Chairman of giant company shows JoePa mourners how giant companies placate the public after shit goes down

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.

Note to pretty much every football commentator on every network

"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

Thoughts about Paterno getting the boot

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.

The Jay-Bird Hypocritically Deals With Erin Andrews & Celeb Culture

As you might remember,the JayBird writes for AOL Fanhouse now. Basically, he's a professional blogger. Here's his take on the Erin Andrews blowup. Basically, he excoriates the blogosphere for feeding the Andrews frenzy. While he has some points, he kind of misses the point. There's a lot of shit in this article, but I don't feel like Tolstoying it for this post. Here's the best selection:

A second-guess, this is not. I've been saying it for years. And sadly enough, I've feared it would involve Andrews, whose only sin is being good-looking and blond on a powerful television network watched predominantly by sports-and-female-loving males.

Well, shit. She's managed to get to the top of the pile in the sportscasting world almost surely because of her incredibly high rating on the conventional attractiveness scale. Though Erin herself didn't commit this sin, isn't it partially ESPN's fault for parading this sex object on the sidelines of famous football games? It's like Jay wants to excuse ESPN for marketing and profiting off Erin-Andrews-as-sex-symbol but then complains when someone actually treats Erin like a sex symbol.

Am I blaming sports bloggers and their commenters that a very disturbed person secretly videotaped Andrews as she was standing nude in her hotel room, then posted the five-minute video on the Internet?

It's not my fault.

No, I am not, even though the video was posted under the title "Hot naked blonde who looks a lot like a sports blogger favorite in her hotel room.'' But am I blaming bloggers for helping create the daily sex-and-objectification culture that turned Andrews into an ongoing peep show on their Web sites?

Look, Jay. Why don't you just blame masculine culture as a whole - the culture that can't look at a good-looking woman on television without objectifying her? That's not something exclusive to the sports-blogging world, that's something shared in any public sphere.

Occasionally glancing at such junk through the years, I was whisked into a cross between a frat boy's porn fantasies and a sports remake of Revenge of the Nerds. Who were these geeks? Why was the Internet, once again, giving semi-lives to people with no lives?

Hey Jay, didn't you recently and publicly abandon your print-media old-school ethics-bound news organization for an internet-only basically-a-blog gig?

Ironically, the internet (and the ESPNiverse) has given a semi-life to people like Mariotti - who should have no life.

My punishment for writing this, naturally, will be a full-scale assault on my character by these very sites,

A deserved assault, considering all the stupid things you've said and done in your entire career.

none of which are worthy of being mentioned on a respectable, globally regarded site such as this.

You're such a fucking big deal, Jay, that you have to remind us about how big a deal you are on AOL fucking Fanhouse.

See, these dweebs can dish out the criticism but can't take it.

Name-calling: way to go, Jay.

Rather than take on an almighty sports executive -- the real test of a sportswriter in an age when leagues and media are frequent bedfellows -- they go after media people.

What? Bloggers are afraid to take on sports execs? I don't even understand this point - in the whole article he complains about amoral bloggers who take advantage of people like Erin Andrews, but now he seems to complain about the media members who are cozied up to the leagues. That's NOT bloggers, who have very little connection to the inside sports world.

When a blog gets something right about me, for instance, I'll be the first to say so.

Jesus H. Christ, Jay. Save yourself a few bucks and mail the fifty-pound package of letters you owe us third-class. We've waited two years; we can wait a few more days.

To date, they're batting way under the Mendoza line, about .150.

He must not have read us.

A blog said I was with a "semi-hot blonde'' at an NBA party; she was a public-relations person for a player marketing a charity game.

So was the blog wrong?

A blog was woefully wrong about my salary, just guessing and never bothering to look into it.

How would they look into it? Is your salary public knowledge? Shit, Jay, there's a lot of things you rarely bother to look into.

A blog recklessly ran items that weren't remotely true when I left the Chicago Sun-Times.

I hope he's referring to this epic post of ours. I think we can admit to being reckless, though.

A blog said I brag endlessly about our TV show in bars; when people ask about Around The Horn, I'm friendly and answer all questions or else I'm called a jerk.

We've looked at a lot of your articles and you actually are kind of a jerk. You've made a career off being a jerk, at least in print. Who knows, Jay, maybe you are a nice guy in person.

A blog said I don't like to have pictures taken in bars; that's true, because I don't want some blogger running a picture and calling me drunk when I've had one beer.

That's your prerogative. That's pretty sensible actually - and it doesn't have a lot to do with blogs. Lots of people in this country don't want to be photographed drinking, only because there's a bit of a social stigma about being publicly drunk that extends to more people than you, Jay.

If this is the American Way, what happened to the truth and justice part?

The sort of truth created when you sign a three-year contract extension with your employer in mid-June, only to quit in early August?

A few years ago, after the blogs had their way with me during another Ozzie Guillen meltdown,

You mean last year? Or maybe the summer of 2007? Or all those other times you said stupid shit?

I had death threats in Chicago.

For the official record, that wasn't us. We just wanted to see him fired.

The newspaper ordered me to have a driver take me to U.S. Cellular Field so I would avoid possible violence in the stadium parking lots.

I'm sure you protested all night about being given such special treatment.

So, sure, the Erin Andrews case gives me the shivers, too. While I'm more Jim Belushi than George Clooney, I think I'll take a good, long look at the peephole the next time I'm in a hotel room.

Jay, you're not that important. Or even vaguely attractive. Notice that no male sportscasters ever get this shit happening to them.

And wonder what the hell happened to my profession.

Hey, that's why we're here, Jay. We wonder why people like you have important roles in it.

Something I Don't Understand: Game Recaps

Often, I don't have the opportunity to watch a lot of football on the weekends. Hey - I'm a busy guy! But sometimes I still like to know what's going on in the football world. Therefore, I turn to teh_interwebs to help me catch up! Often, I can even find out what happened in the football game even though I didn't watch any of it!

But here's what I don't understand. The articles generally give me a weird, jumbled version of what actually happened in the game. Case in point: the AP recap of today's Bengals-Jets game. Since I was busy all day and couldn't watch any of it, I had to go find out what happened online. I actually wanted to find out what happened in the game, but I ended up with a mishmash of numbers and a suspiciously postmodern pastiche of game events. I think it's generally consistent with how any sports recap articles are written (for your reference: today's Rams/Redskins game, yesterday's Texas Tech/Nebraska game and even yesterday's ALCS Game Two).

Here's my breakdown of this style, using the Bengals/Jets recap as a source text:

The beginning of the article: The Most Exciting Events In The Game

EAST RUTHERFORD, N.J. -- Rested and rusty after a bye week, the New York Jets made just enough plays to beat the winless Cincinnati Bengals.

This opener makes sense, though it really kind of kills the suspense! I mean, do I really need to read the rest of this article? Then again, considering the Bengals, did I really even need to find this article in the first place? (LAWL!)

[Are teams really rusty after one bye week? Aren't most teams actually better off after a bye week, since their staff can plan better?]

Thomas Jones ran for two touchdowns, including a 1-yarder late in the game, and caught a pass from Brett Favre for a score as the Jets beat the Bengals 26-14 on Sunday.

A slightly more detailed version of the above - though, from all indications in the stats, Thomas Jones' importance seems overstated. He did score three touchdowns, but he didn't account for 90 yards of total offense. These facts actually hurt my understanding of the game: it seems like the author just wanted to chuck the most interesting events (i.e. touchdowns) right up at the top of the article .... but it completely screws any uninformed reader, because the reader can't figure out the context of those scores.

The End of the Article:Pointless Filler of Uninteresting Events

Fitzpatrick ran it in over the right guard from 1 yard to make it 17-14 with 8 seconds left before halftime. The play capped a 14-play, 66-yard drive in which Fitzpatrick was 8-of-10 for 64 yards and led the Bengals to their first five first downs of the game.

Wait, why am I hearing about this at the very end of this article? Why is the fact that this drive "led the Bengals to their first five first (sic) downs of the game" concealed till the end of the article? Wouldn't it have been more interesting to know this earlier, to demonstrate how the game was still close even though the Bengals didn't manage a first down until over a third of the game had passed?

Is the fact that they had their first five first downs of the game a secret-code for AP writers, perhaps intimating that tonight's post-work alcohol binge will be an overload of this?

Feely's 43-yard field goal with 5:36 left in the third quarter made it 20-14.

Why the heck is this the last line of the story? Is this for people scoring at home while reading the article, so they can know exactly how every single point was scored? Did this event not have any drive associated with it? Or is the writer just getting paid by the word and including as much meaningless verbiage as possible in order to line his pocket?

The problem with this format:

The problem is that the article never really tells the story of the game. Rather than telling the chronological story of the game - and giving the reader a sense of the game's ups and downs and providing actual context for the big plays in the game... the story simply cobbles together a series of highlights which tell no actual story. As a result, the whole article doesn't even want to be read: it's as though the article doesn't even WANT itself to be read... as though the author EXPECTS you to click on something else before you get to the end.

I expect to be attacked by this kind of image-hopping thing when I'm watching TV highlights - they only have a few seconds to tell the story of a game. But with journalism, you'd think you could at least get a coherent story - because every sports game is just that: a story of sequenced events. Unfortunately, every sports game's recap is a mishmash of unsequenced events.

When you're stuck in an image-obsessed culture that has little appreciation for context and real narrative, I guess this is what you get.

The Problem of the Cubs

Marty Brennaman's perspective on Cubs fans: [per chris w]



Here's the thing:

This debate is essentially a question of elitism.

I've realized that my problems with Cubs fans are rooted in their unabashed lack of baseball knowledge and general boorish behavior [both at Wrigley and in Cincinnati]. That's what I was getting at in my last post, when I criticized Paul Daughtery for suggesting that the Reds ought to embrace the Cubs' ability to draw fans.

Considering two of the comments on my most recent post, I realized that it boils down to a larger question about professional sports:

Is the purpose of a baseball team [or any other sports team] to provide entertainment, play good baseball, profit the owners, or something else?

In my somewhat-elitist point of view, the priority is to play good baseball. This is also because I believe that well-played baseball provides entertainment and can generate profit.

However, considering there are quite a number of people in society who don't have an appreciation for well-played baseball as I do, baseball is often an entertainment-provider. It's true that when people go to sit in the bleachers at Wrigley, it's for Take Me Out To the Ballgame, Right Field Sucks and Old Style. The Anonymous commenter properly suggested that a good model might be the Red Sox, who have hordes of annoying fans (perhaps even worse than the Cubs and Yankees) but still manage to play good baseball.

Obviously, if I were a Red Sox fan, I would be pleased at the quality of baseball in Fenway Park - but I still might be more than a little pissed at the quality of fans in Fenway Park. I'd hope that most franchises aspire to cultivate a fan base who appreciate good baseball. For my money, actually, the franchise that best approximates this is the Cardinals - reasonably informed fans and reasonably successful teams.

To conclude: I'm with the elitists here. I'm willing to castigate Cubs fans for being morons. I think it should be a franchise's goal to win games - and it can surely help you win games if you draw a lot of fans and generate a lot of income. But I think it's antithetical to the goal of winning games if you pursue entertainment over baseball, as the Cubs have done. So, maybe I'm an elitist, but I've never had a problem with that anyways.

Here's a guy who ascertains the real problems: [pretty bad language. nsfw. or kids. but it's still hilarious].

Jeff Pearlman Puts Everyone To Sleep

Taking a break from writing human interest pieces about athletes you've never heard of, old FireJay favorite Jeff has given us an article that truly lives up to the tag "articles that didn't need to be written."

Major league ballplayers should care about this election

Throughout spring training clubhouses in Arizona and Florida, politics fail to generate interest. Finding someone who has participated in a state primary or caucus is slightly harder than finding a cinematic role for Meeno Peluce. The majority of players are almost certainly not even registered to vote. On the morning following last Tuesday's highly publicized Wisconsin Democratic primary, nary a Ranger nor Kansas City Royal could be heard talking about the results. Heck, no one even seemed to know the event took place.

Wow. Who would have possibly thought that to be the case. But why?

"Baseball players are inherently selfish," says Brian Johnson, the former major league catcher. "Everything is about 'me.' People want my autograph, people want to see me, people want to watch my games on TV. Everyone works around my schedule, even my wife and kids. So it's hard to have a global or national perspective when everything is about you."

Thank you, Brian. Upon receiving this quote, Jeff should have immediately put two and two together and realized that this is a dumb topic. But he presses on.

Indeed, a top 10 list of spring training topics discussed by ballplayers would look something like this:

1. Baseball
2. Free sunglasses
3. Breasts
4-5. Jesus/golf (tie)
6. Dinner options
7. The Kyle Kendrick YouTube video
8. Britney Spears
9. Strip clubs
10. More Jesus/golf (tie)

If you are surprised, offended, or shocked by this list (which is probably not 100% accurate... breasts and free sunglasses need to trade places), you should not be a sports fan. You are thinking too hard to enjoy watching grown men make their living simply by playing games. Perhaps you're a hyper-practical person who can only focus on things that directly affect your life. Maybe you have a problem with the outrageous levels salaries are reaching. Or maybe you're just too damn naive to realize that as long as you replace "baseball" with their given profession, this list corresponds to pretty much every well-off male between the ages of 18 and 50. Whatever the reason, go find another hobby. Sports fandom and you are not compatible.

Anyways, now that we've established the political ambivalence of MLB players, why does Jeff think these guys should stop being such squares and start caring about the outcome of November's elections?

What many ballplayers fail to understand is that, in terms of policy, they will be as impacted by this fall's election as anyone. While McCain plans on upholding the tax cuts enacted under George W. Bush, both Obama and Clinton want tax breaks to expire for Americans making more than $200,000 per year. (Read: baseball players.) Though McCain has said little about automobile emissions, Obama and Clinton have demanded drastic improvements in fuel efficiency standards. (The unofficial baseball player vehicle of choice? The mighty Hummer.)

The list goes on and on.

So let me get this straight- Hummers and other gas guzzlers might have to up their MPG outputs sometime in the next 20 years (based on an article I read in Time, which I can't link because this was like a month ago while I was waiting for my car at Jiffy Lube, this probably won't ever happen). And if a Democrat wins, there's a chance they will try to get rid of some of Bush's upper class tax cuts. And those two facts are supposed to overcome the breasts, free sunglasses, and other powerful cultural barriers currently restricting baseball players' interests in politics? Talk about tepid (at best) support for one's own point. I dare you- gather up a bunch of guys between 21 and 40, many of whom are already millionaires or will be millionaires within the next five years. Then tell them that they should start caring more about politics because they might have to buy slightly smaller cars or pay an extra fifteen grand in taxes in a couple of years. And try not to look too embarrassed when they laugh you out of the room.

Look, it's totally correct that political apathy and low voter turnout are huge problems with this country. Our election participation numbers are downright pathetic when you compare us to other western democracies. But I really don't think baseball players are at the top of the list of groups who need to start caring more. Maybe the millions and millions of uninsured Americans out there or those who make less than $20,000 a year and are constantly at risk of slipping into poverty should step up their levels of interest before we start busting balls in MLB clubhouses.

And sure, I'll grant that if more public figures like pro athletes made a bigger deal out of politics, that might cause more everyday people to have the same response. But really, if we need to be told by celebrities how to look out for our own interests, doesn't that really just make us a pathetic bunch of losers?

Christ, what was I originally talking about. Oh yeah- hey Jeff, try to pick out a less boring topic for your next piece. That would be fantastic.

Baseball Players Never Grew Up

I recently stumbled upon this blog post by a guy named Jeff Horrigan. In it, he mentions that former Reds catcher Joe Oliver (a classic name from dan-bob's youth and the catcher of the last world champion Reds team) is feeling disgruntled. Here's what Joe said:

What would happen if someone like me decide to have an attorney bring a lawsuit against MLB because the owners and GM’s knew about players juicing and did nothing about it. That would have created an unlevel playing field for players like me to compete. I had to vie for a job every year and now I know it had something to do with certain players having a competitive edge on me.

I don't think the lawsuit would hold a lot of water. But what confuses me is that Joe alleges that the owners and GMs knew about it, but that he didn't. This brings me to the larger point: sure, you got screwed, Joe... but as much as the owners and GMs tolerated it, so did the culture of the players tolerate it. Baseball players are some of the most immature athletes; a lot of them never even started college. Their player culture is famously closed (see the story of Jim Bouton's Ball Four). One wonders how many scores of clean players like Joe were aware of the level of abuse, but never said a word. Got to toe the line. Don't break the code.

“I spent all that time in the early hours running and lifting weights, these guys would shoot up and be done and get stronger, faster, and the owners knew who they were and the GM’s knew who they were. Every time I argued for a contract, I was competing with juiced catchers in the same boat looking for a job. They got the higher paying jobs and I got screwed.

Yep. You got screwed, Joe. You did get screwed, but just as much by your own players' culture as the management's willful ignorance. At least now you're not on the list, Joe. The players won't suffer repercussions due to the strength of the players' union [see how successful the game is? gotta feed the beast -ahem, the players]. It's hard for anyone to check the arrogance and collective power of a group of young men who, while making millions for themselves, also generate millions for the owners and for their cities.

The losers, as usual, are the fans and the Joe Olivers of the world. With apologies to Green Day and the Leo Durocher, "Nice Guys Who Didn't Take Steroids Finish Last in Contract Negotiations".

Ombudsman? More Like OmbudsWOman

I'm not trying to be some crazy, oversensitive, Birkenstock-wearing hyperliberal cootbag. I've just always thought it was weird how when a female gets a job that traditionally is titled with the suffix -man, you don't change it to -woman. If a lady who works for the USPS delivers your mail, can't you call her a "postwoman?" Is that so wrong? And fuck all that politically correct crap about changing the suffix to something gender neutral like -person. Foreperson, repairperson, and milkperson don't roll off the tongue. I just want to use "man" when it's a dude and "woman" when it's a chick. Simple as that.

Wait, what were we talking about again?

Oh yeah. LeAnne Schreiber is amazing. I'd even say that as far as my interest in blogging/sportswriting goes, she's my idol. If you haven't heard of her, she's ESPN's Ombudsman. (That still sounds funny to me but whatever.) She writes a monthly online column for their website which is basically a review of something the World Wide Leader did recently that elicited a lot of criticism or discussion. Recently she's addressed their handling of Barry Bonds's indictment, the Joe Torre melodrama, and Sean Taylor's death. Her tone is often critical, as it should be considering how shitty the product ESPN puts out often is, but it's also fair and objective. She's like a professional, non-angry, non-profane version of us who comments on a network as a whole rather than individual articles. If I'm allowed to define her as a journalist, she's easily my favorite anywhere on teh whole wide interwebs. Here's a link to her archive at ESPN; please read her last few articles if you haven't already. You'll understand why I'm hyping her up so much.

Excuse Me While I Make Like Rick Reilly

Boy, is my face red right about now. Earlier tonight, I sat down to lampoon this terrible piece of sportswriting I found, but something was wrong. I just couldn't go through with it. Why not? See, as most of our regular readers and those casual readers with a discerning eye may have been able to tell from some past posts we've written, myself and eriz are big Rockies fans. And of course, earlier in the evening I got to watch them play like a bag of ass on baseball's biggest stage. Again. Great, way to show up for the Series, guys. Nicely done. Anyways, I promised myself I wouldn't let my feelings about the end of my team's season affect my ability to blog. I mean, how hard could that be? Bad sportswriting is bad sportswriting, and it needs to be shat on regardless of what's going on in my little world. It's pretty simple. But try as I might, I just couldn't put anything together. Turned out to be a lot more difficult than I thought it would be.

And that's when I realized, Rick Reilly has been right all along- sports are just beautiful, aren't they? I mean, this is going to end up being incredibly lame, indulge me. Let's break down the situation and try to figure out whether or not this makes sense. For starters, I'm 23. I'm probably a liiiiiiiiiiittle too old to get all bummed out over my favorite baseball team losing in the World Series. I also have a lot going on in my life; a wide variety of responsibilities and deadlines and obligations keep my mind occupied pretty much anytime I'm awake. Living in your parents' basement is tougher than you think. Pop Tarts don't grow on trees; I have to go grab a fresh box from the pantry upstairs every couple of days. Furthermore, when it comes to sports, I have at least five other teams in both the college and professional ranks that I follow just as closely as the Rockies. It's not like all my eggs are in one basket. And finally, prior to this season, the Rockies had won a grand total of one playoff game in 14 years of existence. This year they won seven times that, plus their first pennant. Shouldn't that be enough for me to consider the season a flying success regardless of the WS outcome?

Well, enough of all that self-analytical nonsense. The bottom line is, why did tonight's shitbomb of the game (and the three awful shitbombs of games that preceded it) prevent me from doing the one thing I actually enjoy in life? In the end, I think it's probably because sports are so goddamn beautiful. No matter how old you are, what else is going on in your life, how many other teams you follow, or how great a season was- unless they win it all, the day your team has to close up shop and wait for next year can really throw you off your game. But I'm not worried about it. Tomorrow I'll be back. Until then, you're just going to have to make fun of Dayn Perry and Gene Wojceichowski on your own.

(If any of our twelve readers are big Red Sox fans and want to leave an insulting comment because I crap on Boston all the time, let me remind them of three things:

1. Chris W (White Sox), pnoles (White Sox), dan-bob (Reds), and jarrett (Cardinals) don't give a shit about the Rockies. So you can leave them out of it.

2. This whole post is really just sour grapes by me. That should be pretty obvious. Take it for what it is. I mean, I don't really like your team... but meh.

3. A whiny fuckbag of a journalist who regularly references "The Hills" in his columns and is in a fued with DANE COOK of all people speaks for your whole fanbase. I know, it sucks. Deal with it.)