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.

NFL Conference Championships

AFC Championship Game
Broncos vs. Steelers
Much has been made of the fact that the Steelers could be the first sixth seed to advance to the Super Bowl. Well, they aren't you're normal sixth seed. For one, they had a better record than the fourth seed Patriots. They had the same record as the the third seed Bengals. If not for Ben Roethlisberger missing four games, they probably don't lose those two overtime games and win the AFC North making them the third seed. This is obviously not the same team that had a mid-year three game losing streak. The question is whether they can go to Denver and win in a stadium the Broncos haven't lost at all year. Of course, the Broncos best win at home was over the Patriots who were going through their alternating win/loss stretch. They only beat Baltimore 12-10 in December, so I'm not all that concerned with their home field. The Steelers need to be more concerned with their blitzes not getting to Plummer. Their corners could struggle with Rod Smith and Ashley Lelie in single coverage, so getting to Plummer is a must. Both teams like to run the ball, and both are good at stopping it. So, it could come down to quarterbacks which is why the Steelers will win. Come on. I don't care how mistake free Jake Plummer has played this year. He's still Jake Plummer. It's not like the Broncos offense really lit it up against New England. Of their five scoring drives, four started in New England territory. Three went for fewer than 15 yards. Actually, you could make the argument that all four were less than 15 yards since the other was 40, but the ball went from the 40 to the 1 yard line on a rather iffy pass interference call. Even a couple of the Patriot turnovers were somewhat fluky. Punter Todd Sauerbrun forcing a fumble? I don't care if he was accused of using steroids, that's fluky. So, while Denver was winning while getting every break, the Steelers were winning while the Colts were getting every break. In the clutch, don't take Jake.

NFC Championship
Seahawks vs. Panthers
Everything seems set up for the Seahawks. They've got homefield where they always play well. Even if Julius Peppers plays, he's going to be playing with a bum shoulder. No DeShaun Foster at all. Nothing against Nick Goings who has played well in relief before, but he doesn't have breakaway speed, and more importantly, who spells him? Sure, Shaun Alexander suffered a concussion last week, but I really don't think it was a bad one. I've seen guys with concussions still look loopy in post-game interviews. Alexander looked fine on the sideline before the half. Besides, it just showed that Matt Hasselbeck can step it up and win without Alexander. So, Seattle should be the easy winner, right? Wrong. I have to look at what these teams did last week. I don't think for a second that Seattle could have played like they did last week and beaten Chicago. Yet, Carolina did, and made the Chicago defense look silly. And at this point, I wouldn't pick against Jake Delhomme and Steve Smith in any playoff game short of the Super Bowl.

Random NFL thoughts

The divisional playoff round had some great games. Most playoff rounds have at least one blowout. This weekend really didn't.

I'm still trying to figure out the non-call during the Steelers/Colts game when the play was blown dead at the snap, but the referees picked up the flag saying there was no penalty because the Steelers didn't move and the Colts didn't touch the Steelers. Well, it looked like Alan Faneca probably did move and the Colts did make contact as their entire defensive line was in the neutral zone pointing. The question is - if no one jumped on either side, why blow it dead? Refs is that game certainly didn't cover themselves in glory.

Speaking of which, I'm a little surprised the NFL actually came out and said the referee was wrong when he overturned Troy Polamalu's interception. What else was he going to do? Everyone except the referee knew it was an interception. I'm just curious if they would have admitted it if the Colts had ended up winning the game. I've always found it a stretch to believe NFL referees would consciously make a call to favor a team, so I can't really support Joey Porter's contention that the overturn was done to help the Colts. However, I will say that I was happy Mike Vanderjagt's last minute kick was way wide. No reason to give them a chance to see a close miss as a good score. Of course, it might be better to think they were corrupt rather than really stupid or drunk.

I've seen some writers (although fewer than I thought) point to the irony that Mike Vanderjagt, who missed the potential game tying field goal, had called out Peyton Manning a couple of years back saying they wouldn't win because Peyton didn't have enough fire. Well, I'm taking Vanderjagt's side. Yes, Vanderjagt missed the field goal (I won't get into the fact that one touchdown shouldn't have been on the board), but poor play throughout the game (and pretty much every playoff loss by the Colts) by Manning meant that they needed the field goal just for overtime. As I mentioned in an earlier post, Manning's poor decision making meant the field goal was longer than it had to be.

While I'll admit the sight of the ball on the ground with no Steeler near it made me want to throw up. Especially since I wasn't sure where Ben Roethlisberger was and the guy who picked it up was a cornerback. However, I shouldn't have been too concerned that Nick Harper was going the distance. After all, how fast can you run a day after your wife slices open your knee? Roethlisberger made a great play, but the best defensive play by an offensive player has to be New England's Ben Watson who ran down Champ Bailey to knock him out at the one. How often is there a 100 yard interception return that doesn't result in a touchdown? How can a tight end run down a cornerback when he has to run about 130 yards to the corner's 100?

Some think Bailey fumbled the ball through the end zone which should have given the Patriots the ball at the 20. I thought replays were inconclusive, but I wouldn't care either way. That is still one of the stupidest rules in a league with many stupid rules. Why should the team without the ball get it on a fumble that they never have possession of just because it goes through the end zone? If the ball is knocked out at the one yard line, the defense doesn't get it if they never had possession.

While I hate to agree with Michael Irvin, he wasn't far off when he said halfway through the season that Steve Smith should be the MVP. Actually, it's really bad that he didn't even get a vote for MVP. They'll really need him in the next round with DeShaun Foster breaking his ankle. Do you think Foster might be injury prone?

Non playoff question. What were the Packers thinking of when they hired Mike McCarthy as their new head coach? Sure, he was the quarterback coach in 1999, but that was the Ray Rhodes season when the offense wasn't too swift. He followed that with five seasons in New Orleans (just what you need with Aaron Rodgers as your future QB, the guy who developed Aaron Brooks) before spending last year as the offensive coordinator of the 49'ers. Yeah, he did a great job with their offense. Apparently, his main qualification is that he would be grateful to the GM for hiring him.

One of the funniest stories of the offseason is that the Eagles' gave permission to Drew Rosenhaus to try to find a trade for Terrell Owens. Who is going to trade for him when they would have to pick up his contract? The Eagles can't keep him, and he's due a roster bonus of $7.5 million in March so you know he'll be on the market by then. It actually sounds like desperation on Owens' part. He and Rosenhaus may realize that he isn't getting a better deal than the one he had with Philly. Get a trade and the new team has to pick up that contract. Ironic that Owens' behavior has lessened his own value and that of his agent.

Here's a great story. USC coach Pete Carroll would only give his blessing to Reggie Bush to go pro after getting assurances that the Texans would take him with the first pick. Real sweet, Pete. Would you not have given your blessing if the Texans said they were interested in Vince Young? Bush is still going in the top three. It's not like he's a quarterback. If he went third (worst case scenario), going back to USC for another year would just add another year of hits to his body just to move up (at best) two spots.

Actually, a couple of sources (profootballtalk.com and Pro Football Weekly) have mentioned rumors of a trade by the Texans to get Ricky Williams from Miami. One says it would be for David Carr. That would probably make Vince Young the first pick. However, does Houston need an all Longhorn backfield to sell tickets?

NFL Playoffs Round Two

Denver 27 New England 13
Those damned Denver Broncos. Imagine the nerve of them disrespecting Tom Brady and the Patriots by actually beating them in the playoffs. I hope Brady learned his lesson. Don't whine about disrespect and then play a lousy game. Sure, he had 341 yards passing, but he also had two interceptions, and built up those yards without really doing much. The Patriots only scored 13 points. Of course, he had some help as his teammates fumbled away the ball three times. Of course, I see a certain irony there. The Patriots "dynasty" began with the "tuck rule" BS that never should have overruled an obvious Brady fumble. Now it ends because they couldn't hang onto the ball. Plus, they weren't that good this year anyway.

Seattle 20 Washington 10
I think this game showed why Seattle was the best team in the NFC and possibly the league. Everything was set up for the Redskins. Shaun Alexander was knocked out early. Their defense was playing good. Mark Brunell actually threw for over 200 more yards than he did in their wild card game. Yet, they never really were in the game against Seattle. Why? Seattle did miss Alexander, but they had other weapons. For one, their defense is very good. Matt Hasselbeck has made himself into one of the top quarterbacks in the league. It doesn't hurt that Darrell Jackson is back and playing well. Besides, it was rather silly of "pundits" to take the Redskins' wild card win over the Bucs to mean much. There defense played good, but Tampa played poorly which is why they won.

Carolina 29 Chicago 21
I didn't think I would be saying this, but I can't believe Chicago's defense let them down. But it did. I thought the Panthers had a good shot at winning, but only because their defense was also good. However, Rex Grossman played a good game after a slow start, but he overcame early drops to move the team pretty well. Thomas Jones had a low yards per attempt average, but he got the tough yardage. If you had told me Chicago would score 21 points, I would have thought they had the game. I didn't think the Panthers' offense would do what it did. Actually, it wasn't all of their offense. The running game wasn't much even before DeShaun Foster got hurt. It was Jake Delhomme and Steve Smith. Say what you will about Tom Brady, but Delhomme has shown up in big games. His first year as a starter, he led the Panthers to the Super Bowl where he threw for over three hundred yards and three touchdowns in their tight shootout loss. Last year, after a bad start (1-7) caused by lots of injuries, the Panthers put the ball in Delhomme's hands and went 6-2 over the rest of the year and almost made the playoffs. Because of him and Smith, I wouldn't count them out against the Seahawks.

Pittsburgh 21 Indianapolis 18
The game I really wanted to talk about. I was really hoping that the Colts' playoff choke job would be this week instead of next. You knew it was coming. Tony Dungy and Peyton Manning on the same team. The two biggest chokers in big games. Actually, even though I thought the Colts were the favorite, I couldn't understand why so many people thought the Steelers didn't have a shot. Sure, the Steelers didn't look sharp in a game earlier at Indy, but it was the offense. Ben Roethlisberger was in his first game off knee surgery and looked rusty. However, considering how poorly the offense played, the Steelers defense was fine. They gave up two touchdowns and four field goals. One touchdown and three field goal drives started in Pittsburgh territory. So, I figured the Pittsburgh defense would be OK this time around. They are good at masking coverage which is where Peyton Manning struggles. He reads game film better than anyone, so if you can hide what you're doing before the snap, he has trouble with it. The Pittsburgh offense was playing very well at the end of the season, so I was hoping it would carry over. It did. However, the real reason for the victory was the Manning/Dungy choke duo. Look at the ending. The Colts had pulled within three because of a BS overturned interception call. Manning had the ball on his own 18. His next three plays were a pass that barely got 2 yards, a sack and an overthrow. Then he was sacked again on fourth down. Those sacks later led him to criticize his line while not talking about how many of his passes weren't even close to the intended receiver. He gets the ball back because of a fumble by Jerome Bettis (first of the year which thankfully was saved by a Roethlisberger shoe-string tackle) and gets them to second and 2 on the Pittsburgh 28 with 31 seconds left and two timeouts. What does he do? He throws for the endzone twice (one was almost intercepted) which forces a 46 yard field goal which missed. While I would expect the league's all time leading field goal kicker (by percentage) to make a 46 yarder, why not go short (or run) to get the first and use your timeouts? Blame the kicker all you want, but that decision making was inexcusable. They had two yards to go. Why go for the home run? Get it to overtime and go for the win.

Stay tuned for my Conference Championship game picks.

NFL Wild Card Weekend

Time has been at a premium, but I couldn't hold back from commenting on the NFL playoffs.

Washington 17 Tampa Bay 10
Redskin fans should thank God that Edell Shepherd dropped that catch with about three minutes left. The Redskins offense was horrible. If the Bucs had tied the game, I'm not sure Washington would have had any chance to score. They might have been better off under the old rule that let the team scored on to either receive a kickoff or kick the ball themselves (the idea was that you kicked off and played for a turnover on your opponents side of the field). It wasn't like Tampa's offense was that great, and Chris Simms is always a screw-up waiting to happen. That dropped pass was the only good one I saw from him. Yes, as many Simms' apologists pointed out, his two crucial interceptions (one lead to a TD, the other ended their last chance) were tipped, but so what? The idea is to get the passes to your receivers without them being tipped. I'm not surprised the Skins went conservative on offense once they got a lead. When has Chris Simms ever showed up for a big game?

Carolina 23 New York Giants 0
Speaking of quarterbacks and big game flops, who else guessed that Eli Manning would follow his brother in that category? 113 yards and three interceptions wasn't too pretty. As a longtime Steelers fan, I'm not surprised by the Plaxico Burress disappearing act. His tendency to quit when things weren't going well is a reason they had no real inclination to pay him the money he wanted. The Giants were downright horrible. Their longest drive of the game was 6 plays for 31 yards, and the Carolina 39 yard line was the farthest they got downfield. Their second half drives ended on punt, interception, interception, interception and fumble. I think the best part was Tiki Barber saying the Giants were outcoached. Normally, I don't like a player who didn't have a good game (like Barber) calling out others, but I can't stand Tom Coughlin so I think it's funny. And he's right. It didn't appear the Giants' staff had any clue what was going on.

New England 28 Jacksonville 3
I like Jack Del Rio. And I like Byron Leftwich. But I think Del Rio made a mistake starting Leftwich. Actually, I don't think that was the mistake, because Leftwich is a better quarterback than Garrard. I think Del Rio should have given Leftwich some serious playing time in their last game of the year, so he wouldn't have been so rusty. Actually, I think it sucks that New England was the host team just because they won their division. Yes, the Jags had a fairly easy schedule, but they won more games than every team in the league except Indy, Seattle and Denver. They won two more games than the Patriots who were playing in the AFC East which was the worst division in the league. Why should the Jags have to play the first game on the road in 20 degree weather? They looked pretty inept on offense, so they probably still would have lost, but their defense was playing well, and who knows? Don't you think there is a big difference between playing a January game in Boston and Jacksonville?

Pittsburgh 31 Cincinnati 17
Would Cincinnati have won if Carson Palmer hadn't been hurt (and no, it was not a dirty hit)? Their chances would have been better, but I wouldn't say they would have necessarily won. While they may have won the last game against the Steelers, it was by eight points. The game before that was in Cincinnati and the Steelers won 27-13. Plus, in their last two home games, the Bengals haven't scored as many as 31 points against weaker teams like the Bills and Browns. Ironically, I think the Bengals' offense doesn't play as well on the turf at Paul Brown Stadium. They're built like a dome team. It's a moot point anyway since injuries are part of the game. The Bengals wouldn't even have won the division if Ben Roethlisberger hadn't been out three games. Besides, the Bengals are lucky to have Jon Kitna who is one of the better backups in the league. They scored more points in the first half with him than they did the entire first meeting of this season. And it appears that something may have happened at halftime with the Bengals' class clown that may have helped their offensive offense of the second half.

Bowl Games

I haven't put anything up lately. It's because it's football season and I put the time into a site devoted to my league. In fact, I had these picks on my fantasy football site two weeks ago, but I haven't given that address to everyone who has this one. And some people probably are better off not seeing the fantasy football site, so I'm putting my bowl picks here.

Bowl Picks. Winners in italics.
New Orleans Bowl (played in Lafayette, LA) - Southern Miss vs. Arkansas State - Arkansas State won an overtime game over 1-10 Florida Atlantic by the score of 3-0. Take Southern Miss.
GMAC Bowl - UTEP vs. Toledo - This is a game that I think could be a fun one to watch. Anyone besides me know that Carson Palmer's little brother Jordan plays for UTEP? Still, I'm taking Toledo in a close one. UK fans should watch since I think Toledo coach Tom Amstutz would make a good replacement for Rich Brooks (assuming Brooks doesn't win 5 games next year and gets a four year extension).
Las Vegas Bowl - BYU vs. Cal - Cal has only played one bad game this year. I've got to go with the hippies over the Mormons.
Poinsettia Bowl - Colorado St. vs. Navy - How often does Colorado St. see the triple option? Navy runs all over them.
Fort Worth Bowl - Kansas vs. Houston - Could be a snooze fest, but I'll go with Kansas. I think they've been playing better to end the season.
Hawaii Bowl - Nevada vs. Central Florida - Bear with me on this one. Central Florida loses the CUSA title game and goes to Hawaii while Tulsa wins it and goes to Memphis? Doesn't seem fair. Oh well, Central Florida wins to continue the George O'Leary reclamation project.
Motor City Bowl - Memphis vs. Akron - DeAngelo Williams is back. Take Memphis.
Champ Sports Bowl - Clemson vs. Colorado - I don't care if one of them was Texas, Colorado has lost its last three games 130-22. Take Clemson.
Insight Bowl - Arizona State vs. Rutgers - Rutgers is making its second bowl ever and should get the win over a weak Sun Devil team.
MPC Computers Bowl - Boston College vs. Boise State - Boise St. is playing a de facto home game against a BC team that is pissed off that they went 8-3 in the ACC and still dropped behind lesser ACC teams to end up in the only bowl game where the weather could be colder than in Boston. Personally, after BC stabbed the Big East in the back, I find it funny. Oh yeah, don't take a team that is unhappy playing in their bowl.
Alamo Bowl - Michigan vs. Nebraska - Bet this bowl never thought these two storied teams would end up in its lower-tier game at the same time. Both are 7-4, but I think Michigan is a better 7-4.
Emerald Bowl - Georgia Tech vs. Utah - Georgia Tech is simply a better team.
Holiday Bowl - Oregon vs. Oklahoma - Oregon should have been in a BCS game, while Oklahoma shouldn't be in a bowl game this good.
Music City Bowl - Minnesota vs. Virginia - Neither team really thrills me, but Minnesota runs the ball well.
Sun Bowl - Northwestern vs. UCLA - This is a tough one. I don't like UCLA at all. But I'm not sure I like Northwestern any better. I'll take Northwestern in the upset.
Independence Bowl - South Carolina vs. Missouri - Missouri sucks.
Peach Bowl - Miami vs. LSU - Look like crap in the SEC championship game, and may not have JaMarcus Russell, so I'm picking Miami over LSU. However, I do think LSU got screwed by the bowls. Why are Alabama, Auburn and Florida in better bowls?
Meineke Car Care Bowl - South Florida vs. NC State - I wish I knew the temperature was going to be. If it's average or above average, I would take South Florida, but if it's really cold, then NC State. I'm guessing milder weather. South Florida.
Liberty Bowl - Tulsa vs. Fresno St. - Since losing a close game to Southern Cal, Fresno has slumped. Tulsa is playing well. Take Tulsa.
Houston Bowl - TCU vs. Iowa State - Interesting. TCU (located in Fort Worth) is playing in the Houston Bowl while Houston is playing in the Fort Worth Bowl. TCU is on a 9 game winning streak, but should be undefeated. Iowa State is a mediocre team from a mediocre division of the Big 12.
Cotton Bowl - Texas Tech vs. Alabama - Team that likes to score against a team that can't. I know the adage is that defense wins championships, but I'm not so sure Alabama has the offense to win a bowl game.
Outback Bowl - Iowa vs. Florida - I would take Florida is they were playing in Gainesville, but they aren't.
Gator Bowl - Louisville vs. Virginia Tech - I wouldn't be going to Jacksonville if I thought UL was going to lose. Besides, we beat North Carolina worse than they did (said with crossed fingers).
Capital One Bowl - Wisconsin vs. Auburn - While I can see an emotional Wisconsin trying to win one for retiring Barry Alvarez, I still don't see them beating Auburn.
Fiesta Bowl - Notre Dame vs. Ohio State - Notre Dame hasn't beaten anyone. Take Ohio State.
Sugar Bowl - Georgia vs. West Virginia - The key to beating Georgia is running well which is forte of West Virginia. Of course, West Virginia struggles against scrambling quarterbacks which DJ Shockley hasn't done as much as I thought he would. Still, it's a home game this year for Georgia.
Orange Bowl - Penn State vs. Florida State - I'm still not sure how a four loss Florida State managed to get into a BCS game.
Rose Bowl - Southern Cal vs. Texas - Well, both teams tried to make a point by running up the score on their opponents the last week of the season. I still think Texas has a better defense and will win.

PC in sports

There have been some recent sports stories that deal with political correctness that I have found the reaction to running the gamut of sad to laughable.

Air Force head coach Fisher DeBerry recently got into some controversy when he said that one of the reasons his team is struggling is the lack of team speed which he attributed to the lack of minorities. He pointed out "Afro-American kids can run very, very well". Really? What gave it away? The fact that all the top sprinters in the world are black, whether or not they are from this country? The fact that I can't remember a white NFL cornerback not named Jason Sehorn in my lifetime? The fact that the wide receiver and running back positions in the NFL and major college football are hugely black, even though only 13 percent of the population is? For whatever reason, blacks simply run better, and due to their stringent requirements, military academies have a much smaller pool of players to recruit, so team speed is a problem. What is completely stupid about this story was most commentators seemed to think what he said was discriminatory against blacks. Exactly how? He blamed his recruiting for the lack of minorities. He never said blacks weren't smart enough to get into the academy so that argument is bogus. So, it looks to me like the people who should be offended are white football players who have just been told they are slow. Of course, too many sportswriters aren't smart enough to see that. Plus, offended white players isn't much of a story.

On a related line of thought, during the World Series, Joe Morgan lamented the fact that the Astros didn't have a black player on their roster. That was news to me since I was sure I saw a black guy (Ezequiel Astacio) give up a homerun. Apparently, he's a Latino, even though he looks black. Apparently, even if you look black, you aren't unless you come from the US. As a whole, blacks only make up 9 percent of Major League rosters. My response is: so what? How many blacks in baseball are enough for Joe? Should I be concerned that blacks are slightly underrepresented (as a percentage of population) in baseball when they are vastly over-represented in the NFL and NBA? I'll worry about this when Joe shows some concern about the lack of whites in the other two sports.

Race wasn't the only story. A big story was WNBA player Sheryl Swoopes coming out of the closet and admitting that she's a lesbian. A lesbian in the WNBA? What's next, lesbians on the LPGA tour? The idea that there are a lot of lesbians in professional women's sports has been around for years, so a professional women's basketball players coming out is not that surprising. Yet, many commentators said that this shouldn't be taken as proof of that assumption. They're right. I always assumed that the WNBA probably had a higher percentage of lesbians than the population, but I never thought it would be half. Yet, look at this quote from Swoopes. "But the talk about the WNBA being full of lesbians is not true. I mean, there are as many straight women in the league as there are gay." Looks like I was wrong. Actually, I don't care whether or not there are a bunch of lesbians in the WNBA. It can have all straight women or all homosexual women. I just don't find it that entertaining, and I'm not alone. Indoor football can make it on it's own, but the WNBA stays in business only because it's subsidized heavily by the NBA. That's where the laughable comes in. Some sportswriters were saying that the "lesbians in women sports" stigma may be going down, because a "big star" had come out. "Big star" in the WNBA? Isn't that like being the best damn accordion player in polka?

Another gender bending story comes out of English golf. The British Open golf championship is now open to all players, regardless of gender. Which I'm fine with except that the Women's British Open can only have female players. Sounds like discrimination to me. Male golfer Jean Van De Velde thinks the same thing and is saying he is going to send in an application for the Women's Open. He's being ridiculed, but I think he has a point. I thought the same thing when women were playing PGA events here. If a female player enters a PGA event, a male player is out. Unlike a female player who can't get into the PGA event, he doesn't have an option to play the LPGA event that week, and the LPGA has higher payouts than the minor league golf tours. I just think if you have a women's tour that doesn't allow men, then the men's tour shouldn't allow women. Actually, I've made the point in the past, women professional sports are illegal in this country due to job discrimination laws. Men's leagues don't prohibit female players (the Pacers gave Ann Meyer a tryout back in 1979), but women sports do. And before you point out that the laws don't apply in cases of competitive sports, you're wrong. Remember Casey Martin (recently announced retirement from golf) who sued to gain the use of a golf cart on the PGA? If the Americans With Disability Act applies to professional golf, then workplace discrimination laws should also. To be honest, I disagreed with the Martin decision, and I don't think the LPGA should be forced to allow men (not that it would happen regardless of the law) in their events, but I also think Van De Velde has a point.

World Series

Well, the World Series starts tonight, and I'm really looking forward to flipping over to check the score every 20-30 minutes while watching the Auburn vs LSU game or Penn State vs Illinois or possibly Oregon State vs UCLA. I still can't get too excited about baseball. If there's nothing else on, I'll have it on in the background, but I really don't care. I'm just sick to death of the stupidity that reporters and columnists show when writing about baseball this year. Saint Louis won a game on a ninth inning home run to pull their series with Houston to 3 games to 2. Even though Houston had the three wins, every pundit or sportswriters were now acting like Houston didn't have a chance. Do they think these guys are so fragile that one homerun is going to kill them? I realize Houston was in the same situation last year and lost the NLCS, but come on. What does that have to do with anything? Last year they went into game six with some guy I never heard of. This year they had 20 game winner Roy Oswalt who had already shut down the Cardinals in the NLCS, so why would I not give the edge to Houston in that case?

I spent some time trying to decide who I want to win the Series. I don't have anything against anyone on the White Sox. I don't have anyone on the White Sox that I really like either. I do like Jeff Bagwell and Craig Biggio on the Astros. So, normally, I would pull for them, but I won't. Because they have one of my least favorite players in Roger Clemens. I didn't like him when he played for the Red Sox. I was disinterested when he played for the Blue Jays. I hated him when he played for the Yankees. So, there is no way I can root for him to win another series. If he pitches well (or pitches poorly but they win), I'll have to read another set of stupid articles talking about "adding to the legend" of Clemens. This morons already did it once when they were talking about him when he pitched three relief inning s against the Braves in that 18 inning game. One wrote how he pitched the three innings on two days rest. What a load. He pitched on the sixth and the ninth so it was three days. Plus, he was shelled in his outing on the sixth and only finished five innings. Am I supposed to be impressed that he pitched eight innings in three days?

I've been hoping for years, and maybe one day it will happen, but right now, sports journalism (I use that term loosely) is so baseball centric that I have to put up with this kind of crap.

The Chicago White Sox

I've always heard about the "East Coast" bias in sports reporting. Basically, the theory is that sports team's east of the Mississippi get a lot more attention than those out west. While it's overstated (see LA Lakers in the NBA), I do think it's somewhat true. Of course the main reason is that too many sporting events on the west coast don't end early enough to make the news on the east coast. Actually, I don't think it's such a bad thing for them. Someone told me last year's Southern Cal team was basically an NFL team, but so much of that was based on them beating down Oklahoma in a bowl game. He never saw USC trail a crappy Stanford in the fourth quarter last year. People had the impression that USC was an unbeatable juggernaut because they hadn't actually seen them play.

But I digress. The reason I bring up the "East Coast Bias" is because I don't think it extends to the Mississippi River for most sports (exception is college football which is mostly centered in the South, Midwest and Great Plains). I think it's not just primarily on the coast, but way too infatuated with the Northeast. Baseball shows this clearly. Why aren't the Chicago White Sox the lovable underdog that is finally due for a World Series? You know, like the Red Sox were last year? Supposedly people were rooting for the Red Sox because they hadn't won a Series since 1918. Well, that was a year after the White Sox last won one. I never understood the whole Red Sox fascination of last year, because the idea was that people were tired of the Yankees, and the Red Sox were the antithesis of the Yankees. Bullcrap. Their payroll may not have been as high as the Yankees, but it was still a Hell of a lot more than any other team in baseball. Everything that was bad about the Yankees was present with the Red Sox. Yet, every baseball story is still about the Yankees and Red Sox. I for one hope the AL Championship is the Angels versus the White Sox. Piss on the Yankees, and piss on the Red Sox.

Academic Research

I let things fall behind a bit here. Been a little busy.

There was something in a section of the local paper that I normally wouldn't have read, but then I saw the word "stripper" and had to take a look. It's a little story about some sociology/women's studies professor writing an academic tome about the life of strippers. I like strippers as much as the next degenerate male, but I came away with a reinforced belief about the lack of fiscal responsibility in higher education. Why? This woman interviewed 37 strippers and "a few bouncers, deejays, waitresses, and club owners, as well as "clients". Let's assume a few equals three of each. That's about 52 people. She's been working on this book for eight years. That less than seven per year. She's working real hard. I wouldn't think much about it if she was working on it a side project, but she's actually had academic grants for five of those years. It doesn't say how much she got, but I find another part illuminating. It mentioned that most of the interviews took place in Lexington, but she went to other cities for "perspective". Did she drive to Louisville or maybe Atlanta? How about Chicago? Bet you can find strippers there. Nope. She went to Hawaii and San Francisco. Am I the only one who thinks she was taking vacations on someone else's dime?

Now, it didn't say what kind of grants she had, so they could have been non-government, but my feelings just the same. That's money that could be used for other, better things. So, when anyone tells me that higher ed doesn't get enough funding, my first thought is that it gets plenty of funding. Unfortunately, it spends it too much of it on stupid things.

On a side note, I wonder if I can get a free lap dance if I say I'm doing "research".

New Orleans

I wasn’t going to write about the New Orleans hurricane problems, because people will think I’m blaming the victims. However, someone then asked me if I thought George W. Bush’s response was too slow, so I decided that I would write about New Orleans. To begin with, contrary to popular belief, I do not take up for George Bush on everything. I disagree with him on immigration policies. I think he should have vetoed the completely ridiculous highway bill that Congress recently passed. I didn’t like the Medicare drug coverage because it included everyone instead of basing it on need. I also don’t think baseball is that interesting. However, to say that he was late in the game for Hurricane Katrina is silly. For one, no part of the federal government is built for speed. If that’s what you’re relying on, you will be disappointed. Actually, I’m not sure what constitutes a long time for federal reaction. When the city was flooded, who do you think the guys in orange suits hanging underneath helicopters to pick people off their roofs were? It was the Coast Guard which had been positioned to move in from day one. The military mobilized before the hurricane even hit, but the logistics of moving the Navy and Army will take about 3 to 5 days. Also, I went to Homestead, FL less than a week after Hurricane Andrew hit 1992 for a relief trip. I wasn’t that far behind the National Guard. Remember this – Katrina hit on Monday, but the levee breeches didn’t really begin flooding the city until Tuesday. Yet, the first buses started the evacuation of the Superdome on Wednesday. And by Saturday, 30,000 people were evacuated from the Superdome, and another 25,000 from the convention center by Sunday. That means in the same amount of time it took to get the Guard in Homestead, they had convoyed into a flooded and crime ridden New Orleans and evacuated thousands of people. The federal government wasn’t any slower in this disaster than others. It just looks worse because there were circumstances that other natural disasters don’t have to deal with. Mainly, 80% of the city under water because you were dealing with a city that never should have existed that way. I loved visiting New Orleans, but it doesn't make sense to have half a million people in a city with most living in a bowl between a big lake and a big river and under sea level.

Another factor is that with the federal system of government means natural disaster issues are primarily the province of state and local government. That’s not just in tradition. It’s often by law. George Bush was in contact with the mayor of New Orleans and governor of Louisiana two days before the storm hit to urge them to call for an evacuation. However, by law, that call had to be made by them, and in fact, the city of New Orleans has a hurricane emergency plan that was unfortunately virtually ignored. It stated that school and metro buses would be used to help evacuate people who couldn’t get themselves out. They also had a second evacuation once they realized the levees were breached and the city was flooding on Tuesday. Yet, there’s an AP picture of a couple of hundred school buses not that far from the Superdome that could have been used, but weren’t. By Wednesday, local officials were trying to round up buses from out in the state. Not only was the resource ignored, but by not using them, they were left to be flooded which means they will need to be overhauled or replaced. I’ve been to New Orleans so I know where the Super Dome and Convention Center are, and the streets around them were not washed out yet on Tuesday morning when I watched the news. If they had used those buses, they could have gotten many of the people out. Barring that, once the state decided to open the Superdome as a shelter, they needed to supply it and secure it. I’ve heard about 1000 excuses from New Orleans’ idiot mayor (who has since moved to Dallas and bought a house) about why they didn’t, but he’s obviously failed in his duty. What’s even worse is that we’ve since learned that the Red Cross was ready to take relief supplies to the Superdome after the storm passed on Monday, but state officials stopped them because they wanted the people there to leave. FEMA has been highly criticized, but by law, they are set up to “assist” state and local government during a disaster. They do not take the lead. The mayor and governor abdicated their responsibility to their citizens, because they just wanted to wait for the feds. Well, Florida gets hit with hurricanes pretty frequently, but they don’t have near the problems, because they take care of their own and let the feds come in later.

One of the biggest issues was security which is once again, by law, a local responsibility. That is where the local failure was most acute. While the Coast Guard was being videoed rescuing people on roofs, New Orleans police officers were on the news stealing shoes and DVDs from Wal-Mart or they might have been former police officers still in uniform because about a third of the force quit. I wasn’t surprised by that because NOPD has never been known for its professionalism. When I was in Homestead, I was never told to watch out for snipers. Yet, in New Orleans, the police had no control over the criminal element, but that isn’t surprising either. When I was down there, they pretty much let you know that you were safe in the tourist areas, but they couldn’t protect you elsewhere. So, if they can’t control the criminals in good times, why would I expect a hurricane to make things different (although they began confiscating guns from the law-abiding which made sense because then they could no longer defend themselves against the criminals that the police wouldn’t arrest)? The police were even chased out of the convention center. When they went back and caught someone breaking the law, they just took them to a different part of the center. They didn’t even throw them out. The lack of security kept the Red Cross out and caused FEMA to leave the Superdome. Evacuations were halted, and air ambulances stopped coming in for the sick because they were getting shot at. When local control fails, the National Guard gets sent in, but they need to be under control of the governor who has to request them before they get sent in. Louisiana’s governor didn’t even send a request to other states until Wednesday, and when you factor in the deployment time, they were actually quite fast. As long as they are under state control, Guardsmen can do law enforcement duties, but the president cannot send in federalized troops for law enforcement because of Posse Comitatus laws. Unless the governor of a state asks them to, but when the offer was made to Governor Blanco of LA in order to put the active duty troops and the Guard under one command, she didn't want to give up control of the Guard. In fact, it’s still considered iffy whether or not Bush sending in active duty troops was completely legal. It’s pretty obvious that the governor did not use her National Guard troops effectively, but I'm sure if Bush had used the Insurrection Act to federalize the Guard without Blanco's permission, the Democrats criticizing him now wouldn't be accusing him of usurping her authority. Yeah, I'm real sure of that.

And now I think I will blame the victims. I’m not talking about the ones who couldn’t leave because of lack of transportation or infirmity. I’m talking about the ones who chose not to, and got stuck. When government officials up to the President of the United States tell you to go, you go. There’s still people who refuse to leave. I saw one guy say that he didn’t leave even when the flood waters were rising because his car was a five seater, and he had a wife and five kids. Well, two were very young, but he didn’t double stack some kids because he thought the state police might stop him. Is getting a ticket worse than trying to flag down a boat from your roof? I don’t consider him a bad person, but that was a bad decision. If you couldn’t get out of town, but lived in a shack in the bottom of the bowl and didn’t move to higher ground when the flooding started, you made a bad decision. Unfortunately, I have a feeling there was a large group that stayed simply for the opportunity to loot, so I have no sympathy for them. In fact, there are a lot of people who deserved to be shot. Shooting at helicopters, police, telephone repairmen. Give me a break. I’ve been hungry, tired and frustrated, but I think I could refrain from turning into an animal in two days. I know I could refrain from trying to sexually assault someone. Thanks to these lowlifes, help was slower in coming.

Great College Football Weekend

I remember some chump telling me that college football wasn’t worth watching. Of course, same loser also told me that Styx was the greatest rock band ever which could be true if by rock band you only mean Styx and Nelson. As for college football, this past weekend certainly proved him wrong. Sure there were some clunkers, but for the most part, it was one of the best days of college football viewing I’ve seen in a while. Obviously, the best game was Texas beating Ohio State by three. Neither of the teams wanted to lose as they slugged it out until the whistle. Vince Young moved to the head of my mythical Heisman ballot with his performance. Yet, during this game, I’m also flipping over to the Arizona State/LSU game that would also go down to the wire as LSU throws a 39 yard touchdown pass on 4th and 10 with just over a minute left. Not only that, Alabama is scoring the last 20 points of the game to beat Southern Miss 31-20. Not to mention trying to keep up with the NASCAR race which will determine the last of the ten teams that will be in the points chase. My channel changing finger is worn out.

And it started way before then. The Marshall/Kansas State game began at 10:30 in the morning, and Marshall drove to the Kansas State 21 yard line with 9 seconds left and trailing 21-19. Non-aggressive coaches would have simply attempted a 38 yard field goal for the win, but Marshall knew that the only way to have a game losing interception was to throw a pass. Which they did. But no time for worrying about that. Notre Dame is going into the Big House and knocking off Michigan. And making them look bad. I don’t really like Notre Dame, but I don’t Michigan either, so I’ll take it. At the same time I get to watch Oklahoma try to dump another game to a mid-level conference foe. They don’t, but still look like crap. Later in the afternoon, North Carolina invades Georgia Tech (who was coming off a beat down of Auburn at Auburn) and almost pulls off the upset. Steve Spurrier takes a mediocre looking South Carolina team to Georgia and falls short by only two. The amazing thing is that South Carolina keeps it close with defense. Finally, Oregon State kicks a field goal with 1:03 to go to beat Boise State. And this was all just leading up to the evening games.

However, as I said there was some clunkers. Oklahoma looked really bad. They needed 220 yards from Adrian Peterson, and yet were only beating Tulsa by 2 with just over 3 minutes left. This was a week after losing to TCU. TCU celebrated that win by losing 21-10 to SMU who was coming off a loss to Big 12 bottom-feeder Baylor. Of course, that begs the question, since Oklahoma lost to a team that lost to a team that lost to Baylor, is Oklahoma now the bottom feeder of the Big 12? And while it didn’t happen on Saturday, Pitt’s loss to Ohio on Friday showed that Dave Wannstedt doesn’t need the NFL to fail as a coach. I also can’t wait for the big UK/Indiana slugfest this coming weekend. Both teams were trailing in the fourth quarter to Division 1-AA teams. Every year UK hangs around with someone they shouldn’t to make people think they are really improving. Then they crap in their mess kit again. It wouldn’t bother me except this year they play UL tough, and now they’re going to screw up our strength of schedule.