Severely, severely embarrassing

I'm definitely going to finish the Simmons "Let's turn the Hall of Fame into a novelty structure celebrating the careers of Jim Rice and Jack Morris" article later, probably Friday, but this particular dumpster fire could not wait.  Holy fucking cat shit.  Even for Rick Reilly, this is indescribably bad.  I've never seen a journalist lower themselves to shill for a franchise or league like this before.  Not even immediately before and during the NFL lockout, when mouthbreathers like Peter King stepped up to defend the league and (try to) give credence to the claim that its then-current revenue sharing model was unsustainable.  Not even then.  This is worse.

For the 98th straight season, the Chicago Cubs will attempt baseball this season in Wrigley Field. It's historic, magical and covered in vegetation. Then again, so is Machu Picchu and nobody's trying to win baseball games there.

We start off with a dip into the bottomless well of comedy that is Machu Picchu.

I love Wrigley Field. 

I used to live in Chicago and have attended many games at Wrigley.  If you have any experience with that decrepit (but profitable!) place, you'll agree with me that Rick serves as an excellent proxy for every fat, loud 50something business tripper/midlife crisis haver getting drunk in the bars around Wrigley on game day, sloppily hitting on reluctant 20somethings, and boasting about his plans to head down to the Viagra Triangle to crush some steaks at Morton's after the game.

But I'm not a Cubs fan. 

Perhaps your most redeeming quality.

If I were a Cubs fan, I would despise Wrigley. I'd want Wrigley laid flatter than Wrigley gum.

Gum is flat!

There's a reason the Cubs have never won a World Series at Wrigley. There's a reason they're 0-for-the-last-67 pennant races at Wrigley.

Yes.  Really, it's a confluence of factors, but it can be summed up in not too many words.  First, in the very long term, part of it is just bad luck, because fuck, you'd think they would have stumbled ass-backwards into a title at least once in the last century, right?  The Marlins have two in in the last sixteen years for crisesakes.  A few bounces go differently in 2003, and they at least win the pennant that year.  But anyways, that's just part of it.  The rest is that for years, the Cubs have had incompetent management and ownership, and have fielded subpar teams while making money hand over fist.  It's a pretty common story in the wide world of professional sports, although many teams run in a similarly terrible manner break through and manage to secure a title at least once every half century or so.  Anyways, the reason the Cubs haven't won a pennant since 1945 or a World Series since 1908 has barely a fucking thing to do with Wrigley.

The reason IS Wrigley.

No.

Wrigley isn't just the old family dog that needs to be put down. It's an old family dog that probably costs the Cubs about $73 million a year.

I know what you're thinking.  Just wait until he gets there.

That's three Prince Fielders!

The EXACT kind of player teams like the Cubs should avoid signing, because he's not going to get them from where they are to a championship.  See: Soriano, Alfonso, a man currently signed to the worst contract in baseball not involving a Phillies first baseman.

Where do I get $73 million?

My guess: by sitting down to a nice dinner with a member of the Ricketts ownership group, or someone employed by them, and asking "How much do you want me to say you're losing as a result of playing in Wrigley?  You name the dollar amount, pick up the tab for this food, and I'll write the story.  Also: can we talk about how exciting golf is during the meal?"

Start from the outside-in -- with the money-sucking rooftop mini-stadiums that metastasize outside the ballpark.

Ah yes, the mini-stadiums that, per a 2004 agreement with the Cubs (which has a twenty year term, because the Cubs are fucking idiots--more on that later), give the team 17% of their gross revenue in exchange for the team agreeing not to block the rooftop views.  Or in other words, 17% of their gross revenue in exchange for the Cubs doing exactly nothing.

The owners of these annoying watchtowers sell tickets as though they were the Cubs themselves.

The correct way to state that is that they sell tickets as though they are people who own property next to the stadium, which... they are.

They even sell season tickets! 

Even if the presence of the rooftops seats were something outrageous, I'm not sure how this would contribute to the outrageousness.

The city continues to protect these leeches, who pass themselves off as mom and pop entrepreneurs, but actually rake in an estimated $24 million a year, according to the club.

Where to begin: first of all, I hope you believed me when I said the Cubs probably paid Rick to write this column, because by this point in the article, he's practically admitting it.  Second of all, the city is not protecting the rooftop owners.  The deal the rooftop owners struck with the Cubs, which runs through 2023, is protecting the rooftop owners.  Guess who was at the bargaining table for those negotiations, undoubtedly represented by very expensive lawyers and with full knowledge of what they were and were not agreeing to?  THE FUCKING CUBS, WHO HAVE NO ONE TO BLAME BUT THEMSELVES.  Third of all, let's assume the rooftops do make $24 million (combined, not each) every year.  The Cubs have what is considered to be a very bad TV deal in the current climate for sports broadcasting rights.  It expires after 2014, and at that point they will undoubtedly work to get an deal in place that dwarfs it, possibly similar to the gargantuan deal the Dodgers just signed which will pay the team about $250-$300 million a year for the next 25 years.  Do you know what this current bad deal (split between WGN and Comcast) pays the Cubs per year?  $45 million.  So yeah, I think bitching about a dozen or so rooftops making a couple million a year is pretty fucking pathetic.

Of that, the Cubs get a paltry 17 percent, or $4 million a year.

Which they themselves agreed to in an arm's length negotiation, in exchange for doing nothing.  It may well have been a bad deal, and given that the Cubs agreed to it, it probably is.  But they sure as shit can't blame the city and they can't blame the rooftop owners.

Any fair deal would give them at least half.

Perhaps.  Guess Rick should have led those negotiations.  No worries, Rick: in ten years, when the deal is up, you'll get your chance to make sure those poor destitute owners get the deal they deserve!

(There's $8 million they don't get.)

And here begins Rick's political campaign-worth math exercise.  Try to stay with him, now: the Cubs play at Wrigley Field ==> the Cubs agreed to not obstruct the views of the rooftop owners around Wrigley Field in exchange for $4 million a year ==> Wrigley Field is costing the Cubs $8 million per year.

Inside, the Cubs are prohibited from putting up advertising signs that could make them up to $30 million more a year (that would be $38 million) because the signs would block the views of the precious rooftop oglers and the city can't have that.

We have already been over this like four times.  The Cubs are "prohibited" from doing so because in exchange for that $4 million per year they're getting, they agreed not to build any signs.  This is called a legally enforceable contract.  Each side offers consideration to the other.  If they fail to deliver what they have promised, the other side can bring suit against them to remedy the breach.  To complain that the Cubs aren't getting enough from the rooftops and simultaneously lament that the Cubs are "prohibited" from building signs that block the rooftops is the height of disingenuous bullshit.

You talk about a business being in your business. Can you imagine this happening to any other business?

I can!

Hey, H&R Block! We're not going to pay you for your tax advice, but we ARE going to pocket the cash people give us to sit outside your window and listen to it!

Just wait until Rick finds out that people sell beer, hot dogs, and (often) unlicensed Cubs apparel MERE BLOCKS from the stadium!  What a bunch of leeches!

If all this seems insane to you, you should talk to Bruce Springsteen.

Ah yes, Bruce Springsteen, that champion of big business who hates it when the little guy makes a buck here and there.

In the middle of a recent concert at Wrigley, he stopped, turned toward the rooftops and said, with a smirk, "Everybody up on the roof! Who'd you pay?"

Well first of all, they paid the Cubs with 17% of their ticket price.  Second of all, it's sad to hear he said that, and I hope he didn't, but if so it's because the Cubs got to him like they got to Reilly.  Give the Ricketts credit for trying to win the PR war--the Tribune Co. (owners of the team until the Ricketts bought it in 2009) would have been far too stupid to even realize that was something they should attempt.

You say, "Well, the Cubs aren't really a business. They're a city treasure, a kind of living museum."

No one says this.  This is the worst straw man ever.  Everyone knows that pro sports teams are enormous businesses.  It just so happens that to some people, the Cubs are also a charming local institution with a lot of cool history.  Most of those people will die of heart disease before the age of 45, but there are a lot of them in the greater Chicagoland area, and even they know the Cubs are "really a business."

Fine, if they're a city treasure, then the city should help support them, the way it did for this summer's 30th anniversary of the Chicago Blues Festival, which received a $15,000 grant.

I hope you didn't have any liquid in your mouth when you read that, because you probably just ruined your laptop.  WHERE IS THE $15,000 GRANT FOR THE CUBS, MAYOR EMANUEL?  SHAME ON YOU.  THEY'RE STRUGGLING TO MAKE ENDS MEET UP THERE AT CLARK AND ADDISON.

The Cubs pay 12 percent city "amusement" tax on every ticket (about $17 million a year -- we're up to $55 million), and yet the city doesn't give them a dime. Very unamusing.

My angle in this post so far has mostly focused on his gross mischaracterization of the 2004 rooftop deal, but let's not neglect his embarrassingly pathetic overarching message that a team with nine figure annual income, valued by Forbes as the 36th most valuable pro sports franchise in the world in 2012, is in some kind of financial quagmire.  I don't mean to turn this into #OccupyWrigley, but holy fucking shit on a stick, the Cubs shouldn't be paying taxes on their tickets?  What the fuck is wrong with you?  Also, that $17 million, to the extent it's even worth acknowledging the argument, has nothing to do with Wrigley itself.  Obviously any stadium in any part of Chicago, rooftop LEECHES or not, would be paying that tax.

There's more. You can open the doors of your business pretty much whenever you want, but the Cubs can't. They're allowed to play only 30 night games a year. And they can't even pick the nights. When owner Tom Ricketts inquired if they might play a few Saturday night games this season, the local restaurants fumed, "It'll kill our dinner business!"

This is the only part of the article that is not buttfuckery of the highest order.  In short: until 1988, the Cubs did not play any night games.  That year they finally began doing so after installing lights, but they had to make a deal with the city restricting the number of night games they could play per season to get the lights approved in the first place.  Part of the city's justification was the high degree to which Wrigley is integrated with its surrounding neighborhood, making night games a pain in the ass for local resident.  These regulations remain in place today, and really, I think the Cubs probably have a legitimate gripe in wanting them relaxed.  The area directly bordering Wrigley is all businesses at this point anyways.  And anyone who moves to the neighborhood certainly knows what they're getting themselves into (unless they do so during winter and have the least informative real estate agent ever): Cubs fans are going to piss on your house.  They're going to.  They might be slightly less inclined to do so after a day game than after a night game, but it's going to happen.  If the Cubs want to play a normal "every game is a night game except for getaway day" schedule, fuck it, I say let them.

Now back to the buttfuckery.

Got it. Everybody gets to compete for customers except the Cubs.

The degree to which he's shilling for the team is exactly as embarrassing as I promised it would be, right?

Any idea how much more the Cubs could get for a TV package with 55 night games, which is what many teams play and when most fans watch? Me neither, but let's guess $5 million. (We're up to $60 million.)

Regardless of their day/night game balance, starting in 2015 they're going to have a deal that's worth a fuck of a lot more than $45 million per year.  Let's try not to weep too hard for them.

God forbid they'd want to put up a decent video replay board, which is ad gold for most teams and, by the way, a place where Cubs fans could actually tell the score of the game without having to do the inning-by-inning math themselves, as they do now on the old hand-lettered relic in center. ($7 million? Total so far: $67 million.)

They can do this anytime they want.  This is one of the few complaints raised that actually directly relates to Wrigley (as opposed to if they played in a different, modernized stadium in a different location) but unfortunately for Rick it's still fucking idiotic.

Plus, can you imagine the frogs that would rain down if they tried to sell the name of the stadium? They could never do what the White Sox did, which is to sell Comiskey to U.S. Cellular for $68 million over 20 years. The Cubs could probably get $100 million. There's another $5 million a year. (That's $72 million.)

Again, they are welcome to do this anytime they want.  Not even those nefarious robber baron rooftop owners would be able to stop them.

And forget about how long it takes you to get up and get a hot dog at Wrigley (two innings sometimes), or get to the restroom and back (often three). Hell, by the third inning, the Cubs are on their third reliever. No wonder so many people sneak food in. What's that total in lost concessions? A million? (We're at $73 million.)

Who cares, but yeah, Wrigley is a fucking trashhole for a lot of reasons and this is one of them.  They can't really remedy this until they move to a new stadium.  Too bad for them.

And that's just the money they don't get.

You say this as if you have made arguments so far in this article that would be convincing to anyone other than the Ricketts family.

Imagine the players they don't get -- because of their weird start times, their rotting training facilities, their wimpy weight room, their nonexistent in-game batting cage, their backachingly small clubhouse and their 104-year ringless streak.

To the extent this is even an issue, which, who the fuck knows if it is unless you hook a bunch of MLB players up to lie detectors and then ask them if these things actually make the Cubs an unattractive destination, it can and has been remedied by money many times in the past.  See: Soriano, Alfonso, and many many others.

Can you imagine what a genius like Cubs GM Theo Epstein could do with another $73 million a year? He'd be Theo, Unchained. He'd have the fourth-highest payroll in MLB instead of the 15th (2012). One of the biggest draws in sports shouldn't be 15th in anything.

Prior to 2012, they had not been outside of the top 10 in payroll since 2003.  They were 3rd as recently as 2010.

The Red Sox finally stopped treating their little neighborhood park like it was a Faberge egg. They started putting up signs everywhere at Fenway, maxed out revenue anywhere they could, and won two of the past 9 World Series. You hear Boston fans complaining?

Again, with the fucking signs.  Good thing the Red Sox were able to put up those signs after reneging on their deal to not do so with the rooftop owners around Fenway!

And yet Ricketts doesn't want to raze Wrigley.

THEN ALL OF THIS, EXCEPT THE ROOFTOP DEAL WHICH HE HAD NO PART IN BUT RUNS FOR TEN MORE YEARS ANYWAYS BECAUSE THE TRIBUNE COMPANY IS RUN BY ASSHOLES, IS HIS FUCKING PROBLEM.  HE CAN DEAL WITH IT AND CONTINUE TO MAKE MILLIONS OF DOLLARS EVERY YEAR.  I THINK HE'LL BE OK.  Jesus Christ, what's Rick's next article?  A spirited defense of Jeffrey Loria?

He was practically raised on Wrigley. He lives close enough that he takes the "L" to most games.

MLB owners: they're just like us!

And because he loves it, he has offered to pour $500 million of the family's money into renovating Wrigley -- $300 million for fixing the joint and the rest into a proposed hotel/fitness club across the street.

And what does Ricketts want for plowing no government cheese into the Wrigley rat trap? Not a dime. 

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA nice try.  There is a sizable difference between "not wanting any city funding" and "being told to fuck off after asking for city funding."

He just wants the city to relax some of the restrictions that make the Cubs a kind of crippled Carnival cruise ship with foul poles.

There's your trademark Rick Reilly Topical Joke.  I think I liked the Machu Picchu one better.

And STILL aldermen such as Thomas Tunney are gumming it all up. Tunney wants more parking, more cops 

What business is it of the city that the city not be turned into a fucking mess after a business does a huge construction project to expand their operation?  The nerve!

and to extend the sleazy rooftops deal, 

DIE.

all of which he doesn't want to pay for.

Why the fuck should he, or more accurately, should the city?  Make a good argument, Rick.

"You're talking about one of the richest families in America," Tunney told reporters the other day.

Correct.

Not at this rate.

Do you have douchechills yet?

Epstein really didn't want any part of this column, but he did email to say, "We're focused on doing everything we can with what we have available to us now to make the baseball operation as healthy and successful as possible."

Too bad there's so little available.

Oh my God.  Oh my God oh my God oh my God oh my God

It's simple, Chicago. You can either have your creaky, quaint, vine-covered crypt, or you can win. But you can't have both.

Let's recap: first of all, the Cubs, like every single other MLB team, are not hurting for money and will not be anytime soon.  Second of all, the team is about to get a gigantic TV contract that will gives it more revenue than it'll know what to do with.  Third of all, Wrigley has one unfixable revenue problem (concessions line lengths), several revenue problems that are difficult but not overly burdensome and could be fixed with some clever negotiating (number of night games, amount of advertising in the stadium, rooftop deal), and several revenue problems that the team simply has chosen not to fix because they like the history of the stadium (no fancy scoreboard, no naming rights).  Together, those problems are probably 1% of the reason the Cubs suck and have sucked for some time.  The other 99% is attributable to incompetence, something that Epstein might be able to do something about, but that Ricketts seems to be contributing to.  Fourth of all, anytime the Cubs want to build a new stadium, they'd have financiers lined up around the block, and said new stadium would undoubtedly be one of the best revenue generators in sports, but it won't happen because Ricketts himself doesn't want to do it.

For those reasons, dear reader, you should feel sorry for the Cubs.

Do the math. You're used to it.

Is that supposed to be a taunt?  Is there a reference to Chicagoans being good at math that I'm not getting, other than the fact that everyone knows it's been 100+ years since the Cubs won a World Series, which, let's face it, doesn't really involve much math?

Rick Reilly is the worst sportswriter on the planet.

Followup from yesterday

I spent hours--LITERALLY hours--on that post. OK, fine, I literally spent one hour on it. But there was some great stuff I missed. Let's go to the tape.

Angelo points out how asinine this is:

The last two Bird-McHale-Parish efforts ('91 and '92, two severely underrated teams) fell short because the Legend just couldn't stay healthy.

The Celtics won it all in 1986. In 1987 they lost in the Finals to some team from the BEST coast. In 1988 they lost to a rising Detroit team in the conference finals. In 1989 Bird was hurt all year and they failed to win a single playoff game (as the 8 seed). In 1990 Bird was healthy and playing mostly like his old self... and they still didn't make it out of the first round. In both 1991 and 1992 Bird missed some time, and they eventually won a single series before bowing out. So let's total it up: 1987 to 1992: six seasons, three with a healthy Bird, two with a somewhat healthy Bird, seven playoff series won. In other words, a fading and later irrelevant team with a fading superstar.

To hear Simmons tell the story out of context, those last two Bird teams could have been contenders if only Bird had been 100%! SEVERELY UNDERRATED, which is what Klosterman thinks actually makes them a little bit overrated. Is your brain exploding right now? Well I hope you're sitting down for this part: there might have been a little problem standing in the way of the 1991 and 1992 Celtics even if Bird had been at 100%. Yeah, that guy and his team that went 30-9 in those two playoffs might have had a little something to say about Basketball Jesus and his creaky teammates had they crossed paths. In 1991, the Detroit team that bounced Boston in six games couldn't get a single game off the Bulls. In 1992, the Cleveland team that ousted Boston in seven only took Chicago six.

Chris W figuratively jumps on this pile of garbage:

What about Doc finally (and belatedly, but whatever) figuring out the value of a locked-in playing rotation? Even when they won the 2008 title, Doc was routinely playing 11 guys in one half — he just couldn't grasp the concept of "stick to eight or nine guys, make sure everyone knows their minutes, don't deviate from this"

Bill's right--during the 2008 playoffs Rivers ran a ten man rotation. But just because it worked that one time doesn't mean it was a good tactic, right? And if Bill says eight is the way to go, it's the way to go, right? Oh shit. Well fuck. Seems like Doc might have already heard that one somewhere. That's not to say running ten deep would be the right thing to do this year, given their injury issues. I'm sure no Celtics fan wants to see Marquis Daniels or E'Twaun Moore getting minutes in the playoffs. I just find it funny that the Celtics won a title giving minutes to every guy on the roster, then switched to a tighter rotation and failed to win again the following three seasons (including two pretty disappointing second round losses), and now Bill is thrilled that circumstance has forced Rivers into running a tight rotation this year. CHAMPIONSHIP SECURED. NOW TO PLAN THE PARADE ROUTE.

I hope the Celtics get swept in the first round, then dismantle their team, then TD Garden burns to the ground. And while we're sort of on the subject, fuck the Bruins with a rusty tetherball pole.

FMTMQR: Needed to write this to calm myself down after that World Series game

Been a few weeks. Anything change while I was gone? What? Gregg has decided to stop pretending he knows his elbow from his poophole when it comes to football, and simply write about how unrealistic science fiction movies are? Excellent, then my work here is do- Oh. Fuck, should have seen that one coming.

Re: the Dolphins/Broncos pillowfight

Yes, the zany final minutes of that contest were a lot of fun to watch. And the naysayers -- perhaps there is a National Association of Naysayers, with a motto such as, "Saying nay since 1908" --

*Crickets*

predicted Tebow couldn't win in the NFL. Now he has.

He actually did about ten months ago too, on Dec. 26 2010. But knowing stuff like that would take effort and research and distract from your incredible naysayers club joke. (Note: I am not standing up for Tebow by pointing this out. Just hating on Greggggggg.)

But Miami, and the officials, aided the comeback. After the first Miami touchdown, Dolphins coach-for-a-few-more-weeks Tony Sparano called timeout to prepare his hands team for an onside kick -- and Denver recovered the onside anyway.

I'll bet the guy who came up with it was undrafted out of Taintgrundle State A&M and has already been cut from four different practice squads.

With 25 seconds remaining in regulation, Tebow hit a well-executed throwback screen to tight end Daniel Fells for a touchdown. Zebras cooperated by failing to notice Denver linemen Chris Kuper and Orlando Franklin downfield before the pass.

Sometimes it's fun to keep it simple and just laugh at Gregg for being wrong about football basics. Linemen cannot cross the line of scrimmage until the ball does or a defender touches the ball on plays where the ball is being thrown downfield past the line of scrimmage. On forward passes that do not cross the line of scrimmage, this rule does not apply and linemen may release immediately. (Full blogging credibility disclosure, or something- I got this wrong the first time and edited it. LOOK AT MR. POT CALLING THE KETTLE BLACK OVER HERE!!!!!!111) That's exactly what happened here. But it's a whole lot easier to say things like that when you don't actually know the rules (despite writing a column that often focuses on them).

The fact that Tebow is religious had nothing to do with the outcome. God does not care who wins football games.

God singular, or Gods plural as in Football Gods? Because I'm pretty sure they saw Wisconsin beat South Dakota 59-10 a few weeks ago and said "Whoa, fuck that, we're going to let Michigan State beat them on a deflected Hail Mary. Running up the score is bullshit and we won't stand for it." Then again, Michigan State beat Florida Atlantic 44-0 earlier this year so... I dunno. Is there a chance that TMQ leans heavily on anecdotal bullshit to back up his preachy attitude?

Declining Football IQ: San Diego led Jersey/B 21-17 with 11 minutes remaining and had third-and-5 on the Jets' 25. The Jets came into the contest with the league's 28th ranked rush defense. So why not run?

Every play! Don't bother throwing on any given play, it's a waste of valuable running time.

Interception.

/sitcom crowd makes "disappointed" noise

Five snaps later, Philip Rivers threw another interception in a situation that might have called for a rush.

Great noncommital language there. Hey, I'm not saying they really really REALLY should have run... but maybe they should have. And the fact they didn't exposes what a diptard Norv Turner is. Wait, never mind, Norv Turner's career record exposes what a diptard Norv Turner is.

Buck-Buck-Brawckkkkkkk: Green Bay leading 33-27 with 2:37 remaining, the Vikings punted -- and I scarcely need to tell you Minnesota never touched the ball again. So what if it was fourth-and-10? The Vikings were playing at home. They entered 1-5 on the season and 4-9 under Leslie Frazier. A successful conversion on fourth-and-10 could have led to an upset of the defending champion Packers and revived the team's season. A punt made a sluggish defeat likely.

They were on their own 36 and had all three timeouts. A failed 4th down, a few runs up the middle, and Green Bay launches a field goal that makes it a two score game. Sure, the Packers had scored 33 points so far, but had gained only 15 yards on their last three drives (including a pair of three and outs). Punting gave Minnesota the chance to get the ball back with better field position and a fresh set of downs. It's not that goshdarn hard to fucking understand.

Frazier knew that if he went for it on fourth down and failed, he would be blamed for the loss; if he ordered a mincing, fraidy-cat punt, the defense would be blamed for failing to get the ball back.

I don't think anyone blamed the defense's inability to stop the Packers before the clock ran out for the loss. Nor would they have blamed Frazier if a 4th and 10 attempt had failed, although they probably could have, because I'm willing to be the percentages favored punting there.

Blame-shifting is a huge factor in NFL coaching decisions.

Making stuff like this up and hoping no readers think about it long enough to realize that it's total malarkey is a huge factor in crafting TMQ every week.

Hell's Sports Bar: Hell's sports bar has 28 wide-screen plasma TVs, although certain blackout restrictions may apply.

One of his least obnoxious bits.

On Sunday, the televisions in Hell's sports bar showed nothing but Seattle at Cleveland, which ended 6-3. The highlight show endlessly replayed Seattle, trailing 3-0 at the end of the third quarter, kicking a field goal from the Cleveland 2-yard line, then never entering Browns territory again.

Followed by one of his most obnoxious recurring complaints.

Put it this way: Jacksonville held the visiting favorite to 7 points, 146 yards on offense and just 2.8 yards per play, yet had to hang on for dear life in the final two minutes. Average out the Saints' 55-point victory on Sunday night and the Jags' 5-point win on Monday night, and you'd have two normal games.

A pair of thirty point wins? If you put those two games together, you also have three offenses that played like shit and one that was awesome. Averaging those out equals two normal NFL games in 1923, not 2011.

Credit the win to Jack of the River going for broke rather than doing the "safe" thing. Jax leading 9-7 'ere the clock struck midnight -- with 1:48 remaining on the clock -- the Jags faced fourth-and-6 on the Baltimore 33. A field goal forces the Ravens to play for a touchdown; a missed field goal gives them possession on their 40, needing only a field goal to win; a punt probably rolls into the end zone for a touchback. Del Rio sent out the place-kicker, whose 51-yard kick was true: Forced to play for a desperation touchdown, Baltimore threw an interception. Often a field goal attempt is the safe course.

A mincing, fraidy-cat field goal!

In this case, it was bold.

Conveniently unmentioned is the fact that Josh Scobee had already nailed two 54 yard field goals that night, so sending him out for a 51 yarder didn't exactly take elephant balls. Also, I love how coaches that make cautious decisions do so to avoid the blame that might come from a bold decision that didn't work out (because coaches are so egotistical!), but coaches that make bold decisions that work out were CERTAINLY not doing so to soak up glory and be credited for the win (because coaches are not egotistical).

Readers including Nora Podolak of Bremerton, Wash., noted that the the Nissan Frontier commercial -- in which a pickup truck races onto an airfield and catches the front wheel of a landing jetliner-- has a tiny-type warning, "Fictionalization. Do not attempt." OK, I won't drive my pickup truck in front of a landing jetliner. But the disclaimer also means the properties of the Nissan Frontier are fictional.

The fake computer-generated aircraft, described by an announcer's voice as a passenger plane, resembles a Boeing 727, which is an obsolete aircraft no U.S. passenger airline has flown in more than a decade. Owing to quirks of this 1960s-era design, such as its flap settings, the Boeing 727 had a high landing speed of 150 to 180 miles per hour. So even if the pickup truck actually could support the nose wheel of a landing jetliner, and even if the truck somehow could drive to precisely the correct spot synchronized with the descending plane, the pickup would need to be moving at least 150 mph. Talk about fictionalization.

And all five of the people in America who didn't think that commercial was just a silly gimmick intended to advertise a truck have just seen the light. Thank you consumer watchdog Gregg.

Consolation for Miami, Indianapolis Seasons-Ticket Holders: Early in the season, TMQ noted this was a good year to be terrible, as two franchise-quality quarterbacks, Andrew Luck and Landry Jones, will be available in the draft.

Landry Jones will bust. Just sayin'. /ducks to avoid heavy objects thrown by mouth-breathing Sooner fans

There's a chance of three franchise quarterbacks, depending on what transpires with

Yeah, I know where you're going, Matt Barkley.

Russell Wilson.

BWAHAHAHAHAH. If Russell Wilson ever starts for a full season for a team that finishes with a winning record, post your address in the comments of this post and I will mail you a dollar. Wilson is a good but not great college QB who is listed at 5'11". There's a chance he's Drew Brees, but there's a much bigger chance he's a tiny guy who will never succeed at QB in the NATIONAL FOOTBALL FOOTBALL LEAGUE. If Wilson is a "franchise-quality QB," Jimmy Clausen was too.

The last time quarterbacks went 1, 2, 3 in the NFL draft was 1999. This is a really good year to be terrible.

Two of those quarterbacks were Tim Couch and Akili Smith, so yeah, it's probably about as bad a year to be terrible as any.

Adventures in Officiating: Scoring on a pick-six against Oakland, Brandon Flowers of Kansas City briefly put his foot on the ball and flexed his muscles. He was flagged for unsportsmanlike conduct for "using the football as a prop." Celebration penalties have become ridiculous. Taunting should be penalized, but what's wrong with celebrating?

Who wrote that, and how did neither Gregg nor his editors catch it before publication?

(Double!) Short Bullshit Post

Argh, don't have anything substantial to riff on so I'll just make it short with a couple general complaints. I'll do a full writeup of something shitty later in the week. Suggestions welcome in the comments.

1) This complaint pretty much speaks for itself- Chris Berman hosted Sportscenter tonight. Seriously. First time I've seen him on there in more than a year. Guess what? He was terrible. Fuck that chodemunch. Hacky, unfunny, and unnecessarily drew attention to himself. BACKBACKBACKBACKBACKGAWWWWWWWWNNNNNNNN OH GOD I AM A WORTHLESS PECKERHEAD. I can't believe he used to pretty much be the network's "go to" guy for highlights (like 15, 20 years ago). And I can't believe he still gets to do NFL Live every fall. Thank God MLB network is so good. I can turn to their Baseball Tonight-ish show to get my fix in that department, and reluctantly turn back to ESPN if absolutely necessary for other sports.

2) This is a complaint that requires a little more nuance. Are real horse racing fans as hung up on the fact that there hasn't been a Triple Crown winner in however many years as most major sports websites make them out to be? Do they care that much? Are they desperate for it? The media really makes it seem like it's a huge deal- and if that's the case, I don't think I understand why. I don't care about horse racing (in fact I despise it) so I can't relate directly. But I can relate, at least to some extent, by thinking about how much I care about very rare accomplishments in sports I do like a lot.

When the Patriots went 16-0, I didn't care. Not because I despise the Patriots, but because it's not a big deal to me to see a team accomplish that very rare feat. To make a better example, I don't hate or like the Colts, but I've never been super excited to see them open 10-0, 12-0, whatever. I'm not sitting here, hoping some team goes undefeated for a season just for the sake of it. Doesn't matter to me.

How about someone in baseball hitting .400? That hasn't been done in forever, but it's not like I find myself being really excited when Mauer or someone else is over .400 in June. Whatever. It's just not that compelling to me. Same goes for long hit streaks. Didn't Ryan Zimmerman get to 35 or something last summer? I actually kind of like the Nationals, but I wasn't desperately hoping he'd get into the 50s.

Of course, these analogies are imperfect for a number of reasons. The football one isn't great, because I have a favorite football team, whereas many horse fans hoping for a Triple Crown don't have a favorite and will just root for whoever wins the Kentucky Derby to win the Preakness and Belmont. And the baseball ones are about secondary accomplishments, not winning "championships." But still- are horse racing fans really super hung up on this? Are they desperate to see that accomplishment just for the sake of seeing the accomplishment? Would they feel OK seeing it if it was done by a relatively unimpressive horse against terrible competition, as opposed to an all time great horse against good competition? I don't know. I certainly won't lose sleep about it, but I do wonder.

Long story short: horse racing is fucking stupid and I wish it would leave major sports media coverage forever. Keep it where it belongs: as a place for gambling addicts to squander their last few dimes before telling their wives to divorce them and to please take the kids.

TMTMQR: I am a Lazy/Busy Doucheplatter

Never did get around to the TMQR, did I? Or... DID I? No, I definitely didn't. But since the holidays are coming up and no one will probably be posting here later this week (which will be a big departure from the way things normally work around here, what with all the posting from all of the blog's named authors going on all of the time), I figured I should toss something up there. And so, I bring to you, the dumbest thing Easterbrook has said about college football this year... so far.

Non-Obscure College News: Sportstalk radio continues to call for the head of Charlie Weis of Notre Dame, whose team is "only" 6-4 after close losses to power schools.

In college football, 6-4 is not good. It's certainly not good enough to justify the use of sarcastic "only" quotes. As in, Bill Simmons is such a gambling expert he has "only" lost to his wife in a season-long ATS NFL pick 'em twice. Also: Navy (this was written before the UConn loss, unfortunately, so I can't include them in this) is apparently now a power school.

Must be that when Weis got to South Bend, immediately he forgot how to coach.

No one really knew for sure that he knew how to coach in the first place. He had a very good first two seasons, winning 19 games, but only one of those wins was against a team which finished the season ranked. He lost in a BCS bowl game both years, neither time in a game which was particularly close. Anyways, what is going on with this bizarre straw man? Who said that Weis was a great coach before he got to South Bend? He was acknowledged as a great coordinator, sure. But even with his early success, no one whose opinion matters thought he was being hired as a great head coach. They might have gotten a little carried away and said he was a great coach after his first two seasons, I guess. But that's not what Easterbrook wrote here. I suppose that analysis would have been too hyper-specific.

Bob Davie and Tyrone Willingham, his predecessors, saw their coaching careers hit the rocks, too, upon arrival at South Bend, followed by boosters' demands that it become 1966 again and Notre Dame roll over opponents.

Davie was never a head coach before picking up the job at ND. He clearly wasn't right for the job, which is why he was fired and has worked in broadcasting since. Willingham flat out wasn't any good. He went 44-36 during his time at Stanford. The fact that he went 21-15 at Notre Dame isn't surprising at all. Oh, and he ran Washington into the ground after that. This isn't an issue of perception or unrealistic expectations. Neither of these guys were good head coaches. Sure, expectations at a place like Notre Dame are often unrealistic. But these guys sucked. And Weis has been bad this year too, given the talent he's brought it.

TMQ thinks Notre Dame alums should be proud of the football program's recent struggles --

That's dumb.

because the reason for the struggles is that Notre Dame still requires football players to attend class.

Even with that explanation.

Over the past couple of decades, increasingly most top 20 football schools have discarded any pretense of education.

Sure, but ND is still bringing in great recruiting classes. Weis should have won 9 or 10 games this year with the talent he's assembled, and he didn't. The fact that ND's players actually sometimes go to class is not relevant to that discussion. It may be relevant to a discussion about the long-term goals and aspirations of the program. Wait, what were we talking about?

With a 94 percent football graduation rate, Notre Dame is competing against programs with a 68 percent football graduation rate (Florida), a 55 percent graduation rate (Alabama) and a 50 percent graduation rate (Texas); other football power schools have similarly miserable grad rates.

I'm totally down with the idea that this is a massive problem. But it doesn't really have anything to do with Weis's poor game plans, complete inability to make halftime adjustments (ND has been outscored by like 500 points in the third quarter this season), terrible defense, and horrific special teams. This year. In 2009. Unrelated to whether or not the school is perceived by top recruits as a place where they can go and not have to do any work in the classroom.

Low graduation rates at big football schools mean players cut class to concentrate on sports, being pros in all but pay. "Don't go to Notre Dame, they make you study there, come to our college and party, party, party" has become a recruiting pitch that undercuts the Fighting Irish.

Like I was saying.

It is extremely cynical of other football powers not to educate their players; Notre Dame is among the few football powers (others are Boston College, Nebraska and Stanford)

Stanford and Boston College are "football powers" like Notre Dame and Nebraska are basketball powers.

to refuse to give in to such cynicism.

Which is great. But doesn't really help them win more games.

Want the Irish to win more games?

Yes. Like any rational fan of any team anywhere.

If the school stopped making football players do term papers, results would improve. That would hardly be in the best interest of the players -- or of Notre Dame.

Very true. But the best result would be for the team to keep its current policies, and not lose to Navy, and most importantly not lose in the ways they've been losing. By which I mean with crappy preparation, crappy game planning, and a complete lack of discipline on defense.

Two weeks ago, when Navy defeated Norte Dame in the closing seconds at South Bend,

Perennial power team Navy!

both teams and 80,795 people stood quietly and respectfully in the twilight as "Blue and Gold," the Navy alma mater song, was played -- only a genuine institution of learning like Notre Dame could produce such a moment. Wasn't it worth more than a victory?

I mean, yeah. But when you take that perspective you make sports pointless. Which is more worthy of making me upset- the fact that my favorite baseball team lost in the first round of the playoffs, or that there are homeless people starving to death in the streets? Which is a more worthwhile moment- my favorite NBA team winning on a buzzer beater, or a soldier in Afghanistan giving his life for his country? Fuck, man. We like sports because they let us escape from the real world and give us something to care about that's not really that important but still captivates and intrigues us. Saying "Hey, stop worrying about whether your team wins and loses and start being happy that they're friendly to the service academies!" is fucking pointless.

Wasn't it far more impressive than the mindless fist-shaking exhibited by some big-deal football programs after 40-point wins against cupcakes?

Saying that is also fucking pointless. OK, if there's anything really awesome in today's TMQ, I'll try to get to it before 1 AM on Tuesday 12/1. Enjoy your Thanksgiving. Or as I call it: "Are you fucking kidding me? Raiders/Cowboys and Lions/Packers? Seriously? That's what they scheduled?" day.

MMTMQR: Gregg Gets Self-Critical

Remember a couple weeks ago, when he started taking pot shots at the media? YOU DIDN'T EXPLAIN WHAT HAPPENED ON THAT PLAY AS WELL AS YOU COULD HAVE, MIKE TIRICO. SHAME ON YOU. Well last week he took things even further. It's more confusing than anything, but basically, he makes an ass out of himself. Again. But in an entirely new way. Sit back and enjoy.

Changing the playcaller sure helped the Redskins!

Brutal sarcasm!

In the cult of football, surely few things are more overrated than play calling. Much football commentary, from high school stands to the NFL in prime time, boils down to: "If they ran they should have passed, and if they passed they should have run." Other commentary boils down to: "If it worked, it was a good call, if it failed, it was a bad call," though the call is only one of many factors in a football play.

Yes. Yes, that's entirely correct. You know why I have to agree with what Gregg just said? BECAUSE HE SPENDS HALF OF HIS FUCKING COLUMN DOING THESE EXACT THINGS. Passing on third and short is bad... if you don't get the first down! If you lose on a last second field goal, you should have run up the middle on a play with 12 minutes left in the fourth quarter! Then the clock would have run out! Etc., etc., etc. And beyond that, Gregg is the motherfucking czar of "If it worked, it was a good call- if it failed, it was a bad call." Incredible. Cognitive dissonance strikes again.

Good calls are better than bad calls -- this column exerts considerable effort documenting the difference.

Ah. OK. So you do understand that. So basically this is like saying "I hate liars. Of course, I often lie. But still."

But it's nonsensical to think that replacing a guy who calls a lot of runs to the left with a guy who calls a lot of runs to the right will transform a team.

I don't think anyone associated with the Redskins, even batshit crazy and mildly retarded Dan Snyder, thought their team would be "transformed" by their new play caller.

My take on Sherman Lewis' play calling Monday night? When he ran, he should have passed -- when he passed, he should have run. Here was an actual Lewis call overheard: "B-14, N-7, I-2, G-6. On set!"

Because Lewis has been calling bingo recently, don't you see.

Crickets.

In the Redskins' case, there is an added dimension -- the rumor is Chainsaw Dan took away coach Jim Zorn's play-calling authority hoping that Zorn would blow a gasket and quit.

Yes. Correct. Again, no one was seriously expecting a "transformation."

If Zorn quits, he gets nothing; if he's fired, he receives the balance due on his contract. No doubt to Chainsaw Dan's dismay, Zorn held his ground. Here are other things Snyder might try to prompt Zorn to quit:

Who's ready for some more GreggJokes?

Take away his authority to shout, "Clap it up, clap it up."

Is this Zorn's catchphrase or something? I hope not.

Bring in a coin-toss consultant.

That'd frost that Zorn, wouldn't it?!?

Place a large concrete planter in Zorn's parking space at team headquarters.

Boy, that would just be flat out mean.

Require Zorn to return the phone calls of Washington Post sportswriters.

LOL COACHES HATE ANGRY MEMBERS OF THE MEDIA

Have everyone in Redskins management get exactly the same buzz cut.

What?

When Michael Crabtree finally signed with the 49ers, TMQ warned of a Crabtree Curse -- Mike Singletary had spent a year in San Francisco instilling the message that nobody is bigger than the team, and suddenly it seemed you could jerk the 49ers around all you wanted and get $17 million guaranteed as your reward.

JESUS CHRIST. YOU ARE A FUCKING STUMP. THAT WAS THE EXACT CONTRACT THEY ORIGINALLY OFFERED HIM AFTER THE DRAFT. CRABTREE GAVE IN. HE PRETTY MUCH CAVED. THE 49ERS GOT EXACTLY WHAT THEY WANTED- AN AWESOME PLAYER, FOR A PRICE IN LINE WITH THE DRAFT SLOT AT WHICH HE WAS PICKED. THERE IS NO CRABTREE CURSE. SHUT UP. And you know what's great? The 49ers lost again today (at Indy... where visiting teams always win!) so we're going to read about this again tomorrow. Awesome.

Before the signing, the 49ers were 3-1; since the signing, they are 0-2, and have been outscored 69-31. Beware the Crabtree Curse!

Go give yourself a swirly.

Sweet 'N' Sour Play: With New England leading 21-7, the Patriots lined up four-wide, then sent tight end Ben Watson in motion almost to the sideline; he ran a fly pattern and caught a 35-yard touchdown pass. That was sweet. He was covered deep by a linebacker because, though New England faced first-and-20, Tampa did not have a dime package on the field. That was sour.

If it worked, it's a good call! If it didn't, it was a bad call! This goes for both teams, of course- if New England had tried to run out of the 4 wide, and then the linebacker who was on Watson made a great tackle and forced a fumble, it would be kudos to the Bucs for having the right personnel on the field.

Clang! Clang! Clang! New Orleans scored just 17 baskets in losing to Denver 121-63 in the playoffs.

Clang! Clang! Clang! In the first two games of the NBA Finals, Orlando missed 100 shots from the field -- nearly one miss per minute! (One of the games went into OT.) Just to prove it was no fluke, in these games Orlando also missed 15 free throw attempts.

You know, it's great that he wants to diversify his material. But if we're going to talk about the NBA, maybe we shouldn't do so by just listing facts from games that happened 5 months ago.

In Praise of Unknowns: Miles Austin, undrafted out of Monmouth, has an incredible 421 yards receiving in his first two pro starts. Pierre Garcon of Indianapolis, low-drafted out of Division III Mount Union, and low-drafted unknown Julian Edelman of New England, are also playing well at wide receiver, while numerous high-drafted big-bucks receivers perform poorly. My guess is that Austin, Garcon and Edelman don't have ego problems. They are happy to be in the NFL, work tirelessly, and don't whine if everything is not exactly precisely what they wanted.

Nice guess. Here's mine- Austin plays for a decent team (or is that a decent Cowboys FOOTBALL team with a DYNAMIC offense?) with a legitimate QB. Garcon and Edelman play for awesome teams, each of which has a QB who is probably in the all-time top 25. Darius Heyward-Bey, for all his overratedness, is playing for a joke of an organization with a 350 pound idiot at QB. Meanwhile, highly drafted Jeremy Maclin and Hakeem Nicks are having good seasons. And there are dozens of low-drafted/undrafted WRs who aren't doing shit right now. Why not? Because they suck at football. But go ahead and use the exception to prove the rule anytime you want, shithead.

And what two running backs are getting most of the carries for the league's top offense? Undrafted Pierre Thomas and undrafted Mike Bell.

That Saints power rushing attack- known throughout the league for being the key to New Orleans' success! Thank goodness Drew Brees has those two studs carrying him- where would he be without them?

Carolina -- Run the Ball!: Carolina managed to lose to Buffalo despite a 425-167 edge in offensive yards; three Jake Delhomme interceptions doomed the home team. TMQ has been asking all season and asks again, with Delhomme playing poorly and the Panthers' rush offense strong, why do Carolina coaches continue calling so many passes?

If they ran, they should have passed. If they passed, they should have ran. If it worked, it was a good call. If it didn't, it was a bad call.

Reaching first-and-goal on the Pittsburgh 1 in the third quarter, Minnesota, aided by a penalty, ran four snaps and did not advance, then settled for a field goal from the 1. Spectacular Steelers defense, though one wonders why two of the four plays were incompletions: It's hard to believe even Pittsburgh could have stopped Adrian Peterson four straight times when only a yard was needed.

If they ran, they should have passed. If they passed, they should have ran. If it worked, it was a good call. If it didn't, it was a bad call.

NBA Officials Check Passports Before Calling Traveling: TMQ has long contended that football rules are too complex; also, the NFL refuses to reveal its officiating manual, which explains such things as how a zebra determines what counts as pass interference. The NBA by contrast recently put its rulebook online, complete with multimedia examples of what is and isn't legal. Great idea -- do the same, NFL. In the new rulebook, I did find this interesting definition:

More GreggJokes! GreggJokes for all! GreggJokes all around!

TRAVELING. If the player with the ball walks off the court and out of the arena, hails a cab, goes to the airport, and buys an airline ticket, at the point that he boards the plane, he shall be whistled for "traveling."

See, that's just kind of ridiculous. That's a situation I just can't see happening during-

Ohhhhhhh.

I hope you see what he did there!

The Football Gods Promised an Investigation: The Steelers went shotgun spread, five-wide on third-and-3; the Packers went shotgun spread, five-wide on third-and-goal from the Cleveland 2.

If they ran, they should have passed. If they passed, they should have ran. If it worked, it was a good call. If it didn't, it was a bad call.

Running Up the Score Watch: Possession results for Nebraska versus Iowa State: fumble, punt, touchdown, interception, punt, fumble, punt, fumble, fumble, fumble, punt, interception, interception (noted by reader Andrew Miller of Arlington, Va.). Can it be coincidence that Nebraska is 1-2, with a disastrous eight turnovers Saturday, since the day the Cornhuskers ran up the score to 55-0 against hapless cupcake Louisiana-Lafayette?

Nope! It's not. It's actually a function of real life variables which are affecting the outcome of their games. Nebraska is playing teams with actual talent now, like Virginia Tech. Granted, that's an awful performance against an Iowa State team (Iowa State FOOTBALL team that plays hard on the FOOTBALL field) which Nebraska should beat. But I'm sure Iowa State has a shit ton more talent that UL-Lafayette. In any case, I suppose you can make the argument that the football gods are indirectly responsible for scheduling. So if you accept that ridiculous and nonsensical premise.... maybe Nebraska's recent struggles really are a function of a crazy and vengeful group of imaginary spirits in the sky! Sort of.