***SUPER DUPER AHEM***
From my first pro-OSU post in that thread:
I'm not counting the Michigan State game as a victory, but if Ohio State wins next week...
posted by tahoemoj at 12:00 PM on December 09
Good analysis re: last weekend's discussion about the national title game. The link to Mr. SEC is great, too.
posted by tahoemoj at 01:48 PM on December 05
Did that include Notre Dame last season?
Yes! By virtue of their unblemished record, I think it is clear that they are a worthy adversary, and will give Alabama all that they can handle.
posted by tahoemoj at 06:33 PM on December 03
I am cancelling any visits until the passion dies down.
You should be fine as long as you strap a dead war eagle around your neck.
posted by tahoemoj at 05:13 PM on December 03
I completely agree with almost everything you said in that post, rcade. And for the record, I am not an advocate of the status quo that favors AQ conferences, but I am trying to argue from the state of college football as it is, rather than as it should be or as it will be.
there's no comparison between the Big 10 and the SEC this year. But you're not accepting that argument against Ohio State
I accept the fact that the SEC is stronger than the Big 10 top-to bottom. What I keep repeating (ad nauseum, I know) is that there is a difference, no matter how artificial and arbitrary, between AQ and non-AQ conferences. And I believe that an undefeated team from an AQ conference, as the system exists now, has always gotten an invitation to the national title game. I also believe that the current system, as it was both designed and accepted by the AD's of the AQ conference schools, including the SEC, should not change to exclude an undefeated team this year. Is it because that undefeated team happens to be one that I cheer for? Probably.
So then the disconnect in our positions amounts to a comparison of all conferences to determine each's relative strength of schedule. I only distinguish between AQ and non-AQ conferences, while you advocate further distinguishing between the AQ conferences, or even eliminating them and just placing the conferences on a top-to-bottom continuum to evaluate the strength. I agree that the system should be redesigned in that manner. Hopefully, that will be how it is done in the future, but it is not the current state of affairs. That is why I keep saying over and over that an undefeated AQ school should get the nod over one with a loss.
posted by tahoemoj at 05:11 PM on December 03
I think my joking demonstration was taken a bit too seriously...
No, I took it for the intended demonstration of the logical limit becoming absurd. I just thought it was irrelevant to the discussion at hand. It was a fun demonstration for sure, but I couldn't tell if it was just a joke or intended to mock my position. The neutral reaction was just to point out that it was irrelevant.
Boise State was undefeated in 2006-07, and was passed over for the national title game so that Florida could play Ohio State (also undefeated).
Again, there is a difference between automatic-bid BCS conferences and the mid-majors. Without endorsing the BCS system, the example of an undefeated mid-major being passed over in favor of a 1 or 2 loss team from an automatic bid conference does not equate to the possibility of Ohio State being bypassed this year. There is still no precedent for omitting an undefeated team from an automatic bid conference. In my opinion, in the best year of the WAC or the MAC, they still are not comparable to the Big 10 in its worst year (which this year may have been). That is not to say that the best team from the mid-major is not better than the AQ conference's best team, but top to bottom there is no comparison.
But why shouldn't Ohio State be compared to them? Both are undefeated teams trying to establish their right to be in the title game.
Fair enough, but nobody (including myself) is really trying to make the case that FSU doesn't belong. That is not the case with OSU. The discussion of whether the SEC champion should leapfrog OSU isn't constrained to SpoFi. In reaction to that discussion, this OSU fan wants to argue the counterpoint.
This is the internet, after all.
Also fair enough. Y'all have fun, I'm headed over to chat roulette.
posted by tahoemoj at 11:41 AM on December 03
So when we give you facts, we're engaging in "statistical gymnastics" and the real reason is because we we're haters who don't care about facts. Nice.
That's bullshit. I hear and understand all of the facts that you're throwing down. Ohio State's margin of victory pales in comparison to Florida State's. Does that mean that another 1-loss team should play Florida State in the championship? When FSU played Clemson, the Tigers were ranked No. 3. Does that mean that a 1-loss team should play Florida State in the championship? Ohio State squeaked by a mediocre Michigan team. Mizzou and Auburn both lost a game. Auburn to LSU and Mizzou to South Carolina. Does that mean that one of them should play Florida State in the championship? I don't dispute your facts, in fact, I used the term "wholeheartedly agree" when referring to your most damning argument, which is that OSU's out of conference schedule was weak as hell. But neither you nor anyone else has made a persuasive argument for why the BCS committee should turn precedent on its head and place a 1-loss team in the championship game over an undefeated team, have you? The closest precedent anyone gave was etrigan's 2-loss team leapfrogging a 1-loss team to get in. But I honestly believe that there is a difference in that, and once there is a number in the loss column, the right to play in the title game becomes more discretionary to the committee. Yoi might disagree, and that's fine.
I believe you're stretching to find reasons to exclude OSU. And I think comparing them to Florida State is the very definition of stretching. So is this:
NORTHERN ILLINOIS FOR THE BCS TITLE GAME!
If they were in an automatic bid BCS conference, they would have a legitimate case, and your argument wouldn't be completely irrelevant. But they are not. And I have made that distinction multiple times. So it is irrelevant.
posted by tahoemoj at 04:16 PM on December 02
P.s. When FSU played Clemson, the Tigers were ranked No. 3.
I don't think that the fact that Clemson was overrated at that time should factor into it, do you? I still see their biggest win coming over a team that sits at #13. By comparison, Ohio State's top ranked victory is over #21 Wisconsin. Not sure what they were ranked at the time. I'm also not sure where Northwestern peaked before they dropped, but it doesn't matter. If OSU wins this week, they will have beaten the #10 team, although Sparty may drop a few notches with the loss. Teams rise and fall in the rankings, and certain teams reach certain levels before they are exposed as unworthy.
And my point isn't that FSU is unworthy of a championship game--far from it. I'm just trying to get to the heart of why so many people are engaging in statistical gymnastics to try to make a case for leaving an undefeated (to date) team out of the championship game. I get the sense that it is for such concrete reasons as "Ohio State fatigue" and "I hate the 'The' in their name."
If they really are a fraud, I expect MSU to beat them. End of debate, let the SEC have another chance. But if they beat MSU, they should be in, plain and simple. And if Florida State kicks the living shit out of them in the championship, you can all give us OSU fans a nice big "I told you so" and go to sleep happy with the knowledge that you were right.
posted by tahoemoj at 03:07 PM on December 02
I would also point out that Florida State's non-con schedule included Nevada, Bethune-Cookman, a bad Florida team, and Idaho. Just like it's not FSU's fault that Florida sucked, it's not OSU's fault that Cal sucked. Why are they such a consensus #1 when the strongest win on their schedule came against the #13 Clemson Tigers? If OSU beats the #10 team in Michigan State, why is the debate only whether OSU should be leapfrogged? What about FSU? The ACC isn't exactly a football powerhouse, and a win over Northwestern or Nebraska shouldn't count for less than one over Wake Forest or Syracuse.
posted by tahoemoj at 02:05 PM on December 02
Auburn 2004. The BCS put USC and Oklahoma (also undefeated) in the title game, and USC annihilated Oklahoma. Auburn fans have insisted ever since that they would have done better.
Fair enough, and I had forgotten all about that. So the next question is has there ever been an undefeated team from an automatic-bid conference not play for the championship when a team with a loss did? I'm pretty sure that the answer to that one is no. Auburn, Alabama, and/or Mizzou might all be better teams than the Buckeyes, but the fact that they all have a "1" in the loss column shouldn't be ignored.
And I feel like every time I argue on behalf of OSU as "an undefeated team," I further seal their fate against Sparty. But if they do beat them, they will have beaten a top 10 team, which should add some credibility to the resume, right?
posted by tahoemoj at 01:21 PM on December 02
So when an OSU fan moans about pot-shots, as if there were anything wrong with making snide comments about any team we don't root for, as if it were so unfair that this juggernaut football program with major cheating scandals in its recent past should have detractors anywhere, as if there were some universal pact of mutual respect between fans of different teams that is violated whenever anyone wishes defeat on the undefeated, I think said OSU fan isn't merely being a crybaby.
Actually, Hugh, the potshot I was referring to (and etrigan knew it) was the one about there being a time stamp on the post. It had nothing to do with the content of the post itself. I've been around here long enough to get the benefit of the doubt on that one, I think. You can talk shit about whatever team you'd like, including all of those I cheer for, and I'll generally not take any offense. As for being a "crybaby," I would invite you to take this opportunity to make sweet, sweet love to yourself.
Did that argument ever work on you in past years when an undefeated team was in a conference weaker than the Big 10?
I can't think of a year when there was an undefeated team in an automatic-bid conference that went undefeated and didn't play for the title. Even in a weak year, the Big 10 isn't the WAC or the Mountain West.
If Ohio State is kept out because of how strength of schedule affected computer rankings, that's a situation it helped create by scheduling Buffalo, San Diego State and Florida A&M as OOC opponent
I completely agree. But refer to bender's post for context.
posted by tahoemoj at 11:27 AM on December 02
Remember that BYU has a national title solely because they went undefeated in a year where no one else did.
Sure, but BYU didn't have the chance to validate their season in a national title game. Notre Dame last year is a good example, but for the fact that they don't play in an automatic qualifying conference. The BCS is a junk show, but you don't get to disregard how it was set up simply to exclude a team that has the misfortune of playing in a weak conference. Notre Dame cherry picks its schedule and literally plays whoever it wants to every year. OSU has to play in the Big 10, weak or not. As a fan, I will gladly concede that they didn't do themselves any favors with their non-conference schedule. I wish they would arrange more home-and-homes with top-tier programs. Nonetheless, if they go undefeated in an automatic BCS conference, and there are no other undefeated automatic-qualifying conferences, it would be more controversial to exclude them in favor of a 1-loss team than not.
Really? You're taking it that personally?
Really? You're going to take a smug potshot and then act surprised when you get called out on it? C'mon.
posted by tahoemoj at 03:24 PM on December 01
I'm confused by all the Ohio State hate and/or attempts to bend over backwards to find a way to exclude them from the national title game. They are currently undefeated in a BCS conference, a claim that only one other team can make. There's no getting around the fact that the Big 10 isn't as strong as other conferences this year, but is that the fault of Ohio State? They have won every game they've played this year. As a supporter, I'd like to see what they can do against Florida State or Auburn or Mizzou. And I'd think all the OSU haters would just be champing at the bit for a chance to get all self righteous if and when they lose to one of those teams. That way you could be all smug and condescending over something less trivial than, say, metadata on a sports blog.
posted by tahoemoj at 02:38 PM on December 01
Ohio has much less of a claim to the BCS title game squeaking that win against a 7-4 Michigan team
Less of a claim than whom? A team that hasn't won every football game it has played for two straight years? Is squeaking by Michigan worse than losing to them? I'm not counting the Michigan State game as a victory, but if Ohio State wins next week, making them 13-0 and riding a 25 game win streak, there is no way to deny them the chance to prove themselves (for better or worse) against FSU.
On edit--maybe you wrote that before Alabama lost. Tht would make much more sense.
posted by tahoemoj at 08:58 PM on November 30
There's something familiar about Qatar's new Al-Wakrah stadium, but I can't quite put my finger on it.
The women of the world would exhort you to look more closely. Maybe spend a little time around the perimeter before focusing on the negative space.
posted by tahoemoj at 03:04 PM on November 19
Interesting sport, and I had no idea that it was an organized body. I can only imagine the trauma placed on the human body by going that deep on a breath and holding it for that long. Damn.
posted by tahoemoj at 03:45 PM on November 18
[insert joke about lawyers, morality, and limbo world record]
Imagine my surprise when I realized that the moral character test wasn't intended to measure flexibility!
posted by tahoemoj at 10:57 AM on November 18
Somehow the furor over the incident seems well out of proportion to the actual event, if the story quoted is true.
Well, I'll be damned if I'm going to take context into consideration when determining where to direct my outrage.
Completely unrelated--remember when everything wasn't recorded? When I was Gronkowski's age, I probably did more stupid shit in one booze fueled evening than most do in a lifetime. If iPhones were around then, I never would have passed the moral character requirements to be admitted to the bar.
posted by tahoemoj at 08:01 PM on November 17
I still have no idea why the Steelers insist on breaking out those horrid, striped throwback uniforms.
A lady friend of mine made the astute observation that they look like bumblebees wearing Spanx.
posted by tahoemoj at 07:52 PM on November 17
I played competitive hockey through college and suffered one concussion in my junior year of high school. Probably 1,000+ games, plus practices. My son was exactly 4 games into his football career playing defensive end as a sophomore in high school when he got his first concussion. His next one will be his last, at least from playing football.
I don't know if it is a matter if teaching improper technique, not teaching technique, or the plain old inherent danger of the game. I suspect it is all of the above.
posted by tahoemoj at 01:34 PM on November 14
Yeah, it was. The war on drugs is a fucking joke. Even if Hurd is guilty of all of the allegations against him relating to drug trafficking (which the story makes seem pretty damn doubtful), a life sentence is ridiculous. There are people who kill kids that get less.
posted by tahoemoj at 11:36 AM on November 13
But I think where owlhouse is, it's like the 3rd Friday in August right now. Right?
And people say that America's educashin system is failing us
posted by tahoemoj at 04:36 PM on November 07
The one conversation Golic had yesterday that really intrigued me was with Dan LeBatard. It go heated.
That's the one I was thinking of. I really like Golic, and his opinion was important to the formation of my own in this matter. And now Murtha and rcade's source only strengthen that opinion. I think at first, I was thinking of Incognito as some sociopathic nutjob bully who wrongfully drove Martin out of the locker room. The situation is definitely more nuanced than that.
posted by tahoemoj at 02:31 PM on November 07
Interesting read. I think Mike Golic was saying essentially the same thing yesterday in a conversation with one of the other ESPN talking heads. Personally, I believe that Incognito crossed a line, but the overwhelming response from former football players, offensive linemen in particular, was that Martin handled the whole thing very poorly, as well. Like Murtha says at the end of that piece, when a guy shows any kind of weakness, he is going to be weeded out. Not saying it's right, but it's a fact of life in the NFL (it seems).
posted by tahoemoj at 11:27 AM on November 07
I agree with grum.
posted by tahoemoj at 12:53 PM on November 05
if Richie Sr. is anything to go by.
To borrow a phrase from Bugs Bunny--What a fucking maroon. You've got to wonder how much of this bullying/hazing is institutional to the NFL, how much is organizational to the Dolphins, and how much was nurtured carefully into little Richie by dear 'ol dad. Regardless, this is going to be an interesting story going forward, I think.
posted by tahoemoj at 02:50 PM on November 04
The loss was bad news. This is worse news. I don't know if the short week had anything to do with it, so I won't curse the Thursday night game. In the past three weeks, the Bengals have lost 5 defensive starters for significant periods, including Hall and Atkins, two pro bowl caliber players, for the season.
posted by tahoemoj at 01:38 PM on November 01
Deadspin was doing their darndest to make them out to be monsters, but it comes across as comedy because the team is both talented and classy
I think it came across as comedy because it was intended to be comedy. Deadspin is pretty much 100% snark, especially Drew Magary. While the article was based on a kernel of truth about the self-righteous nature of the Cards and their fans, it was intended to be an over the top charicature of that kernel. It wasn't until angry Cards fans started writing in and behaving just like that charicature that Deadspin really ran with the idea.
posted by tahoemoj at 11:54 AM on November 01
Also, when Gio Bernard made that 65-yard-35-yard run, I almost punched through my TV.
Me, too, but for the opposite reason. I had a bad feeling about that game all day, and it turned out to be prescient. Kudos to the Dolphins for playing tough, but the Bengals handed (or threw to them) that game. Dammit.
posted by tahoemoj at 11:47 AM on November 01
Are there any hockey guys that have played wing and defense in different games?
Brent Burns of the Sharks (formerly of the Wild) played both D and RW for a couple of years before he finally found his niche as a winger. But he doesn't excel at either to the point of inclusion in this discussion. Carry on, then.
posted by tahoemoj at 02:11 PM on October 30
I guess I'm rebelling from the notion that a person with a diagnosed disorder gets a pass from being held as accountable as anyone else for behaving reprehensibly
For me, it's not a matter of Marshall getting a pass from accountability based on mental illness. It's more a matter of Meriweather being an asshole for bringing it up as a means to defend his own questionable actions on the field (Maybe it boils down to a perception of what Meriweather was trying to do). I also think Marshall has owned his previous behavior and acknowledged that he has been out of line at times. Of course whether he acknowledges BPD merely as one reason for bad behavior, rather than some sort of overarching excuse, is a matter of opinion and perception, as well.
posted by tahoemoj at 07:35 PM on October 28
The Sabres just pantsed the Islanders.
The latest in a proud line of franchises (and goaltenders) to do so.
posted by tahoemoj at 05:24 PM on October 28
I don't see the relevance of his disorder to him being criticized for his actions.
I don't know. I guess I'm a little torn on that one. On the one hand, you are right that domestic violence is a zero-tolerance issue. But on the other, I think a little bit of nuance is added when you are arguably mocking someone for a serious mental disability. My wife is in the mental health industry, and is pretty clear on the fact that borderline personality disorders are a very real and very dangerous condition.
If your point is that the actions can always be condemned, I guess that I agree with you. But I stand by my original answer to the question that Meriweather posed, which is neither.
posted by tahoemoj at 05:21 PM on October 28
Jesus. How old is Meriweather, 8 or so?
You tell me who you'd rather have: Somebody who play aggressive dirty on the field, or somebody who beat up their girlfriend?
Neither, Brandon. Neither. What those of us over the age of 8 generally understand is that Marshall's off the field problems (which I think he admits are severe) are completely irrelevant when discussing your own play. And you're just making yourself look like an asshole by calling out the personal issues of a man who has been diagnosed with a borderline personality disorder and who seems to be making a concerted effort to redeem himself.
posted by tahoemoj at 03:52 PM on October 28
In theory I should love their Foodspin stuff, but it's so agressively antagonistic I leave it to the 20-somethings it's targeted at.
What, saying that Cincinnati chili is diarrhea sludge and is less preferable than getting hit by a car is aggressively antagonistic? I suppose then that reveling in the reaction of local Cincy television to that characterization is also antagonistic.
I know I'm biased because I was raised on the stuff, but Cincinnati chili is one of life's great pleasures, as soon as you stop expecting "chili." And I'll take the word of Anthony Bourdain, who said that he loved Cincy chili enough to eat it cold for breakfast over whoever that joe blow is any day.
posted by tahoemoj at 11:40 AM on October 23
If Marvin Lewis could coach his way out of a paper bag, the Pats would have lost by 100 to Cincinnati.
posted by tahoemoj at 11:34 AM on October 23
Maybe that didn't get printed as sarcastically as I heard it in my head.
posted by tahoemoj at 02:32 PM on October 12
I'm with you rcade. I thought Drew Magary's "Why the Cardinals Suck" article on Deadspin was hilarious; but the comedic gold was nothing compared to the response he got from angry Cardinals fans. Good god, I hope the writers of those emails, letters, and tweets aren't truly representative of the Cards fan base (but I suspect otherwise). The absolute dearth of a sense of humor or ability to poke fun at their own team and/or city was pathetic. I already hated the Cards (as a Reds fan), but now I hate them as a sports fan.
posted by tahoemoj at 06:46 PM on October 11
they are going to have to try to become competitive in a division with two other teams with good young talent in St. Louis and Pittsburgh.
What, no love for the Reds? I'd argue that the Reds' talent is every bit as good and young as those other two teams, despite the sour finish this year.
Anyhow, carry on.
posted by tahoemoj at 12:58 PM on October 11
Debo, as a long-time fan of the Bengals, I know how nice it is when your perennial doormat of a team finally gets its shit together and starts to compete. The Pirates are a fun young team to have in the division, and it sure seems like they're here to stay. I look forward to the burgeoning Reds/Pirates rivalry being a lot of fun for the foreseeable future.
But because I have to add just a bit of snark, or I might feel dirty--How many of those "rabid" Pirates fans from this September and October will continue to be rabid if the Pirates have a rough start next season? And how many wil lose interest next fall if the Steelers remember how to play football?
posted by tahoemoj at 11:17 AM on October 11
If Holmgren wasn't in the darling of the owner, he should have been fired
I think he'd have been fired quicker if he was in the darling of the owner.
posted by tahoemoj at 01:39 PM on October 08
And they replace him with Craig Berube, probably best known in the NHL for this
For some reason, I thought it was Chris Simon who called Worrell that. Alas, it was Chris Simon who used a slur to describe Mike Grier, and Berube who insulted Worrell. Good times, Washington!
So the Flyers strategy will be to fight more this year?
Well, it worked in the mid-70's, so why not now.
posted by tahoemoj at 11:20 AM on October 08
Tell me you aren't being influenced by the ridiculously stupid Cincy media hit job on Votto?
Nah, I live in Nevada and am completely unaware of the Cincinnati media. Any opinions, misguided though they may be, are my own. I guess I'm just used to more "spectacular" numbers from Votto, rather than his just being an effective ball player. I'm definitely not ignoring the fact that the Reds have one of the best at what he does.
Is the problem strikeouts or not seeing enough pitches? It can't really be both.
Please to explain? I know Votto and Choo subscribe to the approach that the more pitches you see, the better. They're both very comfortable hitting with 2-strike counts. But it seems like the rest of the team, Phillips included, always goes up hacking. Watching them strike out on balls in the dirt against Liriano on Tuesday might be why I have that feeling.
posted by tahoemoj at 04:54 PM on October 04
Just came to post this story. I love Dusty, and he certainly led my beloved Reds out of a dark stretch in their history, but I agree that it was time to move in a different direction. The team was just too loaded with talent to fall as short as it did the last two seasons. I think some of the failure was the team's fundamental approach to baseball--Joey Votto takes a ton of walks and has an amazing OBP, but is that really what you want from your #3 hitter? The team set all-time highs in strikeouts almost every year that Dusty was manager. I know that there is a bit of a fundamental shift in hitting philosophy in the MLB these days, but would it kill guys to take a pitch or two instead of stepping up and swinging at the first ball they see? And the Reds were as streaky a team as any I can remember. They'd score 10 runs three games in a row, and then get shutout or plate one for the next three. No explanation why they were so feast-or-famine.
I don't know how much of any of that might be attributed to Dusty, or what new blood might bring to the table, but it was time to try something new. Best of luck to Dusty wherever he lands.
posted by tahoemoj at 01:41 PM on October 04
Although SpoFi sometimes serves as distraction from reality, I haven't yet begun to use it as my therapist.
posted by tahoemoj at 06:54 PM on September 25
Amazingly enough, I walked in the door last night and found my wife completely engrossed in the Manning's story. It was a well produced piece, and I think it did the Mannings proud.
posted by tahoemoj at 05:02 PM on September 25
I'm not sure gutless is aimed at the right party in your argument there.
Seconded. I've long been a proponent of fighting in hockey, largely based on the fact that the fighters are willing participants normally paid to do just that. When an oversized brawler like Scott goes after a finesse player like Kessel, he violates one of hockey's long-held tenets. Kessel has the right to defend himself as he sees fit, and quite honestly, dropping the gloves with Scott is just stupid and a good way to miss the better part of the season with a broken jaw or concussion.
posted by tahoemoj at 02:29 PM on September 24
Just trollin' ya. I understand that Miami is improved, but I would still consider them a bottom-tier team. They could certainly prove me wrong, as evidenced by my weekly performance in the pick 'em. My larger point, before I digressed into my cupcake rant, was that the Pats were extremely lucky to start their season against two really, really bad teams. Instead of 2-0 with two close victories, they could have been 0-2 with a real uphill battle ahead of them. They were given the opportunity to make adjustments before they played anything like a good team.
Now, if you're going to try to prove your point by looking at the Panthers, I think you're stretching. But the season will play out, and we'll see.
posted by tahoemoj at 11:43 AM on September 14
That's the same Tampa Bay team that the Jets beat, correct? Forget worrying about the receiving corps; folks in Foxboro ought to be concerned about Brady's waistline and triglycerides after being handed all those cupcakes. Have I referred to NE's schedule as "cupcakes" yet? I just like saying cupcakes. Cupcakes are yummy.
Seriously, looking through their schedule, with the exception of the Falcons-Bengals-Saints stretch coming up, and a Broncos-Texans back to back later, this team has a cakewalk (a CUPcake walk) into the playoffs. If they can beat 2 of the 5 legitimate teams they play this year, they should win 13 easily.
posted by tahoemoj at 05:18 PM on September 13
Yeah, the Pats are terribly lucky to have faced cupcakes in the first two weeks of the season to help work through some of those growing pains. You'd have to think that a team with a competent defense would have made them pay in week 1, and a team with even a normal-to-subpar offense would have throttled them last night. That being said, I've seen the Pats on the ropes looking pretty weak before (much to my delight) only to watch them make adjustments and look like a championship caliber team late in the year (much to my chagrin).
posted by tahoemoj at 01:48 PM on September 13
I can't help but note that the years in which Rivers flirted with "elite" status were coincidental with Ladanian Tomlinson's career peak.
posted by tahoemoj at 12:22 PM on September 13
Is that code for white and untalented?
No, that would be "tahoemoj"
posted by tahoemoj at 07:00 PM on September 10
I'm going to assume that the powers that be will take a good, long look at that footage, and then ask Mr. Rodriguez some very uncomfortable questions about his rationale for issuing a yellow.
Nice! I typed all of that with a straight face!
posted by tahoemoj at 06:58 PM on September 10
Tahoemoj's Sports Futility Vehicle is in, once again prepared to fill in the middle percentile.
posted by tahoemoj at 05:22 PM on September 02
Mr. Trump is on fire today.
posted by tahoemoj at 05:21 PM on September 02
I refuse to dignify Tim Tebow with any further comments on SpoFi.
posted by tahoemoj at 02:58 PM on August 30
The settlement most likely means the NFL won't have to disclose internal files about what it knew, and when, about concussion-linked brain problems. Some observers had warned that the lawsuits could cost the league $1 billion or more if they were allowed to move forward in court.
This. By settling, the NFL need not admit any culpibility, nor can a jury find it responsible for any wrongdoing. The cynic in me applauds this as a fairly empty gesture to resolve a potential serious black eye. The lawyer in me thinks this is a brilliant move by the league that will save it a ton of money and credibility among fans. And on a practical level, I respect the fact that the NFL will put a substantial amount of money into research that might eventually help solve the problem. A drop in the bucket compared to what it could do, but a hell of a lot of money nonetheless.
posted by tahoemoj at 04:54 PM on August 29
yerfatma, I couldn't get a position in either of those industries, so I went to law school. You also forgot bartending.
Otherwise, I agree with rcade. He'll never earn back trust or erase the fact that he cheated. He might earn a modicum of redemption if he has a long, clean, finish to his career, but it will be just that--a modicum. He'll always have the stink of cheating on him. The only question now is how many others share that stink.
posted by tahoemoj at 02:12 PM on August 23
I promise not to lose any sleep over it. You please do the same. (smiley emoticon)
It will be interesting to see whether this was (a) orchestrated by McMahon, (b) happened with his knowledge and blessing, or (c) whether the announcement took him by surprise. I'm guessing that the answer to that question will eventually be revealed, but maybe well after we've all lost interest in the question. My assumption is that the more they play up his sexuality yesterday's announcement in the coming months, the greater the likelihood that this was something McMahon and the WWE encouraged, if not orchestrated.
posted by tahoemoj at 06:02 PM on August 15
I would hate for that ring persona become a flamboyant charcature of his sexuality
flamboyant characters are the staple of wrestling, and it doesn't always imply that the persona is "gay".
I agree with your point, but it wasn't really relevant to the one that I made. I never suggested that he or any other WWE wrestler should not be flamboyant. I said I hoped that he wouldn't become a flamboyant characature of his sexuality (except of course I butchered the spelling witha typo/brain fart). Since Gorgeous George, there have been flamboyant wrestlers, and I'd never suggest that this guy was supposed to be gay. Wrestling can have all the flamboyant personalities it wants, I just don't want this particular character to become a flaming gay stereotype.
posted by tahoemoj at 02:39 PM on August 15
Copyright © 2013 SportsFilterAll posts and comments are © their original authors.