Winter Olympics - The Ugly

Actually, I only saw a few ugly moments during the Olympics. The most embarrassing one was Lindsey Jacobellis. For those who didn't pay attention, she was the heavy favorite to win the snowboard cross event which is where four people race down an obstacle course on snowboards. She was already spotlighted by being in that stupid VISA commercial where she relaxes after being told that someone stole her VISA checkcard. So she gets a huge lead (couldn't even see the second snowboarder), decides to showboat with a little trick on the second to last jump, and ends up falling on her ass. She was so far ahead at that point, she still won silver, but her little stunt cost her a gold. I probably should have put her under "The Bad" because she came up with some ridiculous excuse that she was really only trying to stabalize herself. However, unlike Bode Miller, she did seem intent on doing her best to win. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if she wasn't thinking of her sponsor, because that would have made a nice commercial moment. It was funny to see her compared to other athletes who bombed out like this, because there really isn't anyone like her. Guys like Bill Buckner weren't showboating. They just screwed up. Leon Lett was showboating, but it was late in a game in which the Cowboys were beating the crap out of Buffalo. Short of a Dallas forfeit, there was no way the Bills were going to win that game.

I think the NHL may want to rethink letting their players participate in the Olympics after the Canadian team was heavily favored, but bombed out before the medal round. I don't really care about hockey, but it really seems dumb to take a break right in the middle of the NHL season to let guys go play hockey at the Olympics. It's a bit different from basketball where the Olympics are during the summer which means no league time is lost, but there are some similarities. One reason that the U.S. basketball team failed in the last Olympics was how the team was picked. When the top American NBA players didn't want to play, they started picking people with name value to sell jerseys regardless of how well they would play as a team or how suited they were for international play (no true point guard, poor three point shooting). The other problem was that they hadn't done much practicing together. The Olympic hockey teams that had nothing but NHL players got in one practice together before they played. Gee, wonder why they lost.

From a personal point of view, the ugliest was the sniping done by speedskaters Shani Davis and Chad Hedrick. I really like speedskating, so I don't like to see it trivialized by two guys moaning and groaning. Once again, for those not paying attention, Chad Hedrick was entered in five speedskating events which means if he got gold in all of them, he would tie Eric Heiden. Shani Davis had been planning to win the 1000 meter race (which he did), and didn't want to skate in the pursuit (three guys skating single file as a team with the time stopping when the third man crosses the line) because it was two days before the 1000 meter and he was worried skating the pursuit would hurt his chances. Hedrick knew not having Davis would hurt the U.S. in the pursuit, so he let it publicly be known that he thinks Davis should take every opportunity to help win a medal for America. Contrary to the expectations of misinformed people, I take the side of paranoid, outspoken black (first to win a winter Olympic medal) Davis over the rah-rah America, good ole boy from Texas Hedrick. I've never speedskated, so I don't know how much wear it takes out of your legs, but it's alot just looking at guys who skate one event. If Davis believes that skating the pursuit would cost him a gold in the 1000 meter, I'm not going to argue. Plus, I think Hedrick was being disingenuous when he said Davis was forsaking America. More like he thinks Davis is forsaking Hedrick's quest for five golds. After all, why would he be forsaking the U.S. if he sacrifices 1000 meter gold for pursuit gold? The U.S. tally is the same. Plus, Hedrick was also in the 1000, so maybe he wasn't being so altruistic. If Davis also skates the pursuit, it could have helped Hedrick in the 1000. Besides, Hedrick has really been lacking in graciousness when he loses. A bronze isn't good enough for him. He never congratulated Davis for winning anything. He kept bringing up the pursuit. After one silver medal showing, he talked about how he has more heart than anyone else. Get a grip. I think the worst was after the 1500 meter race in which it was portrayed as a showdown between Davis and Hedrick who had both won a gold medal, but Italian Enrico Fabris beat them both for gold and leaving silver for Davis and bronze for Hedrick. Davis skated over to congratulate Fabris on his win. Hedrick found a television camera to blame his loss on skating too many endurance races while Fabris and Davis just did sprints. Guess what wasn't acceptable as an excuse for Davis is for him.

Winter Olympics - The Bad

Want to know what I disliked the most about the Winter Olympics coverage? The coverage. NBC did a horrible job, and yet wondered why their ratings were bad. As I said before, I wanted to watch events that I normally can't see throughout the year. Yet, NBC assumed that I wanted to watch figure skating and ice hockey. Two sports that are shown throughout the year. Of course, I can't figure out why they thought hockey would be watched. Most people didn't know the NHL went on strike, so if they aren't watching professional hockey, why would they watch amateur hockey (with professionals)? As for ice skating, you can watch that all fall, because that's ESPN's counter-programming to Monday Night Football. Yet, NBC thinks I want to watch that. The other problem is the scheduling. I realize NBC has a problem because the European location means most of the events are on tape which means I had to avoid ESPN.com while goofing off at work so I wouldn't know the results before I got home. Still, there was another scheduling problem. Mainly, I didn't know when the events I wanted to see might be on. I'd look at the schedule and seven sports would be listed from 8 to midnight. That would be fine if they had them in half hour blocs, but they didn't. It would be 8 minutes of speedskating (that I wanted to watch) followed by 11 minutes of ice skating (which I didn't want to watch and half the time wasn't even the event, but some crap human interest story). So I either sit through some garbage I don't want to see while waiting for something I do want to see or flip back and forth with something else and possibly miss it. Yes, Phil, I know I could get Tivo and solve this problem and make my life much more wonderful.

I've said before I don't get too worked up about U.S. success in the Olympics, so I don't put too much stock in calling someone a "bust". After all, a lot of Americans are hyped going into the games only because they are Americans, not because they are necessarily the best. Just because you're the "best chance" for a U.S. medal in your sport doesn't mean you are one of the top three in it. Plus, you are competing against others who have considered tops in that sport, not to mention those athletes who pick the Olympics to have their great moment in the sun (or at night since a lot of events seemed to be after dark). However, there was one dud. I'll be honest, I didn't care much for Bode Miller before the Olympics. As most people know, I'm not big on liberal views, but I don't dislike liberals (for some reason, a lot of my friends are liberals). However, Miller belongs to that group of liberals I despise - the limousine liberal. Usually limousine liberals are like "environmentalist" Laurie David who rails against SUVs, but only flies on private planes. Or a John Kerry who says the rich (including him) don't pay enough in taxes, but when given the opportunity to pay more, doesn't. Miller fits right in. He wants to be seen as a rebel skier who hates corporations and the rich and thinks the Olympics are "money driven". However, that doesn't stop him from making about $5 million a year from endorsements by non-corporations like Nike. Oh wait, Nike is very large corporation. Of course, he also hates the spotlight, but never shies away from it (video game, radio show, website, autobiography released just in time for the Olympics), unless he's just lost another race. I realize that endorsements are the lifeblood for many Olympic competitors, but others American skiers seem to make do (by "make do" I mean win medals) without taking money from every company that comes along. Hell, he's a paid endorser for Barilla pasta. Personally, I think it's great that a skier can make $5 million at his sport, but to pretend you don't care about money while pimping yourself out to just about anybody makes you a hypocrite.

Actually, if he was just a hypocrite, I wouldn't concern myself with his losing every race he entered. After all, he may have been the World Cup champion, but he'd won one (I think) race this past year, so why should he be considered the favorite. He was overhyped, but he did nothing to downplay it. The problem is his reaction after the races. First, he kept trying to sneak off. I'm willing to bet his face would have been pressed up against every camera he could find if he won. Second, he didn't even seem to care while he was racing or after. I wouldn't have had a problem if he said he was just beaten by skiers who were better that day, but, he tried to say that he lost because he tried too hard. Then he took it to the next level. His Olympics have to be viewed as a success (despite being 0-fer) because "he rocked" on the local bar scene, and "got to party and socialize at an Olympic level". I'm all for athletes enjoying the Olympic experience, but if your only Olympic goal is getting drunk in local bars, why not pay your own way there (as I pointed out, he can afford it) and let someone who does care about winning have your spot on the team? Well, except Nike probably wouldn't have signed him if he was going to skip the Olympics. Of course, Bode is a common man who doesn't care about money or fame and just wants to live his own lifestyle. Of course, I'm not sure how many ski bums without $5 million endorsement deals can afford a lifestyle that includes golf outings to Dubai.

Winter Olympics - The Good

I've never been a big fan of reality television, so I don't understand how a televised karaoke contest beats anything in the ratings, but I'm still shocked how "American Idol" can beat the Winter Olympics so badly. I realize that outside of ice skating, hockey and snowboarding, none of the sports in Winter Olympics get airtime when the Games aren't on. However, that's what I like about it. I could never watch ski jumping or bobsled as if they were football or basketball or even volleyball, but I do like to see it occasionally which is why I really like the Olympics. It's the same way with the summer Olympics. I'm pretty indifferent to Olympic basketball because I watch NBA and college all year. I do watch the summer Games for things like wrestling and swimming which I can't see year round, nor would I follow that closely if they did.

However, there are other sports that I always like to watch and wish they would show more often. One that I really like is speedskating. I prefer short track because of the wipeouts, but I would even watch long-track if ESPN showed it year round. Short track is exciting because the close proximity of the racers and the fact that every race is close at the end. Long track doesn't have the proximity, but it's interesting to see the skaters looking like they are about to die while trying to gut out the end of an endurance race. Considering how little interest there is in this country for speedskating outside of the Olympics, I think the U.S. skaters are phenomenal. Chad Hedrick, Joey Cheek and Shani Davis all came away with a gold and silver medal (Hedrick also had a bronze). Apolo Anton Ohno is really the only big name short track speedskater on the U.S. team, but he came away with a gold and bronze individually while anchoring the bronze medal relay team. For the record, the short track relay is the wildest event in the Olympics. It' s no wonder short track is now hugely popular in Asia. That race looks like the proverbial Chinese fire drill.

Another sport I really like to watch is, believe or not, curling. When it first came out in the Olympics, I thought it was silly. Shuffleboard on ice. However, when I really began to look at the rules and understand it better, it really became interesting. Yes, there is some aspect of shuffleboard to it, but there is also shades of bowling (think of the big hook shots some bowlers make) and pool (good angles can take out multiple opposing rocks). Plus, strategy is huge. The only problem I have is one game takes about three hours. Cut down on the time it takes, and I would watch curling all the time (not that it will ever be on all the time). The U.S. men's team had a great Olympics taking home the bronze when no one expected them to even make the medal round.

Actually, one of the things I like most about the Winter Olympics is that I don't have to worry about my innate jingoism. That means I can watch most events without really worrying too much about where the U.S. athletes are, because they are probably way behind. Outside of snowboarding and women's figure skating (most of which I don't watch), the U.S. isn't considered a power in most winter events. Sure, the alpine skiing teams (think downhill and slalom, not ski jumping or cross country) were expected to do much better than they did, but they had two gold medals which is two more than the last Olympics where they only had two silver. Besides, few people in this country pay that much attention to skiing events outside the Olympics. However, in Europe, it's huge. They actually said during ski jumping that in Austria, you can make a living as a professional ski jumper. How can the U.S. compete with that? I can't imagine too many athletes growing up in the U.S. wanting to be ski jumpers. So, with most events, I don't feel too bad when the U.S. isn't competitive. The other advantage is that when the U.S. does win in one of their non-competitive sports, it's a bonus. I doubt you can ever have a "Miracle On Ice" moment for the U.S. again, because they'll probably never be underdogs like that again. Still, it's nice to have some Cinderellas.

Tale Of Two Vice Presidents

I'll be honest. I don't understand the "outrage" over Dick Cheney waiting 18 hours to alert the Washington press corp about his hunting accident. To begin with, he's the vice president. While Cheney has been more influential than most, it's still not a job with major policy implications. I understand it's a story because (to the best of my knowledge) it's the first time a sitting Vice President has shot anyone since Aaron Burr. However, I don't understand why it's imperative that he immediately call the media after a hunting accident. Hunting accidents are bad, but they happen. Would it have the same impact if he had hit him with a car? Probably not. As a Boy Scout and member of an ROTC air rifle team, I understand the importance of gun safety, and that is what this story comes down to. Unless you are an idiot in North Carolina (talk about low standards to be a staff writer) or a Democrat anywhere, this issue boils down to, at worst, the Vice President not practicing proper hunting etiquette. It certainly is very important to Cheney and Harry Whittington (the guy he wounded). However, it has no policy implications. It is totally removed from any governing connection. So, while the Vice President shooting someone is a story, it's shouldn't be the only thing being reported. I believe Cheney is right. The national press is pissed because the scoop went to a newspaper in Corpus Christi instead of the NY Times or Washington Post.

Yet, this short term story is huge, while the one about former VP Al Gore is ignored. If you think about it, Aaron Burr wasn't just the last VP who shot someone in while in office. He was also the last former VP who was tried for treason. No, I'm not advocating Gore be charged with treason. For one, Saudi Arabia is a somewhat ally so treason doesn't really apply. Yes, I realize that their citizenry seems to be pretty anti-American/pro al-Qaeda, but I think the fall of the House of Saud would make Saudi Arabia even more anti-American. That wouldn't be good. Two, I'm a big believer in free speech. However, I think what Gore did was certainly disloyal. He was also stupid. Much like my previous post about offended Muslims, I have to laugh about anyone who would complain to a Middle East audience about the "mistreatment" of anyone. I don't even have to go into why Gore is a liar for saying the U.S. "indiscriminately" rounded up Muslims for visa violations (if we had done this in August 2001, maybe we would have stopped a fairly large terrorist attack). The simple fact is that until we start cutting off hands for petty theft, the U.S. has a long way to go to match the mistreatment Arabs suffer under the Saudi government (or most other Middle East governments). Actually, try worshipping as a Christian there. For a former VP to attack the U.S. while in a foreign country that shreds Bibles is absurd. I'm not going to say that the U.S. is perfect. It's not. We have faults. However, there is a reason immigrant boats seem to go one way (to the U.S. for the morons at home). Contrary to the opinion of the American Left (as represented by Al Gore), Muslims/Arabs have more rights in the United States than Muslims/Arabs in Muslim/Arab countries. Bad mouthing America to a Saudi audience isn't treason, but it is crass. And I think it's certainly more of a PR hit for the U.S. than a hunting accident. For any Democrats in the audience, Al gore is your boy. Aren't you proud?

You've Got To Be Kidding Me

I don't think I need to describe the uproar from a Danish newspaper publishing some editorial cartoons depicting Muhammad in an unflattering light. Needless to say, the Muslim world is in flames with calls for death and apologies (not necessarily in that order) in spite of the fact that the event took place months ago . I actually believe that the media (whether news or entertainment) should make an effort not to be offensive towards religious beliefs. Of course, I've gotten used to disparaging treatment of Christians and its beliefs in Western pop culture and the press. It's fine if you have a fuzzy New Age type of Christianity, but if you hold traditional Christian beliefs, you'll quickly be marginalized as an extremist member of the "Religious Right". It's not just hard news. It's become routine for sportswriters to ridicule the religious beliefs of athletes. Pop culture is even worse. I would have to think really hard to remember a character with traditional Christian beliefs who was not portrayed in a derogatory manner in a major motion picture. They are usually portrayed as a hate-monger or a hypocrite who espouses one thing while doing something else. On TV, NBC was going to have Britney Spears guest-star as a bible-thumping cook with a show called "Cruci-fixins", a concept that I find highly offensive considering what the Crucifixion means to Christianity. Fortunately, NBC did decide that maybe it wasn't such a good idea, but the fact that it was talked about enough in-house that it made it to a press release makes me believe it was going to happen before the backlash. I don't think I have to explain why Marilyn Manson may be slightly offensive to Christians, but now Kanye West just had his picture on the cover of Rolling Stone magazine looking like Jesus. This country has gotten to the point that if you make "art" that seems to have the intent to offend Christians, you'll get a government grant, but if you make art that has a hint of positive Christianity to it, it will be banned. Yet, somehow, Christians have managed to survive all of this without rioting and arson. Compare the protests to the Muhammad cartoons with the protests of the NBC show "Book of Daniel" which many Christians found offensive for having a pill-popping priest who talks to a morally ambiguous Christ. Muslim protesters rioted, got killed, burned down embassies and threatened to murder anyone involved with the printing of the cartoons. Did Christian activists burn down NBC affiliates or threaten to behead Aidan Quinn? Did they insist that the President apologize for NBC or pass laws to censor NBC's content? No. They wrote letters, and then didn't watch the show so it got canceled due to bad ratings.

Actually, the extreme reaction of Muslims isn't the worst part of this story. It's the sheer hypocrisy of Muslims, especially those in the Middle East, to complain of a lack of sensitivity towards Muslims. There is no place in the world that is more intolerant of other religions than Muslim countries. Which is more offensive: some tasteless (at worst) cartoons by a newspaper or official Palestinian television saying Jews are descended from monkeys and pigs? Cartoons or an official Egyptian government newspaper accusing Jews of using Arab blood to make Passover bread? Cartoons or the destruction of two ancient Buddha statues? Cartoons or forcing Nigerian Christians to live under Islamic law? Cartoons or the return of Dhimmi status for non-Muslims in Muslim countries? Cartoons or the beheading of Christian schoolgirls in Indonesia? Cartoons or the complete lack of religious freedom in Iran, Sudan or Saudi Arabia (a country where 15 schoolgirls died in a fire when the religious police would not let them escape because they weren't wearing their robes and headscarves)?

Do you see a pattern here? Muslim leaders are demanding the type of "tolerance" towards their religion from western countries that is completely absent in the Muslim world. And most likely will be absent in Europe when Muslims become the majority. Sadly, the world is capitulating. Editors have been fired for printing the cartoons. A newspaper website was shut down by the Swedish government for displaying the cartoons. Western political leaders are apologizing (for something they didn't do). The increasingly irrelevant UN wants to join the European Union in condemning the cartoons unlike the more serious issues mentioned in the last paragraph that the UN has made a career of ignoring. Think of how out of whack this has become. Cartoons are being condemned not the violence and death threats. It's a sad day when the concept of free expression must take a backseat to the sensibilities of the culture that glorifies suicide bombers.

I think my favorite reaction is that of the EU when they declared they are thinking of enforcing a "media code". It included this wonderful quote from one of their moronic commissioners - "The press will give the Muslim world the message: We are aware of the consequences of exercising the right of free expression. We can and are ready to self-regulate that right." I think the real message he is giving is "we are your bitch". Does this idiot realize what he is saying? He's giving a veto to Muslim activists over free speech and press because of hurt feelings. What's next? The implementation of Sharia because Muslims are offended by secular law? This isn't sensitivity to religion. This is surrender. Does anybody believe that this "media code" will be used to protect the sensitivities of non-Muslim religions? Of course not. Christians and Jews have a tendency not to riot over perceived slights. Plus, kowtowing to Muslims while showing indifference to other religions can be plainly seen already in England. Political correctness has run amok to the point that one council has banned pig related items (i.e. figures, calendars) in their office including Piglet from Winnie-the-Pooh. Why? Muslims think pigs are impure animals, so seeing a pig may offend them. Well, guess what? Devout Jews consider pigs to be impure also. Where was the concern for them? I think it's obvious that the Muslim world is different place from the western world. Unfortunately, they seem to be Hell-bent on making their world our world. Sadly, our gutless leaders are helping them as much as they can.

Other NFL Stuff

I thought the move from ABC to ESPN wouldn't be a dramatic change for Monday Night Football, but I crapped out on that one. One good change is that the game will start a half hour earlier. However, that's about the only good thing I've heard. Originally, Al Michaels was supposed to be paired in the booth with Joe Theisman. I had managed to convince myself that it wouldn't be that bad. Hey, Al Michaels is one of the best in the business, and maybe Joe Theisman won't be so stupid without Paul McGuire and Mike Patrick. That one bright spot is down the tubes. Al Michaels is going to NBC to do the Sunday night game. Granted, I would try to get out too if they were going to stick me in a box with Theisman. Mike Tirico is replacing him which isn't terrible as Tirico is a decent play by play guy. However, ESPN decided to drive the bus right over a cliff by adding Tony Kornheiser to the team. WTF? Was Stephan A Smith not available? Isn't Joe enough stupidity for one booth? I have never been able to watch an entire episode of "Pardon The Interruption" because of the inanity of the hosts. The last thing I want to listen to during a football game is Kornheiser's spewing nonsense. After all, this is the guy who once declared on his radio show that he would vote for Bill Bradley for President because he had played basketball. Nothing like a good rational argument to make yourself look like an intellectual giant. I see nothing good coming from this (as do 54% of the voters on ESPN.com), but I actually saw one writer compare Kornheiser to Howard Cosell, although it was Dan Shanoff who writes for ESPN.com (no bias there). Since he quit MNF in 1984, I didn't really get to hear much of Cosell, but from that little bit plus some recordings, I don't see what the attraction was. He sounded like a rambler who tried much too hard to be cute. Not exactly what I'm looking for while watching a game. Since I love watching football, I won't be turning the game off, but I have a feeling I will be muting it.

I was glad to see Warren Moon get elected to the Hall of Fame. He saved my butt one year in fantasy football.

I don't care what reasons Terry Bradshaw and Joe Montana had for missing the Super Bowl ceremony of the past MVPs. Having all the previous Super Bowl MVPs together seems pretty historic, but they used the hackneyed "family consideration" as their excuse not to be there (although reports are the appearance fees weren't enough especially for Montana who apparently wanted $100,000). I read that Montana told Stephen A Smith (no way I would have watched it) he had moved beyond football. Sure, I wonder if his accountant says the same thing since Montana makes paid appearances all the time. There is the possibility that autograph shows want Montana there for reasons other than his football career. Call me a cynic, but I believe money really was the reason.

This is a pre-Super Bowl story. Donovan McNabb finally responded to Terrell Owens by saying Owens attacks on him were worse because he's black. I took McNabb's side in his Owens' problems, but his reasoning is absurd. Why should Owens' attacks on McNabb be any worse than the things he said about Jeff Garcia just because McNabb is black? I doubt very seriously that Owens was thinking about race in any way. He was just acting like a dick because he is a dick.

Super Bowl

Time to talk about the Super Bowl. Was it just me or did the commercials seem pretty lame this year? Sure, there were some pretty good ones. Budweiser had some nice ones. The hidden fridge. The beer scavenger hunt. Guys pretending to fix the roof while goofing off. The little Clydesdale trying to pull the wagon. A few really stood out. The guy using the beer to keep from being mauled by a bear, but his friend grabs it and runs off. The sheared sheep as a streaker running on the field where the Clydesdale are playing football. The best was the touch football where a hot chick tells a guy she's going to be open, then he decks her after the catch. Ameriquest had some really funny ones with the doctor killing a fly with the defibrillator paddle and the woman on the plane who falls on the guys lap. Funny stuff. My personal favorite was the Mastercard commercial with MacGyver. However, the rest weren't so good. CareerBuilder wasn't bad. Their two commercials were good, but not Super Bowl good. It wasn't much different from the ones they run during the year. Which was a real problem. Too many didn't stand out. Gillette had another commercial about how advanced their newest razor is. Whoop-dee-doo. Emerald nuts had another one that came up with an acronym that was stupid. Motorola now has a cell phone that looks like a rock. Will the excitement ever end? And I still can't figure out what was up with the people biohazard suits. The most disappointing were two areas - cars and colas. Diet Pepsi had a pretty good one with Jackie Chan and a Diet Pepsi can making a movie. There other one was odd to say the least. To begin with, who the Hell cares about Puff Daddy? The second, does calling something "brown and bubbly" make you want to buy it? The other cola ad was for Sierra Mist. It bombed the moment I realized it had Kathy Griffith (mistakenly called a comedienne even though she isn't funny) and one of those schmucks whose only job now seems to be commentary on the VH1 "I Love The Whatever Decade We're Showcasing This Week". None of the car commercials stood out at all. Toyota with the bilingual dad? Boring. Another Tacoma commercial showing it's tough? Yawn. Hot chick mudflap logo looking at a Honda pickup? Why not get a real hot chick. That Cadillac surfacing on a model's runway? Looked expensive, but the commercial sucked. Actually, there was a car commercial that stood out. The Hummer that was spawned by some dinosaur type monster and a giant tin man was just bizarre. And finally, the Burger King commercial must be mentioned because it was the most elaborate production with some Ziegfield Follies dance show about the Whopper. Oh, and it sucked.

Almost forgot. There was a football game in which the Steelers won their fifth Super Bowl. I'll give the Seahawk fans the complaint about the offensive pass interference. While technically, Darrell Jackson did push off, it was clearly ticky-tacky. So, I'll call the final score 21-14. As for the other disputed calls, I don't know if Sean Locklear held on a long pass play for the Seahawks, but I'm not buying anyone who says that he didn't. Maybe Gatlinburg's ABC (which probably means Knoxville) left off a replay, but the only one I saw showed the play from the back which means I only saw one of Locklear's hands. I don't see them both, I can't say he wasn't holding. And complaints about the Roethlisberger touchdown are laughable. There is no way to tell whether the ball crossed the goal line from the replay. So, how can you say the Steelers got a break? As for me, the ball in his arm hit the ground a couple of inches from the goal line, but where it is at the point doesn't matter. The defensive player hit Roethlisberger's arm straight on as he was diving for the end zone. Physics tell me that his arm was probably pushed back instead of stopped dead which makes me believe the ball was over the goal line at some point. Besides, the Steelers didn't get all the calls. One of Jerramy Stevens' dropped passes (I can't remember which one of many) looked like a catch and fumble to me, but the refs called it an incomplete pass. Speaking of which, I thought Stevens should have been the MVP. His four drops really helped the Steelers out. He almost dropped his touchdown catch. I don't know why Joey Porter thought he was soft. I have to laugh about Mike Holmgren blaming the refs for the loss. The last thing he wants is to explain why the Seahawks looked so inept at the end of both halves. I was beginning to wonder if they had ever run a two minute drill before.

World Baseball Classic

I'm not sure how many people know too much about the World Baseball Classic. It's baseball trying to start their own World Cup tournament. Frankly, I find it silly. The reason that the World Cup works is that soccer is a worldwide sport (as much as I hate to say it). Their are leagues in all kinds of countries that are somewhat on par. In baseball, there is the MLB. All other leagues are inferior. So, I don't think a worldwide baseball tournament will have the same impact because the World Series will still be so much more important. Think about the World Championships in basketball. Sure, they are more popular to Europeans than Americans, but I'm willing to bet even the European players would rather win the NBA championship than the basketball world championship.

The only reason I've even noticed the World Baseball Classic (can you call something a classic that's never been played before?) is the Cuban controversy. At first, Cuba wasn't given a license to come play by the U.S. government because of sanctions against Cuba. Then, they reversed course due to pressure from Major League Baseball, the players association, the Olympics and the International Baseball Federation. One side of me is happy the Cubans are going to be playing. I hope some defect. The other side of me is still indignant that these totalitarian countries are allowed into these international sporting events. I've long thought the Olympics were unethical when they were allowing the Soviet bloc countries to participate. Sure, they like to say the Olympics are above politics (I call B.S. on that one). This wasn't just politics, but basic human rights. How can let a country participate when they don't send security guards to protect their athletes, but to keep them prisoner? How can you glorify the amateur athlete when some of them are forced to be amateurs by their country who won't let them leave?

Cuba is still like that. The one I can't believe is the player's association fighting to get Cuba in. Excuse me? How many Cuban members do they have who can no longer go back home because of Fidel Castro? Who actually had to escape an island prison to play professional baseball? This union pitches a hissy fit when there is talk of a salary cap even though their players will still make millions. This union believes that anything less than unfettered free agency is slavery. Yet, they are supporting a regime who forces players to play where the government wants them to or not play at all. A regime that uses baseball as punishment. Orlando Hernandez was banned from playing baseball in Cuba because his brother Livan defected, so he ended up having to flee the island. How can the player's union sanction anything that would keep that kind of system alive?

But I shouldn't be surprised. These international sports organizations have always had a tendency to suck up to dictators. They are more than willing to criticize the U.S. for "playing politics" with their little events, because they know they can get away with it. But when it comes to pressure from a totalitarian government like China, they'll fold in a heartbeat. Not allowing a country to send it's prisoner/athletes is a horrible display of politics, but forcing a democratic country to play under a different name to appease China is perfectly OK. If the U.S. had any balls, they would refuse to play until Taiwan is allowed to play under their own name, play their national anthem and fly their flag. Of course, apparently this has already been a common rule for the Olympics (so much for no politics). That means that Taiwan isn't allowed to play in the Olympics as a country even though they are one, but Palestine is allowed to play as a country even though they aren't one.

Super Bowl

Who will win? Nothing against the Seahawks who have one of my favorite fantasy players in Shaun Alexander, but I don't see it happening. Yes, they were probably the best team in the NFC, but that's like being the best team in the AFC in the 80's and early 90's. It doesn't mean anything come Super Bowl time. I think the AFC was clearly the better conference this year. Look at the rest of the NFC. Chicago wasn't ready. Tampa had Chris Simms. The Giants looked pretty ratty down the stretch. Washington would have had a losing record if they were in the AFC and made the playoffs because someone had to. Carolina didn't have DeShaun Foster in the playoffs. So, by default, who was going to beat Seattle. I'm not going so far as moron Skip Bayless who doesn't think the Seahawks would have made the playoffs if they were still in the AFC West. However, Seattle wouldn't have won the AFC West or finished with 13 wins. Playing in the NFC West was cake city. It was the only division in the NFL that didn't have two teams win at least 9 games. St. Louis finished second with 6 wins.

So, you say you've got to play who is on the schedule. Sure. But they weren't impressing me much even in wins. They played four playoff teams. I throw out the Colts who benched everyone. They beat the Giants (although they shouldn't have) and lost to Jacksonville and Washington. The only other team they played who was close to making the playoffs was Dallas, and they needed a Drew Bledsoe brainlock INT and a 50 yard field goal to win that. The other problem for them is they won't be at home. This team was completely different on the road and at home. San Francisco shows that. At home, the Seahawks blow them out by 38 points, but on the road, they win by 2. Or look at their four games against AFC teams. Once again, the Colts game is thrown out (although they beat the Colts' second string by only 15). They lost to the Jaguars, and their only other games were against the worst AFC team (Texans) and arguably the second worst AFC team (Titans with apologies to the Jets and Raiders). They crushed the Texans at home, but when they went on the road, they needed a late rally to squeak by the Titans. In theory, the Super Bowl is a neutral field, but Steelers fans are the best at getting tickets. There won't be a 12th man to save the Seahawks. I'm not saying they can't win, but they won't. Steelers by 10.