Thursday, May 29, 2008
addition....
forgot to add the link for Whitlock's less than brilliant work. Push HERE if you want to be completely baffled by idiocy.
Congrats Whitlock....You've won again.
Moronic mediot of the day goes to the guy the award might one day be named after......Jason Whitlock. Whitlock is an amazingly frustrating writer, who will pen 5 or 6 good, deep, thought provoking articles and then put out a pile of dung just to throw you off course. This months pile of dung from Jason is a piece about one of his favorite topics....tattoos in the NBA.
Let me preface my rant with this: I am a 31 year old, white, suburban male that lives on a lake in rural Alabama. While I may have had the experience of living all over the country in my 20's, this is where I grew up and really who I am. I (based on race and culture) am the epitome of "the guy" that Whitlock believes would turn off the NBA playoffs because it's "too black" or "too hip-hop". My demographic is highly likely to be one of the ones that doesn't like the tattoos and the corn rows on the athletes on TV. I'll be honest......I hate corn rows. Don't understand them, don't see how they are even close to being considered attractive by anyone and can't see how you'd look in the mirror and think they are a good look. I just don't get them and never will. However, I don't turn off NBA games when there are 4 or more players with corn rows playing at the same time just because I don't like how it looks.....just doesn't happen.
Whitlock asserts the the NBA playoffs are getting better ratings in part to the fact that the Denver Nuggets aren't playing with Carmelo and Iverson's tattoos clogging up your flat screen in HD. He actually believes that people are tuning into the conference finals more this year because there are less tattoos. Really Jason? You actually think that people that watch and love sports are that easily swayed away from a good product or towards a bad one? The truth is that these are the best the conference finals have been in many years. I hate the Spurs after living in Dallas and becoming a Mavs fan, but it's the defending champs making what could be a final run at a title before some of these pieces get too old/banged up to make another run through a brutal and young Western Conference. It's new Kobi (who I also totally loathe) with his brand new toy Pau Gasol playing the best team basketball we've ever seen him play and a Lakers squad that is fun to watch even for L.A. haters. It's Kevin Garnett and the echoes of Boston Garden (even if it is a newer, less cool version) with a chance for a flashback Celtics vs. Lakers Finals. It's the Detroit Pistons, the NBA's nearest thing to Jim Kelley's Buffalo Bills, seeing if they can win more than one title after dominating the landscape in the East for what seems like a decade. There are too many great story lines to count....can KG, Pierce and Allen get rings to validate their careers, can Kobi win a title without Shaq, can Phil Jackson get another ring, is Greg Popovich going to continue an amazing run? That is why we are watching!!
My father is a 54 year old basketball purist. Take him out in the driveway right now and he'll play you one on one and make you look foolish with Bob Cousy/Pistol Pete moves. He loved Larry Bird enough that the first time I saw the man tear up was when he found out Bird was retiring. He's been bored with the NBA since the last Jordan title, as many other fans have probably been. He'd watch a game here and there, but it wasn't a sport he loved anymore. He's been addicted to these playoffs since Round 1...you know, when the tattooed Nuggetts were still playing. He probably hates the long hair of Sasha Vujacic more than he does the tats on Iverson. The bottom line is that he doesn't care what the guys look like on the court...he's not watching a freaking fashion show. He wants to see good, competetive basketball played in a manner that isn't streetball. He wants to see great team defense, good ball movement and high quality play. This year, the NBA playoffs are giving us that......and you could tattoo every player from head to toe with pink tats and it wouldn't make a difference. I know it's a slow day Jason, but please don't burden the sports world with this monstrous pile of dung you call an article.
Let me preface my rant with this: I am a 31 year old, white, suburban male that lives on a lake in rural Alabama. While I may have had the experience of living all over the country in my 20's, this is where I grew up and really who I am. I (based on race and culture) am the epitome of "the guy" that Whitlock believes would turn off the NBA playoffs because it's "too black" or "too hip-hop". My demographic is highly likely to be one of the ones that doesn't like the tattoos and the corn rows on the athletes on TV. I'll be honest......I hate corn rows. Don't understand them, don't see how they are even close to being considered attractive by anyone and can't see how you'd look in the mirror and think they are a good look. I just don't get them and never will. However, I don't turn off NBA games when there are 4 or more players with corn rows playing at the same time just because I don't like how it looks.....just doesn't happen.
Whitlock asserts the the NBA playoffs are getting better ratings in part to the fact that the Denver Nuggets aren't playing with Carmelo and Iverson's tattoos clogging up your flat screen in HD. He actually believes that people are tuning into the conference finals more this year because there are less tattoos. Really Jason? You actually think that people that watch and love sports are that easily swayed away from a good product or towards a bad one? The truth is that these are the best the conference finals have been in many years. I hate the Spurs after living in Dallas and becoming a Mavs fan, but it's the defending champs making what could be a final run at a title before some of these pieces get too old/banged up to make another run through a brutal and young Western Conference. It's new Kobi (who I also totally loathe) with his brand new toy Pau Gasol playing the best team basketball we've ever seen him play and a Lakers squad that is fun to watch even for L.A. haters. It's Kevin Garnett and the echoes of Boston Garden (even if it is a newer, less cool version) with a chance for a flashback Celtics vs. Lakers Finals. It's the Detroit Pistons, the NBA's nearest thing to Jim Kelley's Buffalo Bills, seeing if they can win more than one title after dominating the landscape in the East for what seems like a decade. There are too many great story lines to count....can KG, Pierce and Allen get rings to validate their careers, can Kobi win a title without Shaq, can Phil Jackson get another ring, is Greg Popovich going to continue an amazing run? That is why we are watching!!
My father is a 54 year old basketball purist. Take him out in the driveway right now and he'll play you one on one and make you look foolish with Bob Cousy/Pistol Pete moves. He loved Larry Bird enough that the first time I saw the man tear up was when he found out Bird was retiring. He's been bored with the NBA since the last Jordan title, as many other fans have probably been. He'd watch a game here and there, but it wasn't a sport he loved anymore. He's been addicted to these playoffs since Round 1...you know, when the tattooed Nuggetts were still playing. He probably hates the long hair of Sasha Vujacic more than he does the tats on Iverson. The bottom line is that he doesn't care what the guys look like on the court...he's not watching a freaking fashion show. He wants to see good, competetive basketball played in a manner that isn't streetball. He wants to see great team defense, good ball movement and high quality play. This year, the NBA playoffs are giving us that......and you could tattoo every player from head to toe with pink tats and it wouldn't make a difference. I know it's a slow day Jason, but please don't burden the sports world with this monstrous pile of dung you call an article.
Monday, May 12, 2008
What is this "NCAA" you speak of?
So it seems another USC star has been taking cash, gifts and anything offered his way in order to gain his signature with someone wanting to make money off him later. The Reggie Bush saga is still playing out, and the OJ Mayo one may just be beginning. For this debate, we are going to just assume what the general public that doesn't call itself Trojan fans has assumed......Bush and Mayo are guilty of taking a lot of money and gifts while in school with an unwritten agreement to sign with said sports agents/marketing companies when they turned pro. These things haven't been proved yet, but I'd bet 90% of the sporting fan public has assumed they are true.
Here's what stuck out to me the most on ESPN's "Outside the Lines" report......USC, the NCAA and the Pac 10 did their own investigation PRIOR to Mayo arriving in SoCal because questions had arisen about his potential eligibility. It was said to be a widely known fact that in order for you to have a chance at landing Mayo, you had to have an "in" with his "handler" Rodney Guillory. How does the NCAA overlook this. ESPN showed us receipts for purchases made of gifts given to Mayo. They showed us a paper trail of money wired to Mayo's friends. ESPN got a guy to confess to being in the "inner circle" and seeing the dealings first hand with Mayo. My question is, how on earth does the NCAA not find these things first.
Look, there is a dramatic difference from a NCAA perspective when it comes to paying a player to sign with an agent versus paying him to come to your school. The reason schools like Alabama have gotten nailed in the last decade is that they had uncontrolled boosters handing out hundreds of thousands of dollars to influence a kid at signing day. I'm not sure what role the NCAA wants to play in stopping agents and their henchmen from getting to 16 and 17 year old kids before they get to college...or what role they want to play in a Reggie Bush type player getting money not because he's a USC football player, but because he is about to be a NFL first round pick. Obviously from a NCAA standpoint, paying them to come to your school is much more their concern than some company having a lackey hand a kid money so he uses them in his professional career. Still, something has to be done....right?
Here's the problem for the NCAA.....who do you punish? They have no authority of the agents and marketing companies coming after these kids. The process might be illegal, but it's not on the top of law enforcements priority list. You can't really punish the kid that took the money. Most of the time they are gone from the NCAA reach by the time the facts come out. You are left with a school that probably turned a blind eye to what the player was getting. I was in college not to long ago. I can tell you that not many college kids have a flat screen TV in the dorm rooms. It also should be a red flashing light when Reggie Bush's parents upgrade houses on such and extreme level. Still, how accountable do you hold the school? It's not like the school or anyone affiliated with it is giving him money....they didn't pay for him to come there. However, they are the only ones the NCAA can really drop a hammer on.
The currently invisible NCAA has to do something. They've basically tried to stay away from the Bush scandal it seems. I believe it is because they don't know how to handle punishment in these situations. If you continue to turn away and ignore it, it will present bigger issues. You don't think any other athletes at USC noticed Mayo having extra cash all the time, the big screen in the dorm room? You don't think it can lead to asking "How can I get mine?" and asking a weak minded booster for his new TV? You can't let kids get extra benefits just because you don't have as much power of their "source" as you did with the more traditional boosters and alumni who slipped kids sacks of money in the past. Maybe the first step is hiring some actual investigators that have the correct experience required to dig to the bottom of the issues out there.....instead of a bunch of former professors and department heads who have no idea how to uncover criminal activity. If I were Miles Brand, the question I'd be asking this morning is "How does ESPN find out every detail of this and our investigation finds nothing?". The appearance that the general public is getting is that USC is a "sacred cow" of the NCAA and won't get hammered no matter what they do. Miles needs to at the least learn from the last 2 years at USC and figure out a better way to deal with these issues.
Here's what stuck out to me the most on ESPN's "Outside the Lines" report......USC, the NCAA and the Pac 10 did their own investigation PRIOR to Mayo arriving in SoCal because questions had arisen about his potential eligibility. It was said to be a widely known fact that in order for you to have a chance at landing Mayo, you had to have an "in" with his "handler" Rodney Guillory. How does the NCAA overlook this. ESPN showed us receipts for purchases made of gifts given to Mayo. They showed us a paper trail of money wired to Mayo's friends. ESPN got a guy to confess to being in the "inner circle" and seeing the dealings first hand with Mayo. My question is, how on earth does the NCAA not find these things first.
Look, there is a dramatic difference from a NCAA perspective when it comes to paying a player to sign with an agent versus paying him to come to your school. The reason schools like Alabama have gotten nailed in the last decade is that they had uncontrolled boosters handing out hundreds of thousands of dollars to influence a kid at signing day. I'm not sure what role the NCAA wants to play in stopping agents and their henchmen from getting to 16 and 17 year old kids before they get to college...or what role they want to play in a Reggie Bush type player getting money not because he's a USC football player, but because he is about to be a NFL first round pick. Obviously from a NCAA standpoint, paying them to come to your school is much more their concern than some company having a lackey hand a kid money so he uses them in his professional career. Still, something has to be done....right?
Here's the problem for the NCAA.....who do you punish? They have no authority of the agents and marketing companies coming after these kids. The process might be illegal, but it's not on the top of law enforcements priority list. You can't really punish the kid that took the money. Most of the time they are gone from the NCAA reach by the time the facts come out. You are left with a school that probably turned a blind eye to what the player was getting. I was in college not to long ago. I can tell you that not many college kids have a flat screen TV in the dorm rooms. It also should be a red flashing light when Reggie Bush's parents upgrade houses on such and extreme level. Still, how accountable do you hold the school? It's not like the school or anyone affiliated with it is giving him money....they didn't pay for him to come there. However, they are the only ones the NCAA can really drop a hammer on.
The currently invisible NCAA has to do something. They've basically tried to stay away from the Bush scandal it seems. I believe it is because they don't know how to handle punishment in these situations. If you continue to turn away and ignore it, it will present bigger issues. You don't think any other athletes at USC noticed Mayo having extra cash all the time, the big screen in the dorm room? You don't think it can lead to asking "How can I get mine?" and asking a weak minded booster for his new TV? You can't let kids get extra benefits just because you don't have as much power of their "source" as you did with the more traditional boosters and alumni who slipped kids sacks of money in the past. Maybe the first step is hiring some actual investigators that have the correct experience required to dig to the bottom of the issues out there.....instead of a bunch of former professors and department heads who have no idea how to uncover criminal activity. If I were Miles Brand, the question I'd be asking this morning is "How does ESPN find out every detail of this and our investigation finds nothing?". The appearance that the general public is getting is that USC is a "sacred cow" of the NCAA and won't get hammered no matter what they do. Miles needs to at the least learn from the last 2 years at USC and figure out a better way to deal with these issues.
Thursday, May 8, 2008
Olin Buchanan.....moronic mediot of the day.
It's May, there's no college football games to write about and nothing to really breakdown. I'm just as desperate for the season to get here as anyone. Since there's no game to breakdown, no teams to praise or trash, we'll take a shot at any idiot that writes a completely moronic college football article from now till kickoff. Olin Buchanan......come on down!
Olin writes for Rivals.com, now owned by Yahoo.com and gives us one of those "Trends" articles in which he uses some statistical analysis to give you the teams most likely to win a national title this season. It would really make more sense to just say "looking at the stats, I've deciphered that Georgia and USC have the best chance at winning a title". I don't really like either team, but you cant deny they are the most loaded and talented teams coming into the season. Instead of doing that, Olin (really, we are getting sports news from a guy named Olin?) breaks it down into 5 categories that are either so obvious my dog could have picked them out, or so absurdly stretching that they are beyond worthless. Here is the breakdown and my take on how these points make me laugh.
1. Be from a BCS conference - Really?....Really? I never would have guessed it. Are you serious Olin? You've done the diligent work that says a National Champion will most likely come from a BCS conference....congrats. NASA will be calling you soon asking you to join their staff of crack researchers. Again, here's one my wife could have found with 5 minutes of looking into it. I wonder if he had 4 points and his boss told him 5 sounded better. This wins the "Worthless Point of the Month" award. I'm working on your trophy right now Olin....it will be out sometime after I have Mexican for lunch.
2. Post at least seven victories from the previous season - Again, not rocket science. Generally teams that either failed to make a bowl game or lost in the Liberty, Independence or Motor City Bowl are not likely to make my list of title contenders. The really funny thing about this one is the low standard that Olin set....7 wins. He points out that two previous BCS champs out of ten had 7 wins in the previous season and that's his rationale for keeping it that low. Here you are trying to narrow down a national field and you keep dozens of teams in the debate because of 20%? That seems a little far fetched. I'd argue that his end result after all 5 standards have been filtered through would be better if it had been set at 10 wins (which seems to be much more the realistic level you'd set being that 6 of 10 champs have had 10 or more wins previous seasons). By that standard you'd eliminate mediocre teams that everyone outside of their fan base is laughing at being in the national title hunt (Alabama, Rutgers and Wake) according to Olin. You just cant do an article that includes those three teams and be taken that seriously. In that group is a loss to Louisiana-Monroe and non-bowling Louisville and Nebraska teams that couldn't beat anyone.
3. Win your previous year bowl game - Olin points out that half the BCS title winners have done this.....half. So what is statistically a 50/50 coin flip situation has now become a category for eliminating teams from the "Buchanan Cup". How many times does a 10-2 or 8-4 regular season team go asleep behind the wheel during a bowl game that doesn't really matter to them? By this rationale, a very talented Florida team is stricken from the list and Tim Tebow is doing 500 extra push ups after he reads Olin's taunt. Unreal. Cant even write anymore about how utterly stupid this is. It's beyond words. This is how this guy makes a living...wow.
4. Have a junior or senior QB that has at least some starting experience - Seems to make some sense on the surface, until you start to look a little deeper at who this eliminates and who it propels. Had Oklahoma not been eliminated by the obviously important bowl win(insert sarcasm button here), Sam Bradford (that nations leader in passing efficiency) would have been eliminated by this standard. Lets offer up a question.....Do you want Sam Bradford leading your team, or Alabama's John Parker Wilson (a kid that was getting hammered by everyone in the state of Alabama a year ago and looked absolutely horrible in the seasons final 4 games)? Olin, are you telling me that because a guy like Bradford is a second year player and guys like Wilson, Canfield and Crompton have more years in school that they give their teams a better shot? No way. I take Bradford over 90% of this list, even if he did have a rough bowl game.
5. Return at least 6 starters from a top 40 defense - Lets see, make sure you return 55%(that's slightly better than half for those reading in Tuscaloosa or Starkville) of starters from a defense that finished in the top 34% of defenses in the nation. Yeah, that one is pretty obvious. If you had a defense that ranked outside the top third or you lost more than half of the starters from your defense I'd be concerned. The only problem I have with this one is "who" you lost....and stats just don't account for that. USC is talented enough to make up for it, but they lost some absolute studs on defense that have been playing snaps in that system since they were freshmen. If that was any other squad left on Olin's list, they'd be looking at a complete rebuilding project after those guys left. It also doesn't account for guys that have played at a high level, but might have been behind All-American or All-conference type players.
The real point of breaking down Olin's article is this.....stats can tell you anything you want if you manipulate them enough. Olin was smart enough to tweak his formula so it wouldn't eliminate the Trojans or Bulldogs, knowing his analysis would be worthless if he did. We'll see a hundred more articles like this because people like Olin work for sites and companies that make tons of money off football-crazed people like you and I. I'm sure I could come out with a formula tomorrow that could show you why Ohio State could beat any SEC team in the title game....but we all know what would really happen when the ball was snapped.
Olin writes for Rivals.com, now owned by Yahoo.com and gives us one of those "Trends" articles in which he uses some statistical analysis to give you the teams most likely to win a national title this season. It would really make more sense to just say "looking at the stats, I've deciphered that Georgia and USC have the best chance at winning a title". I don't really like either team, but you cant deny they are the most loaded and talented teams coming into the season. Instead of doing that, Olin (really, we are getting sports news from a guy named Olin?) breaks it down into 5 categories that are either so obvious my dog could have picked them out, or so absurdly stretching that they are beyond worthless. Here is the breakdown and my take on how these points make me laugh.
1. Be from a BCS conference - Really?....Really? I never would have guessed it. Are you serious Olin? You've done the diligent work that says a National Champion will most likely come from a BCS conference....congrats. NASA will be calling you soon asking you to join their staff of crack researchers. Again, here's one my wife could have found with 5 minutes of looking into it. I wonder if he had 4 points and his boss told him 5 sounded better. This wins the "Worthless Point of the Month" award. I'm working on your trophy right now Olin....it will be out sometime after I have Mexican for lunch.
2. Post at least seven victories from the previous season - Again, not rocket science. Generally teams that either failed to make a bowl game or lost in the Liberty, Independence or Motor City Bowl are not likely to make my list of title contenders. The really funny thing about this one is the low standard that Olin set....7 wins. He points out that two previous BCS champs out of ten had 7 wins in the previous season and that's his rationale for keeping it that low. Here you are trying to narrow down a national field and you keep dozens of teams in the debate because of 20%? That seems a little far fetched. I'd argue that his end result after all 5 standards have been filtered through would be better if it had been set at 10 wins (which seems to be much more the realistic level you'd set being that 6 of 10 champs have had 10 or more wins previous seasons). By that standard you'd eliminate mediocre teams that everyone outside of their fan base is laughing at being in the national title hunt (Alabama, Rutgers and Wake) according to Olin. You just cant do an article that includes those three teams and be taken that seriously. In that group is a loss to Louisiana-Monroe and non-bowling Louisville and Nebraska teams that couldn't beat anyone.
3. Win your previous year bowl game - Olin points out that half the BCS title winners have done this.....half. So what is statistically a 50/50 coin flip situation has now become a category for eliminating teams from the "Buchanan Cup". How many times does a 10-2 or 8-4 regular season team go asleep behind the wheel during a bowl game that doesn't really matter to them? By this rationale, a very talented Florida team is stricken from the list and Tim Tebow is doing 500 extra push ups after he reads Olin's taunt. Unreal. Cant even write anymore about how utterly stupid this is. It's beyond words. This is how this guy makes a living...wow.
4. Have a junior or senior QB that has at least some starting experience - Seems to make some sense on the surface, until you start to look a little deeper at who this eliminates and who it propels. Had Oklahoma not been eliminated by the obviously important bowl win(insert sarcasm button here), Sam Bradford (that nations leader in passing efficiency) would have been eliminated by this standard. Lets offer up a question.....Do you want Sam Bradford leading your team, or Alabama's John Parker Wilson (a kid that was getting hammered by everyone in the state of Alabama a year ago and looked absolutely horrible in the seasons final 4 games)? Olin, are you telling me that because a guy like Bradford is a second year player and guys like Wilson, Canfield and Crompton have more years in school that they give their teams a better shot? No way. I take Bradford over 90% of this list, even if he did have a rough bowl game.
5. Return at least 6 starters from a top 40 defense - Lets see, make sure you return 55%(that's slightly better than half for those reading in Tuscaloosa or Starkville) of starters from a defense that finished in the top 34% of defenses in the nation. Yeah, that one is pretty obvious. If you had a defense that ranked outside the top third or you lost more than half of the starters from your defense I'd be concerned. The only problem I have with this one is "who" you lost....and stats just don't account for that. USC is talented enough to make up for it, but they lost some absolute studs on defense that have been playing snaps in that system since they were freshmen. If that was any other squad left on Olin's list, they'd be looking at a complete rebuilding project after those guys left. It also doesn't account for guys that have played at a high level, but might have been behind All-American or All-conference type players.
The real point of breaking down Olin's article is this.....stats can tell you anything you want if you manipulate them enough. Olin was smart enough to tweak his formula so it wouldn't eliminate the Trojans or Bulldogs, knowing his analysis would be worthless if he did. We'll see a hundred more articles like this because people like Olin work for sites and companies that make tons of money off football-crazed people like you and I. I'm sure I could come out with a formula tomorrow that could show you why Ohio State could beat any SEC team in the title game....but we all know what would really happen when the ball was snapped.
Monday, May 5, 2008
Stop the Insanity!!!!
The overreaction of media in sports has me laughing today. It's not that we haven't seen it before, just that it keeps getting more and more hysterical as time goes on. The new trend with sports media is to react to absolutely everything, and do it in an over the top manner. Sunday is generally a slow sports day this time of year, unless there happens to be one of golf's majors or a huge NASCAR race on. This week we stumbled into a lucky Game 7...the pinnacle of the NBA game we are told. For 48 hours in advance, we were assaulted with the typical "Biggest Upset of All Time" rants from every NBA analyst that can still process oxygen. Remember, these are the same folks that have been shoving the great story that is Kevin Garnett and the resurrection of the Celtic franchise down our throats like it's the story of the decade. We've been force fed the idea that the Celtics and Pistons will meet in a classic conference finals, and there is nothing that can change it.
Turns out that Game 7 was a big letdown. I made sure to be home and avoid the golf course to watch the epic battle between Hawks and Celts. We all know now how poor of a decision that was....I'd have had more fun with a sunday "Honey Do" list to be honest. What is really cracking me up is the overreaction today over Boston taking seven games to get rid of the lowly Hawks. Scoop Jackson of espn.com fame writes that the mystique of the Celtics was ruined with this first round tussle......what? Are you serious Scoop? Are you telling me that if Boston runs through LeBron in 5 games, Detroit in 5 and then takes the Lakers out in the Finals we are all going to be less interested because it took them 7 games to get past the Hawks? REALLY? I'm pretty sure I've heard 37 analyst tell me that the Celtics are in trouble because they obviously can't win on the road in the playoffs. Jeez...are you guys serious? The Celtics have an amazing team, they looked unbeatable at home, and by the way....they had the NBA's best road record in the regular season. Today you'll hear everyone tell you how the Celtics are in trouble.....after they beat the Hawks in a win or go home game by nearly 40 and could have literally won by 60 had they wanted to. Why is everyone so quick to flip on Boston? Weren't the same mediots telling us how great they were just a week ago? Remember how great Boston looked after going up 2-0 with big home wins that weren't even close, and the Pistons (now everybody's favorite because they played 3 good games) were getting blasted by the starless 76'ers. At that point Boston was a shoe-in for the Finals, and Detroit was being touted as this years first round bust. Why do we have to go to such extremes?
Maybe it's the 24 hour news cycle....maybe its the big money that is involved in sports news today....maybe its the "instant gratification" aspect to our society.....maybe it's ESPN's fault for giving us a 24 hour sports station. It's probably a mix of all these things and others. It's only going to get worse as sports and the money made by talking about sports gets larger and larger. At some point we are going to be having daily conversations about whether or not a coach should lose his job based on how his team practiced that morning. "Around the Horn" and "PTI" will be discussing if Lebron is washed up 5 minutes after he's walked out of a Cavaliers early afternoon walkthru because he missed a dunk before leaving the gym. It really is getting out of hand.
Turns out that Game 7 was a big letdown. I made sure to be home and avoid the golf course to watch the epic battle between Hawks and Celts. We all know now how poor of a decision that was....I'd have had more fun with a sunday "Honey Do" list to be honest. What is really cracking me up is the overreaction today over Boston taking seven games to get rid of the lowly Hawks. Scoop Jackson of espn.com fame writes that the mystique of the Celtics was ruined with this first round tussle......what? Are you serious Scoop? Are you telling me that if Boston runs through LeBron in 5 games, Detroit in 5 and then takes the Lakers out in the Finals we are all going to be less interested because it took them 7 games to get past the Hawks? REALLY? I'm pretty sure I've heard 37 analyst tell me that the Celtics are in trouble because they obviously can't win on the road in the playoffs. Jeez...are you guys serious? The Celtics have an amazing team, they looked unbeatable at home, and by the way....they had the NBA's best road record in the regular season. Today you'll hear everyone tell you how the Celtics are in trouble.....after they beat the Hawks in a win or go home game by nearly 40 and could have literally won by 60 had they wanted to. Why is everyone so quick to flip on Boston? Weren't the same mediots telling us how great they were just a week ago? Remember how great Boston looked after going up 2-0 with big home wins that weren't even close, and the Pistons (now everybody's favorite because they played 3 good games) were getting blasted by the starless 76'ers. At that point Boston was a shoe-in for the Finals, and Detroit was being touted as this years first round bust. Why do we have to go to such extremes?
Maybe it's the 24 hour news cycle....maybe its the big money that is involved in sports news today....maybe its the "instant gratification" aspect to our society.....maybe it's ESPN's fault for giving us a 24 hour sports station. It's probably a mix of all these things and others. It's only going to get worse as sports and the money made by talking about sports gets larger and larger. At some point we are going to be having daily conversations about whether or not a coach should lose his job based on how his team practiced that morning. "Around the Horn" and "PTI" will be discussing if Lebron is washed up 5 minutes after he's walked out of a Cavaliers early afternoon walkthru because he missed a dunk before leaving the gym. It really is getting out of hand.
Saturday, May 3, 2008
so...why not?
If idiots like "Shane From Centerpoint" can get garbage on the web read, why not me? This space will be filled mostly with sports, and mainly with college football. Comments are welcome, bash my views all you want.....I care not.
Despite my love for college football, I've developed a distaste for all the "preseason predictions" that we get with spring football. It's absurd to be honest. I believe I've seen Mark May and company predict the entire season for all 119 teams and act like they have some real clue what they are talking about. One of my favorite things about preseason predictions is the ability these guys have to make statements like "with that entire offensive line returning, they have a chance to have the leagues best line" when talking about a team that was an offensive midget, primarily due to bad line play, just last season. It's like these guys show up at the ESPN studios and look at a list of "returning starters" and dont even ask the question..."Where the starters any damn good for them last year?". Do some damn research before you speak fellas. It seems like in the last 4 weeks I've come home everyday to see that "College Football Live" is on....again......in April and May. What do they have to talk about? This whole idea of breaking down spring games to tell us what is going to happen might be the dumbest thing I've heard since Jim Delany opened his mouth about fast people being stupid. Hey guys....COACHES CAN MANIPULATE THE GAMES TO LOOK ANYWAY THEY WANT. Been getting bashed in offseason because your defense was bad. Easy solution, call plays that run into the teeth of what your defense is good at. If I'm Charlie "The Hut" at Notre Dame, I set my defense in one set all game and call plays that expose every weakness in that defense so that at least for a few months I can stop hearing about how bad my offense is. If I have to sneak 4th string walk-ons in at the CB spot so Jimmy Clausen can complete a pass....I do it. ESPN...stop with the 5 days a week breakdown of scrimmage...it's absurd, it means nothing, and your analyst are so bad that they cant get things right after watching half the season, much less a scrimmage.
Lastly, we will start the college football season again with a guarantee that Kirk Herbie will prop up his Overrated State Buckeyes for a NC game......EVEN AFTER THEY LOSE TO USC!!!!! That's right folks, Kirk is already saying that cbtseciypvOSU (cant beat the sec if you played vandy - overrated state university) will have a great chance at making the NC game again if they fall to USC and then run the table. He also points out that the cbtseciypvOSU schedule is very manageable after that when you consider that Illinois lost Mendenhall and hasnt figured out what that whole "ball in the air going forward" thing is all about and Michigan will likely be horrible after losing a talented group of seniors and have about as much business running the Rich Rod spread as Hawaii would running the wishbone with Colt Brennan. That's right college football fans....we get to see the buckeyes get assaulted by USC, run the table through a weak conference, get into the national championship picture and likely get in and give us another gem of a title game if you listen to Herbie. No way this guy is playing favorites or using his podium to help his alma mater out.....Right?
Despite my love for college football, I've developed a distaste for all the "preseason predictions" that we get with spring football. It's absurd to be honest. I believe I've seen Mark May and company predict the entire season for all 119 teams and act like they have some real clue what they are talking about. One of my favorite things about preseason predictions is the ability these guys have to make statements like "with that entire offensive line returning, they have a chance to have the leagues best line" when talking about a team that was an offensive midget, primarily due to bad line play, just last season. It's like these guys show up at the ESPN studios and look at a list of "returning starters" and dont even ask the question..."Where the starters any damn good for them last year?". Do some damn research before you speak fellas. It seems like in the last 4 weeks I've come home everyday to see that "College Football Live" is on....again......in April and May. What do they have to talk about? This whole idea of breaking down spring games to tell us what is going to happen might be the dumbest thing I've heard since Jim Delany opened his mouth about fast people being stupid. Hey guys....COACHES CAN MANIPULATE THE GAMES TO LOOK ANYWAY THEY WANT. Been getting bashed in offseason because your defense was bad. Easy solution, call plays that run into the teeth of what your defense is good at. If I'm Charlie "The Hut" at Notre Dame, I set my defense in one set all game and call plays that expose every weakness in that defense so that at least for a few months I can stop hearing about how bad my offense is. If I have to sneak 4th string walk-ons in at the CB spot so Jimmy Clausen can complete a pass....I do it. ESPN...stop with the 5 days a week breakdown of scrimmage...it's absurd, it means nothing, and your analyst are so bad that they cant get things right after watching half the season, much less a scrimmage.
Lastly, we will start the college football season again with a guarantee that Kirk Herbie will prop up his Overrated State Buckeyes for a NC game......EVEN AFTER THEY LOSE TO USC!!!!! That's right folks, Kirk is already saying that cbtseciypvOSU (cant beat the sec if you played vandy - overrated state university) will have a great chance at making the NC game again if they fall to USC and then run the table. He also points out that the cbtseciypvOSU schedule is very manageable after that when you consider that Illinois lost Mendenhall and hasnt figured out what that whole "ball in the air going forward" thing is all about and Michigan will likely be horrible after losing a talented group of seniors and have about as much business running the Rich Rod spread as Hawaii would running the wishbone with Colt Brennan. That's right college football fans....we get to see the buckeyes get assaulted by USC, run the table through a weak conference, get into the national championship picture and likely get in and give us another gem of a title game if you listen to Herbie. No way this guy is playing favorites or using his podium to help his alma mater out.....Right?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
