Showing posts with label Good Old Fashioned Cockfights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Good Old Fashioned Cockfights. Show all posts

Tuesday, June 24, 2008

Here, Take This Brief Quiz To See Whether or Not You're Stupid

If you were evaluating two teams about to match up against each other in the playoffs, and you could only use one of the following pieces of data to decide which was more likely to win, which would you choose?

(a) The teams' records this season
(b) The teams' records last season

Only one of these answers is right. And it's not the one Jay Mariotti picked earlier today on "Around the Horn." Never one to let a perfectly good point slip past him without coming up with some outrageous way to try and disagree with it, when a fellow panelist who was talking about the College World Series said he was rooting for Fresno State because they're a good underdog story, Jay countered with:

But Georgia had a losing record in 2007, so they're even more of an underdog!

That's why most people thought the Red Sox would beat the Rockies in MLB's World Series last fall- not because the Sox had much better depth both in the rotation and off the bench, but because the Rockies were terrible in 2006. And that's why most people figured the Patriots would easily beat the Giants in last February's Super Bowl- not because New England was 18-0 at the time, but because the Giants were 8-8 in 2006. Why were the Lakers mild favorites over the Celtics in the recently concluded NBA Finals? You guessed it. Boston wasn't so hot in 2006-07.

Jay Mariotti: fucking stupid.

Monday, June 2, 2008

No! Readers! Come Back!

It's true, the Google Analytics don't lie. They're leaving this blog faster than Jerramy Stevens from a court-mandated AA meeting. Not too soon! Anyways, will they come back and start reading again if I do several Bill Simmons posts in a row? My guess is that they will, if only to let me know that I'm just a jealous hater and, come on, Simmons really isn't that bad. Sure, he used to be better, but I like his "every fan" perspective! Etc., etc. Yup. I can see it already. Eight comments, five of which are from anonymous/Anonymous and sound just like that.

Today he was lazy and did a chat, so I will in turn be lazy and pick on a handful of the most embarrassing questions he chose to print along with some criticisms of his own handiwork. As a change of pace I will not be complaining about the subject matter covered. Hey, his Celtics limped through the oh-so-powerful Eastern Conference and into the finals. He's earned the right to talk exclusively about them. As a non-change of pace, however, I will be pointing out a basic fact that Bill for whatever reason has so much difficulty grasping- Boston sports fans are no different than passionate fans from anywhere else. His inability to understand this might be the saddest thing about the guy.

Shane, Seoul Korea: Why is it that everyone....well at least most analysts on ESPN so convinced that the Lakers will roll over the Celtics. Considering most of them picked Detroit to win in 6 whats with the lack of respect?

To Simmons' credit, he answered that he didn't think a lack of respect had anything to do with it and it's just the fact that Kobe is playing so well that pushes analysts towards LA. I still felt like this was worth printing. A Celtics fan... is complaining... about a perceived lack of respect for his team... by ESPfuckingN, of all media outlets. It's a crazy world out there, I guess. If you look long enough, you can find people that are stupid enough to hold almost any opinion.

The irony here being that this is coming from a guy who doesn't feel like John Elway gets enough respect as one of the all time greats. Put him with Montana's supporting cast and he'd have six rings. Hey, I'm just saying is all. But Shane from Seoul is definitely stupider than me by several degrees of magnitude. Yes, Shane. ESPN totally hates the Celtics. You've got it figured out. When the playoffs started, their executives were praying for a Utah/Orlando finals so they could finally start covering teams that really draw in the viewers.

Rich (Bayonne, NJ): I hear you Bill, I am surrounded by Laker fans in NJ at both of my jobs! Laker fans are like Kobe, the biggest front runners in the league!!! Hey since you live in LA, do Laker fans arrive only 30 minutes after tip off instead of 45 minutes since it's the Finals!!!

I know he's just a reader and not a professional journalist, but hey Rich! Don't you know anything about punctuation! Like have you heard that if you ask a question you shouldn't end it with an exclamation mark! The real issue here, though, is the hilarious accusation of front runnerism from (presumably) a Celtic fan being leveled at Laker fans. Really? The Lakers? You know, one of the league's three most popular teams for the past several decades? I mean, if longtime Red Sox fans wanted to accuse Rockies fans of being front runners (or at least very fairweather) before last fall's World Series, they could definitely make a case. This, on the other hand, is butt-ass preposterous. They're the most popular franchise in the country's second largest city and have worldwide brand recognition. They're an extremely difficult ticket to grab on most nights and have been, again, for decades. Your team, on the other hand, couldn't even dream of selling out its own arena 14 months ago. You have a national fan base, and plenty of passionate lifelongers, but to point a finger at Laker fans... wow.

Bill Simmons: The Laker fans with good seats arrive in the second quarter or late in the first quarter. It's just a fact. They get a bad rap for their cheering during the game - they do know when to cheer and how to affect a game - but the tardiness is unacceptable.

Fair.

it's also worth mentioning that they booed their hero Kobe on Opening Night. Would the Boston fans have ever booed Bird in a million years?????????

Not fair. Because Bird was white.

Rick (LA): Don't forget all these "true" Boston fans chanted MVP for Kobe in the Garden last year...Boston fans the best in the world!

Bill Simmons: That story is NOT true. half the crowd for that game were Laker fans, those were the ones chanting. They were able to get tickets because the Celts were something like 12-40 at the time.

Nothing front-runnerish about that. And how many times has Bill's dad, the foremost authority on anything and everything related to the Celtics, complained about how hard it was to get rid of unwanted tickets last season? But that's not because Boston fans are to some degree front runnerish. It's because... wait for Bill's reasoning.

Chet (MA): and celtics fans aren't front runners? just look at the attendance last year compared to this year and it'll tell you all you need to know about celtics fans. you know what? you could say the same about all the boston teams if you look at the attendance before parcells for the patriots and the attendance before 1998 for the red sox.

Bill Simmons: Ridiculous. The Celtics fans were always there - it's just that it's freaking expensive to go to an NBA game, it's tough to shell out 75 bucks for a ticket to go watch Sebastian Telfair play point guard. The fans never left.

Oh. Really? Did they not? Also, notice that he didn't have a response to the Patriots and Red Sox accusations, the former of which is most definitely true.

Pat (Boston): Welcome to the spin/full denial zone. Someone presents you with facts about attendence and you just dismiss it with: "The fans never left" with a weak excuse that people cant afford $75 dollars? Gimme a break, I live in Beacon Hill and frequent "the Harp" and "the fours". Not only was there no one in the stadium, there was no one in the sports bars. Lemme guess, people just can't afford $3 dollar beers anymore?

Bill Simmons: In defense of the Celtics fans, the team was openly trying to lose games last year for Oden or Durant. Why would anyone go pay to see that?

Bill Simmons is taking crazy pills and delusional pills. There's nothing more that can be said about the situation. Look, no team is going to pack the house every night all season every season. No team is insulated from the effect its record has on attendance. But his continual insistence that Boston fans are somehow different and special can only be attributed to some kind of drug regimen at this point. (I liked his last chat session from about a month ago, when he assumed that Boston invented the "M-V-P! M-V-P!" chant. He was immediately rebuffed, but you could tell that until that happened, he legitimately just assumed it had originated there. I mean... why would it not? It's Boston, for fahk's sake.)

The numbers are right in front of you, douche. I don't care how fucking bad they were. The 2006-2007 Celtics finished 20th in the league in home attendance, 23rd in percentage of seats sold, 15th in road attendance and 20th in road percentage of seats sold. The 2007-2008 Celtics, on the other hand, were 12th in attendance (limited by the size of their arena), sold 100% of their seats, 1st in road attendance, and 1st in road percentage of seats sold. It's pretty crystal clear. That's a sign of a fan base that doesn't like to show up when their team isn't winning. Not that that's anything to be ashamed of! It's normal. Yankee Stadium isn't always packed to the gills. There are nights when you can get a seat to a Montreal Canadiens game pretty easily. Just don't go thinking your teams are any different. Unless they're a popular NFL team, they're always going to struggle to pull in capacity crowds when the team stinks.

Kyle (NC): You say Kobe's a jerkto his teammates...Didn't Bird call his teammates little girls after they lost a Finals game? All the things you're saying about Kobe, they used to say about MJ...A lot of the greats were sometimes jerks to their teammates.

Bill Simmons: True. And the next game, McHale put Rambis on his ass and we went on to win the series. Bird did it for motivation, Kobe did it because he's socially inept.

Bill Simmons, sports psychologist, is able to easily discern the subtle nuances that separate these two situations without even talking to either player.

Jake (DC): You can't win. You should have known this after however many years of marriage. Also, should/does the commissioner have any say in trades which are clearly made to help out old friends? I mean, doesn't that upset the competitive balance of the game while at the same rip the fans off? Something should be done about this...

Bill Simmons: The thing is, in both cases (KG trade and Gasol trade), it clearly helped the league as a whole. So nobody said anything. The interesting move would have been if the Spurs or Suns filed a lawsuit or tried to get an injunction on the basis that the Gasol trade was not fair and that other teams weren't given a chance to properly bid for him. Would have LOVED to have seen how that played out.

Dear Christ, I hope he's serious in thinking that that could actually happen. A whole new angle on the tininess of Bill's brain- honest belief that sports teams in this day and age would consider trying to go to court against other teams because of allegedly unfair trades. Fantastic. I really think the Bucs, Cowboys, Packers, and Patriots should file suit against the Chargers for not shopping Eli Manning's draft rights appropriately back in 2004.

Let's take a little look at a bit of homerism.

First this-

chapin (Boston, ma): Bill can you set the odds for PerkIsABeast.com's servers crashing after The Beast puts up 20 and 20 in game one? How do you think he will fair throughout this series?

Bill Simmons: Forgot to mention Perk as an enormous X-factor for this series. He was legitimately eye-opening in the Detroit series - nearly averaged a double-double and made some monster defensive plays. He's becoming the player we always wanted him to be.

Which is fine to say, until you respond to the exact same kind of sentiment from a Lakers fan about one of their players like this-

Renaldo (Los Angeles, CA): When are you going to admit you were wrong about Lamar Odom. The guy hit two game tying shots in game 4 of the Utah series, he hit all the clutch free throws in Game 4 of the Spurs series. The guy has been coming through

Bill Simmons: You're right, Lamar has proven himself - every question has been answered. The guy is an absolute sure thing in the Finals.

Like I said in my intro, nothing wrong with Bill being a homer in this context. It's just funny to notice.

Matt Walsh, From under some rock: Ok what if I said that I have a tape of the entire Patriots team clubbing baby seals. Would that keep me in the limelight for another week?

Bill Simmons: You're leading TMQ this week!

Easterbrook isn't due to write another column until August, but we can only hope he manages to squeeze in a little something extra in response to this.

Noam (NY, NY): Can we get a promise that after your inevitable finals and post-finals columns, we get a 2 week moratorium on columns that are about Boston sports teams (including veiled Boston team columns)? Maybe a column about having kids making somebody revert to writing only about their favorite teams?

Bill Simmons: I am doing my best not to over-Boston it... but come on, the Pats were the most written about team of this decade, the Sox won the World Series and the Celts just made the Finals. What do you wanyt from me?

We want you to write about other stuff more often. It's pretty simple. You don't have to ignore Boston. You just have to talk about them less, and other teams more. I promise the stories are out there. Really, they are.

I didn't write ONE Celtics column during the regular season... sure, it was because I didn't want to jinx them, but still.

1. That's incorrect.

2. Sure, there was only one true all-Celtics column, and it came pretty near the end of the regular season. But 80% of every mailbag and 60% of every "general NBA" column was devoted to the Celtics. Just saying.

Let's wrap it up.

Ben(New Jersey): Sports Guy! I've been a fan for years but I've never written in before. I'm a senior in high school and my friends and I love to play a game called KG that. It's when you take something ordinary and go crazy over it. For example, we went out for Chinese last Friday and after one of my friends ordered his beef and broccoli i told him he should KG it when it comes. When the waiter brought out his beef, he got up on his chair and started pounding his chest screaming "THATS HOW YOU ORDER CHINESE" he then ran around high fiving random people while pounding his chest and screaming. We ended up getting kicked out, but I'd say it was worth it. Whats the funniest situation you could see where you could KG something?

You are a zero. You're a disaster. You don't deserve to have access to a computer, let alone the internet. You don't deserve to reproduce. You and your unfunny friends should be immediately deported to the least exciting town in Mongolia. You stink.

Bill Simmons: Love it!

Of course you do.

Thursday, May 8, 2008

Reader Extra Participation Friday: Why Did Everyone Stop Participating In Reader Extra Participation Friday?

I'm not trying to pat myself on the back or anything here, but this might be the best copout post of all time. Feel free to leave your thoughts as to why this bit sucks and never really got off the ground. Or, don't leave your thoughts and let your silence speak volumes. Even if you don't participate, you participate! Everyone wins, even me.

If all else fails, feel free to start an argument about one of the following to get yourself through the day:

-the length of the NBA playoffs
-the DH
-Roger Goodell's heavy-handed punishments
-the Olympics: does anyone care? (I personally do, no sarcasm, but I seem to be in the minority)
-John Daly: jolly or dangerous?
-gun control/prayer in schools/abortion

Enjoy the beginning of your weekend.

Wednesday, December 12, 2007

WMTMQR: Gregg Easterbrook Is Still Very Wrong About Clock Management

I haven't done a WMTMQR in a while because Easterbrook has somewhat cleaned up his act recently. This has probably happened because he reads my scathing commentary and takes it to heart. But he tried to sneak a couple giant slices of crap pie into this week's column, so I might as well complain about them.

In other football news, would New England actually be better off losing Sunday against Jersey/B? If the Patriots beat the Jets, they lock in the No. 1 seed and home-field advantage throughout the postseason. Then, with two meaningless regular-season outings and a bye week, a full month will pass until Jan. 12, the earliest date the Flying Elvii could appear in another game that counts. Consider New England's last three regular-season opponents: the 3-10 Jets, the 0-13 Dolphins and a Giants squad that might be resting starters. Even the mad-at-the-world Pats could have trouble maintaining focus for an entire meaningless month. Meanwhile, Dallas is in almost the same situation as New England. With effectively a two-game lead over Green Bay -- owing to beating the Pack head-to-head -- through the final three weeks, the Cowboys need only a combination of Dallas wins and Green Bay losses that adds up to two to lock up home-field advantage in the NFC. Thus, Boys faithful actually might root for Green Bay to beat St. Louis on Sunday -- otherwise it's possible the Boys could lock up the top seed this weekend, and face a meaningless month of their own.

Oh yeah, definitely. I think think both of these teams should intentionally lose their next two games and hope Indy and Green Bay win both of theirs. That way, the Cowboys and Pats will have something at stake during week 17. That's a great strategy. No way that could possibly blow up in their faces. Or maybe Gregg is saying they should just lose this weekend, and then win to wrap up home field in week 16. Because, you know, a three week layoff from "meaningful" games is totally different than a 4 week layoff. Someone get this man a head coaching position.

It's been mentioned by commenters here before: do the "stats of the week" really add to anyone's enjoyment or understanding of football? Below, I have added a made up stat about my own life that I consider to be equally as interesting as what Gregg offers.

Stat of the Week No. 3: Since taking the field for their final playoff appearances last season, a combined 28-6 at that point, the Bears and Ravens are a combined 9-19.

Stat of Larry B's Week No. 1: Since choosing the fastest checkout lane at the supermarket twelve out of a possible fifteen times during a stretch that ended last January, Larry has chosen the fastest lane only two out of thirteen times.

Stat of the Week No. 6: Kansas City was outrushed by 199 yards.

Stat of Larry B's Week No. 2: Larry parallel parked his car four times.

Stat of the Week No. 8: In high school, college and now the pros, Derek Anderson is 3-1 as a starter against Kellen Clemens.

Stat of Larry B's Week No. 3: Including high school, college, and now post-college, Larry is 23-18 in pickup football games against Chris Hart.

Stat of the Week No. 9: At the end of the Cleveland-Jersey/B game, the Jets attempted three onside kicks in less than three minutes.

Stat of Larry B's Week No. 4: On Friday, Larry attempted to complete five transactions at the bank during their last seven minutes of business.

Tell me mine aren't better.

Sweet Special-Teams Plays of the Week: Trailing 17-3 with 10 minutes remaining, San Diego punted on fourth-and-29 at the Tennessee 40. Chargers special-teamers downed the ball at the Titans' 1, then the defense forced a three-and-out. Quick San Diego touchdown, and suddenly it's a game.

Although I will concede that converting a 4th and 29 is next to impossible, I can't count the number of times Gregg has bitched about teams punting from their opponent's territory while trailing in the 4th quarter. Now it's suddenly a good thing, as long as the team that does it subsequently forces a 3 and out. Had the Titans somehow put together a game icing field goal drive after this punt, I'm reasonably confident Easterbrook would have made some dumb point about how no matter the distance, punting in the 4th when you're trailing and in your opponent's territory is always bad.

Yes, I'm nitpicking. It's what we do here.

Dallas has reached the Detroit 16 with 22 seconds showing on the clock. To that point in the game, Boys tight end Jason Witten had 14 receptions for 122 yards. This is what is called "a clue."

What does that even mean? As if the Cowboys didn't have anyone else to throw to on that play. Assuming Marion Barber was in the game, he had 10 catches for 61 yards including an 8 yard touchdown at the end of the 1st half. Maybe that was "a clue." T.O. also has 74 catches for 1270 yards and 14 TDs on the season. That could have been "a clue" as well. Yeah, Witten was getting thrown to a lot during that particular game. That still doesn't guarantee shit on any one given play.

As the Cowboys broke the huddle, TMQ said aloud, "Maybe it's to Witten."

Easy there, Nostradamus. You had a one in five chance. And you didn't even say you knew for sure; you went with "maybe."

Moving on, I hadn't seen this particular demonstration of idiocy out of Gregg in a couple of months. But apparently old habits die hard.

TMQ's Law of the Obvious holds: Sometimes, all a team needs to do is run up the middle for no gain and things will be fine. Leading San Diego 17-10, host Tennessee faced third-and-4 on the Chargers' 46 with 2:37 remaining and San Diego down to one timeout. Run, grind the clock! Instead, incompletion, and San Diego scores to force overtime with nine seconds remaining. Had the Flaming Thumbtacks simply rushed up the middle for no gain, keeping the clock moving, the Chargers would have run out of time.

No. That is wrong. You can't say that with any certainty at all. You have no idea what would have happened if the Titans ran there. None. You have no idea how San Diego's play calling would have changed on their possession if they had 37 fewer seconds to work with. BOOOOOOO.

When Roger Goodell fined the Patriots a first-round choice in the Beli-Cheat scandal, it was New England's first-rounder, not the San Francisco choice acquired in trade, that Goodell voided. Belichick obtained San Francisco's first choice fair and square, and his decision to bank that choice reflects the wise husbandry New England has shown consistently under current management. Still, if the Patriots win the Super Bowl, then go second in the 2008 draft after Goodell publicly imposed what sounded like a harsh draft penalty, the situation will seem rigged, even if it isn't.

I hate the Patriots as much as anyone, but what the hell is the point of this? That's the item's conclusion: The Patriots have lost their own 1st rounder this April, but still possess another team's 1st rounder, which will probably be a top 5 pick. Even though there is nothing shady about this, it seems shady. What?

At the endgame, Washington led 24-13 and Chicago faced fourth-and-goal on the Redskins' 4 with 34 seconds remaining, holding a timeout. The Bears' faint hope was a touchdown and a two-point play and a field goal, wrapped around a recovered onside kick. Sure, that hope is faint, but to have any chance at all, Chicago needed to try for the touchdown first. Assume the onside kick will be recovered and the deuce will work. At the 34-second mark, the Bears were just 4 yards from a touchdown. If they go for the touchdown here, they need to gain 4 yards and -- after the deuce and the recovered onside, likely to be recovered just on their side of midfield -- will need to gain about 25 yards to attempt the field goal that forces overtime. Thus, Chicago needs about 30 offensive yards, plus success with the deuce and the onside, of course. If, on the other hand, the Bears take the field goal here, they must score a touchdown after the onside and will need to gain about 55 offensive yards to do so. So to keep the faint hope of victory aflame, the team should go for the touchdown first in this situation because it already is close to the goal line and, if successful with the onside, can launch the field goal try for long distance. Yet Lovie Smith ordered the field goal first. When this happens, it is fairly obvious the coach is not going all out to try to win but rather is taking the easy three points to make the final score more respectable and deflect criticism. (Washington got the onside.)

I agree that kicking there was probably bad strategy. I would have elected to go for the TD in that situation. But it's not like Smith's decision is completely indefensible. To accuse him of not really trying to win is laughable. I mean, let me play devil's advocate. Easterbrook's claim about the yards the Bears needed in each hypothetical situation was correct, but didn't factor in the number of plays the team would get in order to gain said yards. Had they recovered the onside after kicking the field goal, they would have had probably about three or four plays (maybe five) to get the 55 yards needed for the tying TD. That's pretty unlikely but not impossible. Sure, had they instead gone for it on 4th and gotten the touchdown, they would have had three or four plays to get a mere 25/30 yards needed for the tying field goal. But that opportunity only arrives after putting the entire game on the line for four yards on one play against a compressed defense. Failure, obviously, would have ended everything before an onside attempt even becomes part of the equation. So although I disagree with the decision, I can definitely see why Smith chose to kick. TMQ just loves implying that coaches care more about the margin of victory than their won-loss record; he's done it many times before this. It's pretty comical. When he's being evaluated by his owner/GM at the end of a failed season, what coach actually gets points for saying "Well, I went 5-11 this year, but nine of those losses were by single digits!" That's ridiculous and does not happen. Coaches are judged first and foremost on Ws and Ls. To imply anything else is WRONG. There is absolutely a 0% chance that Smith sent in his field goal team with any thought in mind other than "I think this gives us the best chance to win." Zero.

Speaking of WRONG, I think I'll wrap this up and attach the labels. And speaking of labels, don't you all love the kooky and zany labels we sometimes use here at FireJay? They're soooooooo silly! We can't quite match up with the juggernauts of the absurd label world like Kissing Suzy Kolber, but I think we do alright for ourselves. I think for this post I'll re-use a couple of the wackiest ones we've already got, just for the hell of it. Get ready to laugh at something that's not really overly funny!

Thursday, October 25, 2007

Stewart Mandel Tries To Talk Some Sense Into Dumb College Football Fans

I know what you're saying- isn't this an anti-sports media blog? Well the answer, of course, is yes. We do specialize bitching and moaning. However, our contract with Google states that we are legally allowed to make three (3) posts that are in support of a sportswriter per calendar year. And after reading what CNNSI.com's resident college football mailbag answerer had to say about the "my conference is better than your conference!" argument, I felt compelled to use one of our exemptions. After all, they don't roll over to 2008. Why not use 'em while you've got 'em?

You see, there's nothing that frustrates me more than fans getting hot and bothered about which conference is more powerful than the next. I rant about this to my real life friends (all two of them) at least once a week every fall. Honestly, people... how the hell can you tell which conferences are better than others unless a variety of teams from each square off against each other? You can speculate about common opponents, strength of schedule, coolest fight songs, and best tailgates all you want. But in the end there is no other way to judge conference A against conference B unless a bunch of their teams play. There just isn't.

Sadly, I often feel like I'm pretty much alone in holding this opinion. We live in a culture obsessed with trying to figure out what's going to happen next, rather than just basking in the here and now. Sports and sports media hype today is all about predicting the unpredictable. Which 9th grader is going to be the next 1,500 yard rusher in the NFL? I guarantee there are dozens of creepy rivals.com analysts out there who could debate this topic for hours. Who should be placed atop the eternally meaningless "power rankings" column on your favorite sports website? If you want to lose hope for humanity, check out the comments section attached to a power rankings article anywhere. How so many people so hung up on where a random sportswriter ranks their team is beyond me. How many more years will (suffering team X) go without a title? It's a topic tailor made for "Around the Horn."

And of course, debating the relative strengths of conferences fits right into this clusterfuck of unbridled speculation. But this doesn't stop it from happening ad nauseam every year from August until the first week of January. People just eat this shit up. Everyone and their brother wants "experts" to weigh in this meaningless argument and side with their local conference. It drives me bonkers. How about we just worry about the games that are actually being played? Do we really need to waste energy figuring out whether the Sun Belt is better or worse than the MAC at the halfway point of the season?

So on that note- thanks, Stewart, for articulating my feelings on the matter better than I ever could have. Either click the link and read his whole mailbag (which is very good), or if you're pressed for time, sit back and enjoy these excerpts.

Mind you, this whole thing is a relatively recent phenomenon. While people used to complain about certain teams' soft non-conference schedules (Kansas State, Virginia Tech, etc.), I really don't remember reading any 12-page manifestos championing the Big Ten over the Big 12 or the SEC over the Pac-10. These days, however, some fans get as worked up about defending their favorite conference's honor as they do cheering on their favorite team.

It seems to me this can be traced back to Auburn's 2004 exclusion from the BCS championship. While there were certainly BCS controversies before that one, I rarely remember conference affiliation entering the equation. But when this happened, fans of not only Auburn, but also the entire SEC, were indignant. To them, this wasn't just about an undefeated team being deprived an opportunity at the title; this was about an SEC team getting shafted.

And so, over the two years that followed, SEC coaches and fans alike took every opportunity to make sure such an injustice wouldn't happen again, beating it into the rest of the country's brains just how much tougher their conference was than everybody else's. This of course only intensified after Florida demolished season-long media darling Ohio State last January -- which in turn has caused backlash against the SEC from fans in the rest of the country.

All over a topic for which -- and I can't emphasize this enough -- THERE IS NO RIGHT ANSWER.

We could literally go on like this for days, people, and we'd just keep going in circles. The only way to truly gauge the respective conferences is when their teams play each other, usually either early in the season or in the bowls, and even then, those results invariably come with asterisks.

When it comes to the various conference loyalists versus critics, it seems the truth is often whatever you want to make it. For the love of humanity -- and more importantly, my sanity -- can we please move on to some other topics?

I like it when professional journalists feel the same way I do! Almost makes me feel like I'm not living in my parents' basement and eating Pop Tarts three meals a day. If they can get paid for feeling this way, why can't I? You know, besides the fact that I have no journalism experience, no connections, and no writing skills.

Friday, October 5, 2007

more comedy at the expense of old people

since the big lead linked us last week, i guess it's only fair that we link them. after all, both our sites are roughly equal to each other in popularity so fair is fair.

anyways, read the post below where i make a quick little joke about gregg easterbrook talking like a curmudgeony old man. then, go to this link, for perhaps the best curmudgeony old man rant i've ever seen from a professional journalist. gregg's got absolutely nothing on beano cook. (well, obviously. i mean, it is beano cook. but still... you've got to be kidding me.) stick around for the full two and half minutes; the conclusion is amazing.

Saturday, September 22, 2007

Most Ridiculous Hook Ever

So I've been busy lately. I missed a few updates on the Reds. I went back and read the write-up on Reds.com after the Reds' victory over the Cubs on Tuesday and I found this gem, which makes the somewhat-valid point that Aaron Harang is underrated.

CHICAGO -- Aaron Harang could nail a performance as "Hamlet," and the nation's critics would likely rave first about Shakespeare's writing or how great the costumes or lighting were.

Actually, I think that if Aaron Harang nailed a performance as "Hamlet", the nation's critics would likely write headlines like "Daring Director Casts Gigantic Hamlet" or "Enormous Hamlet Dwarfs Role". If Shakespeare envisioned Aaron Harang playing Hamlet, the script would've only been one act long and Hamlet would've beat the shit out of Claudius right away. I doubt any production of "Hamlet" has ever had a 6-7 275lb star.

Also, I don't know why Mr. Sheldon put "Hamlet" in quotes. Is he envisioning Harang doing a one-man rendition of the entire play? Because that would be downright ridiculous! I'm sure Aaron has a lot of acting talent, but I don't know if he could handle both Hamlet and Ophelia!

The point of the article is somewhat valid; Harang has been a top-10 pitcher in the NL two straight years. You hear more about blowhards like Zambrano, who will not win the Cy Young because he hasn't even been the best pitcher on his team, and has been a great deal worse than Tom Gorzelanny. Good, Mark. Valid point. But your article's hook is either whimsical or stupid, based on your literary affections.




Tuesday, August 7, 2007

history schmistory

so bonds just went yard. i'm not guessing what percentage of them will suck and what percentage of them will really suck, but how many million billion bajillion bonds-related articles will be written and published in the next week? i say about a zillion million billion bajillion. we can only hope something even more newsworthy happens in the next couple days, such as (joke synthesizing several current new stories in a ridiculous fashion goes here)!

also, i would just like to take this opportunity to point out that barry bonds has never tested positive for steroids. this message brought to you by the council for people that are really, really out of touch with reality.

Saturday, May 19, 2007

Bud Selig To Nuke The NFL

Bud apologizes for reserve clause, etc.

Bud, is this really necessary? I love how this makes a story: Baseball Commissioner takes credit for the sport's popularity. What has Bud done? Managed to avoid another cataclysmic and pointless strike because both sides realize they are making more money than everyone else in the country except the oil companies?

I actually liked this article, because I felt that deep down, whoever wrote it was actually mocking ol' Bud. Why else would we publish the fact that a commissioner apologized for something he had nothing to do with? But here's the real clincher that makes this article a Bud-laugh:

Red Sox president Larry Lucchino called Selig "the Harry Truman of baseball commissioners" and said changes such as interleague play and the wild card make Selig the most accomplished of the sport's leaders.

Ookay, Larry. Make a comparison to a president whose most famous action was utterly annihilating an enemy. I hardly suspect that the wild-card and interleague play have established baseball as the superpower sport, while Nagasaki established the USA as the superpower country.

Was that what you were trying to say, Mr. Lucchino?

Tuesday, May 15, 2007

What Was the Point of This Article?

I literally have no idea why this article was written. I know there's ado and hoopla about dog fighting at Michael Vick's house and I know that he's been in trouble in the past, but then again everyone in the world knows this. Why the fuck do we need this article by this guy I've never heard of chronicling Vick's "tarnished reputation." Look at how useless this is:

Falcons QB Michael Vick who increasingly seems as problematic off the field as he is on it seems to have found trouble once again. This time Vick is dogged by allegations that he was part of a dog-fighting ring operating out of a home he owned in Virginia. (We must say "owned" because once the dog-fighting rumors surfaced, Vick quickly sold the house for less than half of its assessed value. OK, so he's no Donald Trump.)

Already I'm pissed off. This is starting off like one of those Skip Bayless "let me tell you something I find outrageous" articles, pinpointing some exact transgression the author finds outrageous. Except in this case, the outrageous thing is something everyone already knows about and that happened weeks ago. And this dude's going to detail the events as if someone reading through si.com doesn't already know that Vick's in some shit for training dogs. I also want to point out just how lame this parenthetical section is. We're criticizing Vick for lacking real estate savvy now? Seriously? And a Donald Trump joke? What is this 1986?

In just the last two years, Vick has made a run at Pacman Jones' off-field headline making supremacy by: being accused of giving a woman genital herpes and using the evocative alias "Ron Mexico" to receive his herpes medication in secret; flipping a double dirty bird to the home Atlanta fans after a Falcons loss; allegedly trying to pass through airport security while carrying a water bottle containing what the Miami police described as "a small amount of dark particulate and a pungent aroma closely associated with marijuana"; missing a chance to speak on Capitol Hill regarding after-school programs; and most recently, being suspected of having involvement in a dog-fighting ring at a home he owns in Virginia.

Is there anyone on earth who isn't already aware of all these missteps by Vick? Is there anyone on earth who when they hear Vick's name doesn't immediate think one of the following two things:

--Underachieving Quarterback

--V.D. Superhero


If you left out "underachieving quarterback," you wouldn't lose many people, either.
We get it. We got it before you started writing the article. Vick has problems. Vick is a colossal fuckup. Why don't you write a "Bill Clinton likes oral sex" article while you're at it? Or a "Rae Caruth is not a good role model" one?

And it doesn't stop. It's reached the point now where the daily Falcons practice notes in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution are a mix of items about offensive adjustments, rookies adapting the NFL and former teammates allegedly saying that Vick is totally into dog fighting.

like, fer sure?

Vick is the highest-paid player in the NFL and perhaps the most exciting, too. But for everyone who hoped Vick would be the first guy in franchise history to lead the Falcons to back-to-back winning seasons, he's simply looked like a guy who might not be able to throw the ball accurately enough to win more NFL games than he loses.

snooze. Welcome to last week. What's next? "Sometimes Vick looks like he's ready to take the next step, sometimes he doesn't"?

Then there's those of us who saw in Vick a player we thought we could throw our complete emotional support behind. For many of us, Vick was our favorite NFL player, the guy we suspected had the ability to change the way the quarterback position would be played going forward.

oh CHRIST! He done did it! And now the article starts to go off on a strange, strange 500 word tangent

It's probably not the best idea to idolize someone you'll never really get to know. I got lucky growing up. Even though I was living in Atlanta, somehow Phoenix Suns point guard Kevin Johnson caught my eye, and I spent the next few years trying to indulge in all things KJ. I purchased KJ jerseys and t-shirts via mail order, even managed to get a No. 7 practice jersey for my high school basketball team. KJ was never the most outspoken or flashy player in the NBA, but he was a solid, terrific point guard. (When he dunked all over Hakeem Olajuwon, I nearly jumped through my roof.)

I know it's dangerous to read too much into these kind of things, but stuff like "I got lucky," and "Kevin Johnson caught my eye" at BEST just sounds really fucking stupid. This guy is seriously about to talk about how because Kevin Johnson was never particularly good but was quote/unquote classy, he was, like, the best dude EVER. I think the "lunchpail" alert level is at about orange right now. I wonder how this guy feels about Eckstein.

The guy goes on and on about KJ in an article that is ostensibly about Vick...my gut instinct is to clip it since it's just fawning, but I think I'm going to let it stand for itself:

KJ never won a title, was never an MVP, but most importantly, he never let me down. He certainly had no idea there was a kid in Atlanta studying his every move, but he comported himself as though he knew there was someone who would be crushed if he was implicated in a dog-fighting ring or was caught carrying a bottle capable of concealing a dark particulate.

Charles Barkley came out and directly warned the world that he was not a role model, but he was and he is, whether he likes it or not. The same goes for Vick. Barkley's point was that kids should look up to people they actually have access to for guidance and advice, like teachers or parents. While there are a lot of kids who don't have that luxury, I was raised in a two-parent home with parents who were always there for me. But I still looked up to KJ.

The thing is -- and this is a lesson we only learn through experience -- the let down is a part of the deal that we have to accept. When we invest our hopes in somebody we've never met, we're opening ourselves to the good as well as the bad. We just hope there ends up being more good than bad.

whew. That's a mouthful! Of Kevin Johnson!

When the Falcons drafted Vick, I didn't have much choice but to buy in completely. As soon as Vick slipped on that Falcons cap and shook hands with Paul Tagliabue, he became the most athletically gifted player the Falcons have ever had. OK, so he still hasn't become the quarterback we'd hoped he become, but he's provided some mind-bending moments that Falcons fans will never forget. Unfortunately, a lot of those moments have occurred off the field.

Vick is not a character guy. We get it. We done GOT it months before this article was a gleam in Kevin Johnson's eye (since, of course, I'm assuming this guy, pasty-white though he may be, is Kevin Johnson's son)

New NFL commissioner Roger Goodell seems to be like a new principal intent on establishing himself as a stern disciplinarian before his students take advantage of him. As if in response before the iron hand of the NFL comes down on him, Vick has spent the off-season promising us that he's going to take a hard look at his life (at the urging of Falcons owner Arthur Blank) and that things will be different from here on. "Just don't plan on talking about me anymore unless it's about football," Vick said last week.

A principal? It's been a while since I've been in high school, but shouldn't the analogy be "new teacher"? I don't remember too many kids in my class trying to "put one by the old principal." Here's the problem I have with this article: there are a lot of noteworthy things to discuss about Vick. For instance, something that's not been said is how this discipline policy relates to league stars. It's a general behavior policy, and Pacman has felt the brunt of it despite no actual convictions. Vick brought an illegal concealing device to an airport, presumably filled with marijuana, he allowed fighting dogs to be trained on his property, he flipped off HIS HOME CROWD, and he hilariously but very publicly tried to conceal the fact that his cock breaks out in sores every now and then.

Granted, none of this is "making it rain," but there's very little speculation on whether Vick will be suspended or should be suspended and how that relates to him being one of the biggest stars in the game. That would make this article useful. That's something worth discussing. The fact that Vick has been in trouble is a completely worthless subject for an editorial. Of course the Rick Reilly's and Skip Bayless's of the world are going to lap it up. "Character is important!" "Why can't more people be like LDT?" "These crumbums make too much money to be acting like criminals" (apologies to the onion).

So why was this article written? To grandstand? To impose the author's morals on an uninterested audience? As an excuse to compose a sweet elegy to the classy, grindy, fundamentally-sound playing career of KJ and other so-called "good-guys"? Only the author knows, although I would suggest to the editors of SI.com (who clearly read this site) that this might be a question worth asking before publishing this smear pap.

And at the risk of going off on a tangent, can we just stop with the moral grandstanding and excessive praise of those who haven't yet got in trouble? I remember Kobe was always supposed to be a decent guy...up until the whole rape accusation. Now he's, at the very least, a guy who cheats on his wife. I noticed Schilling, in typical Schilling douchebag fashion, made sure to bring up this point in a rip on Bonds, accusing him not only at cheating at "the game" but also cheating on his wife.

Let's ignore the obvious joke about Schilling cheating at bleeding, and move on to think about the likely fact that most of Schilling's teammates have cheated on their wives and significant others. They're pro baseball players after all. Essentially Schilling called out a good pct. of his teammates in trying to make sure everyone knows he's a Christian. If there were a letter of the alphabet for rolling one's eyes, this is where I'd type it.

Likewise, Skip Bayless probably beats his kid or some shit, and I know Jay Mariotti is on some sort of hard drug to be coming up with some of the far-fetched poop he slings... ladies and gentlemen there IS no moral highground. Tangent over. Let's let the gentleman finish up on ripping Vick:

I just wonder if it's too late. Vick could give all his money to the poor, win five straight Super Bowls and stumble across a cure for cancer by haphazardly mixing flavors of Gatorade, but he'll always be known as Ron Mexico. I suppose it's important to remember that Vick hasn't actually been found guilty in any of these incidents. As a Falcons fan, I hope none of this stuff shakes out, yet as a realist, if you subscribe to the "where there's smoke there's fire" theory, Vick's created a veritable raging inferno around him.

We've seen him escape from plenty of improbable situations before. But if he keeps this up, he's eventually going to find an impasse from which even his fleet feet can't carry him far, far away.

I suppose he subscribes to the Terrell Owens theory on Jeff Garcia too. This would have been a great point to bring up the fact that Pacman Jones, suspended for an entire season, has never been found guilty as of this article's press. Instead we get this, which I really hope someone can explain, because frankly I am lost:

Game Of The Week

While Gold Miner has now become one of the great games in the history of the Internets, Reel Gold seems to be a pretty intriguing variant.


on a final note, I sincerely doubt that if Vick won five straight Super Bowls and gave all his money to the poor and found a cure for cancer, he would be primarily known for having herpes. I know that isn't the point the author's trying to make, but can we please fucking quit the stupid hyperbole style of writing for at least a month or so? Christ.