times of games involving the Yankees
3. MLB.com's absolutely awful video-clip policy
2. People pissing and moaning about instant replay
1. Joe Buck

Whatever, though. To each his own. Maybe intentional walks happening every three games or so is higher on your list than those. Maybe it's not. But it's absolutely asinine to say that a manager with a poor grasp of baseball strategy (eg Ron Washington) misreading the percentages and making a horrible percentage play in a key game (one of his many poor percentage plays in the World Series) means

a.) Managers don't play. To win. The game. and in fact are really trying to play to prolong the game (say....huh?)

b.) We need a radical rule change

You know what it is? It's downright Easterbrookian!