- 04:52 AM
- 11/22/09
The winners of the Milwaukee Lakefront Marathon are not exactly elite runners (although they are much, much faster than I am). The three women's times (the two disqualified winners and the third winner) were 3:02:09, 3:02:50, and 3:04:20. In comparison, the woman's marathon record is 2:15:25, and 40 women ran faster than 3:02:00 at the last Chicago Marathon. The prize money for first place was only $500.
This is not like George Brett using too much pine tar. This is more like an intermural championship being forfeited because some pinhead chose to enforce the pine tar rule at that level.
posted by Aardhart at 07:55 PM on October 08
Drood: are you implying that I should kill myself?
posted by Aardhart at 05:25 PM on October 03
I followed the link and skimmed an article about a woman's life being saved. I was bitterly disappointed that the article was not about a bunch of men playing a boy's game faking injuries.
posted by Aardhart at 03:19 PM on October 03
Faith, family and football.
"The Sacred Acre," the field Ed Thomas compared to church when the stands were packed and the players were on the field . . . .
I wonder if a non-Christian could have played football for him.
posted by Aardhart at 06:46 PM on August 30
How else is he gonna get on Sportscenter besides getting blown up on a blocked kick[?]
Uhh...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7m0iK2ir50
And FYI, a video of the punt hitting something hanging from the roof here.
posted by Aardhart at 03:26 AM on August 30
Beer was thrown on a Phillies player in Chicago. The man who threw it is being charged with assault.
Some of the fans throwing things at Azteca could have been arrested.
posted by Aardhart at 07:58 PM on August 16
Shy of anti-trust arguments (which might be tricky given the NHL is international) . . . .
Are you a lawyer? My understanding is that anti-trust applies even to international companies. Microsoft has been found to violate antitrust laws by US courts and European courts.
I think the first issue is whether the amount offered by Reinsdorf or another NHL-approved bidder is enough to satisfy the Coyotes' debt and/or its creditors agree to accept it as close enough. If not, then the arguments get fun (but they could get fun before this anyway). Does anyone know how much the Coyotes are in the hole?
posted by Aardhart at 09:55 AM on July 30
That doesn't engender much confidence.
I don't see the problem. I don't know how long after the accident this quote was made, but I think a full investigation, gathering all necessary evidence, and making a conclusion could be done in a few hours.
[A]ccording to witnesses, the woman, Jeannette Stoeffel, 61, had been seen crossing the road many times before she was hit by the motorcycle going at 90 kph.
It would not take long to speak with all the witnesses on the scene. If the witnesses all said she ran right in front of a motorcycle going about 55 mph, I can't think of any other necessary investigation that would make me more comfortable with the conclusion. (DNA samples? Autopsy results? Background investigation of the driver (possibly already available and considered)? Background investigation of the victim?).
posted by Aardhart at 08:02 PM on July 19
He did a similar thing in an interview in Japan.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKVeBOCPpGU
posted by Aardhart at 10:48 PM on July 10
Can anyone argue in favor of the vuvuzela without using a slippery slope argument?
If they ban the vuvuzela, they will ban whistles, megaphones, boom box stereos, and my bitchin' Camero with the best sound system you'll ever see! No one will be allowed to clap or cheer. All the spectators will have to where suits and ties and speak in a whisper, and only at halftime. The stadiums would have 20,000 hall monitors and only 12,000 soccer fans.
Ban the vuvuzela! The vuvuzela creates soccer atmosphere like microphone feedback buzzing creates music. A little bit is fine (I love Nirvana, for example), but you can't have 90 minutes of nothing but that shit without rhythm or melody and call it a double album.
No one wants to ban fun. No one wants to ban noise. Banning the vuvuzela would make the games funner to watch at home and in person. If you've ever been to a hockey game at the old Chicago Stadium, a football game at the Big House, or an important soccer game anywhere, you should be able to understand that games can be loud and fun without vuvuzelas.
There is not a meaningful tradition of vuvuzelas. They were pushed at soccer games in the USA in the early 90s in ignorant efforts to create soccer atmosphere. Now, they aren't around and US soccer crowds are enthusiastic and fun, with most MLS games having many supporters singing and chanting throughout the game. The OP article says that they weren't used in South Africa until a decade ago.
If the South Africans truly love them, let them in for the games with South Africa. But if Brazil is playing South Korea, I'd like to hear the Samba drums and Korean chants.
If you can't understand that it is possible to ban vuvuzelas without banning everything else, I don't know what to say to you. You really do not have anything to add to this thread.
posted by Aardhart at 07:55 PM on June 29
Ban the vuvuzela, but allow any other musical instrument in. It sounds unfair, but vuvuzelas suck. Vuvuzelas don't add to the spectacle, they replace it with lame.
posted by Aardhart at 02:46 PM on June 29
In fairness, no, you shouldn't EXPECT to win going up against Brazil.
You should when you lead 2-0 at halftime. Hell, you should regardless of the situation.
In 2006, the US tied Italy for their only point of the tournament (in the only game that Italy did not win), losing their other two games. In 2002, the US beat Portugal and Mexico, but got blown out by (otherwise winless) Poland and almost did not advance out of the first round. The US has obtained some excellent results, but they are usually acompanied with some awful results. Each time, the soccer media fawns over the "epic" efforts, accepting that the US is just too something to actually excel. After all, the US should not EXPECT to win.
posted by Aardhart at 10:15 AM on June 29
I was perplexed by Bradley's second half sub . . . he still sent Kljestan on for Altidore.
I shouted at the TV about the same thing. Then my girlfriend observed, "Maybe he's tired."
Donovan said. "We are in the position where we don't want respect, we want to win."
Dempsey cried all over his trophy at the end.
I like reading this. I'm sick of moral victories. The announcers sounded almost happy when Brazil came back, telling us that the USA should not be ashamed to go down this way. Where else should fans be happy their team blew a 2-0 lead?
posted by Aardhart at 10:47 PM on June 28
If there were just 2 more bowl games, Bowling Green, Arkansas State, Louisiana-Layfayette, and San Jose State could have been rewarded for their 6-6 seasons. Did I miss any eligible teams that got froze out?
posted by Aardhart at 10:05 PM on December 07
It looks cool, but I'm not sure I understand the value. You (a) play the beer barrel polka and the players move randomly (for hockey goal-scoring purposes although tied to the piano keys), or (b) you use the piano keys to try to play hockey (with great great difficulty) and get random noise that is like a 7-year-old jumping on bag-pipes. Am I missing something? Oh. It's ART! OK. I would prefer the traditional bubble hockey with the Boo button to most pieces of art. Unless I could trade the piece of art for bubble hockey, money, and a bag of used pucks. But this does look cool.
posted by Aardhart at 09:54 AM on July 11
The claim [that the CAS] isn't a sports organization is absurd. What sports expertise does Professor Martin Hunter, Mr. Jean-Philippe Rochat, or Mr. David W. Rivkin have? How else did CAS's sports-ness affect the decision. The arbitrators' lack of sports expertise might be a good thing. That is the theory of why we have juries made up of peers rather than criminal or legal experts. However, the claim that we should defer to the CAS decision because of its superior sports knowledge is baseless. The IAAF clearly screwed up repeatedly. It drafted an ambiguous rule and commissioned a "scientific study" for "evidence" to exclude Pistorius, rather than just confront the issue theoretically. However, it is unpalateable to make the decision without "scientific evidence." It makes you look like you hate the disabled. If the IAAF had found no unfair advantage in Pistorius' blades, would you support its decision . . . . No. I still don't know what "advantage" means. (The IAAF screwed up using that term in relation to other athletes. An athlete cannot win a race without a biomechanical advantage over the other athletes. Therefore, Pistorius cannot run in the Olympics if he can win. But he cannot win, or even qualify, so he therefore has no advantage over other athletes, and he can be permitted to participate.) And I'm done with this thread. Peace.
posted by Aardhart at 09:54 AM on May 21
I fail to see why you give credence to the IAAF but you deny it to the CAS. The CAS is not a sports body. It is an arbitration body. The panel that made this decision consisted of three prestigious lawyers with expertise in law and arbitration and, as far as I can tell, had no expertise in track, biomechanics, or sports. The IAAF Council is actually a sports body that regulates track. It's members clearly have expertise in running. I am not the one that first invoked the expertise of a sports body, you were, rcade. Your point that the CAS is "a body much closer to the issue" is not true. The panel listened to more evidence, but I do not think the panel has significant track expertise. The IAAF Council, on the other hand, does. If you want to invoke the expertise of a sports body in this issue (which you did), the IAAF is the only sports body that can credibly be invoked. If you're trying to suggest that the IAAF is sports related while the CAS isn't . . . Yep. That's pretty much it. Check the profiles of the CAS panel. Check the profiles of the IAAF Council. Which one has a track & field world record holder and another Olympic gold medalist?
posted by Aardhart at 05:13 PM on May 20
Why is your definition more credible than the CAS, a body much closer to the issue that has at this stage decided he can compete? The case was decided by three prestigious lawyers, not by anyone with specialized track knowledge. David W. Rivkin (of the big New York law firm of Debevoise & Plimpton LLP) was on the panel. There was also a British member and a Swiss member. (Profiles are available on the CAS website.) I don't think any panel member was deeply involved in track or was a scientist or engineer. They were essentially jury members who are probably very good lawyers. I'm pretty sure I am qualified to say that running is an essential part of a 400-m track race and that running depends on legs. More of my reasoning is above. A sports body that actually decided the issue, the IAAF (the International Association of Athletics Federations), ruled that the blades were not allowed. the folks arguing that handicapped people are awful and should be put down like dogs Yerfatma, will you ever stop beating your wife? if Oscar weren't good, this would never come up. No one disputes that Oscar is good or that his achievements are remarkable. The only question is whether "running" with mechanical legs should be permitted in the Olympic running events. The answer from the CAS seems to be: yes, as long as he cannot beat the other Olympic runners. Regardless of other metabolic tests mentioned in the decision, "advantage" seems to come down to overall time.
posted by Aardhart at 09:43 PM on May 19
Americans have always tolerated, even enjoyed, a minor degree of cheating in sports at all levels. I agree with Mark Bowden that this is true, and I think it is a shame. My pet peave is that almost no major league baseball player stands inside the batter's box. Next season, the league should enforce the rules it has and call all the batters out if their back foot is out of the batter's box. Minor issue, but rules are rules. Aren't they?
posted by Aardhart at 08:54 PM on May 19
No, they have to prove an overall advantage in a race. No such advantage has been proven. Evidence exists based on the metabolic tests that he has no advantage. "Advantage" has the same problem whether it is modified by "unfair" or not. What does it mean? I believe that it means "faster" which should be determined by a race, not by an arbitration. What relevance does metabolic tests have to do with the issue? I do not care if one runner burns calories faster or not. I do not care if a Tour de France cyclist has a larger lung capacity or slower heart rate than Lance Armstrong. It is whether they can run faster or ride faster. The blades change the meaning of run, and give Pistorius an advantage. Evidence exists that Pistorius has an advantage in part of a race, but that he has a disadvantage in another part of the race. He was faster in the second half and slower in the first half. The idea that everything is excluded unless proven that it has no advantage is backwards because it would have to apply to everything, including shoes, shorts, shirts, earrings, and jewelry. The idea that everything should be excluded unless all athletes have access to it and could choose to use it or not. The decision was clearly limited to allow only Pistorius to use the blades. As long as we're dueling analogies, what if Pistorius was deaf and required a hearing aid to hear the starter's gun? As I originally wrote "It is about preserving the whole point of the race. Running is about running." Hearing aids should be fine in a track meet, not fine in a hearing contest. Artificial legs should be fine in an Indy race or hearing contest, not fine in a running race.
posted by Aardhart at 02:23 PM on May 19
I just don't understand how you can say you believe in equal treatment but that disabled athletes don't belong in the Olympics. Separate but equal does not exist. Equal treatment does not mean equal results. All athletes should be given equal treatment. That is precisely my point. Not allowing blades for any athlete is not about discriminating against an athlete because he is disabled. It is about preserving the whole point of the race. Running is about running. It is not about technology. It is minimally affected by what athlete has the best equipment. Indy, Nascar, and F1 is hugely affected by technology, but we are talking about track. I would not oppose prostectic devices that were not so intertwined with the point of the sport. I would have no problem with a race car driver using an artificial leg. Disabled athletes are welcome to compete and they can even excel. Jim Abbott had a fine career in the major leagues, despite not having a right hand. I think that is great. However, I would be opposed to permitting a disabled pitcher, who is missing his pitching hand, to use as artificial arm/hand/jai alai basket to pitch. The CAS decision is akin to allowing a disable athlete to use an artificial arm/hand/jai alai basket, as long as his pitches are slower than the fastest in the league and his breaking ball breaks a few inches less than the best pitcher. Does the line only get drawn when I start to threaten the leaders? That's the way I read it. From the press release: "Finally, the CAS Panel does not exclude the possibility that . . . the IAAF might in the future be in the position to prove that the [blades] provides Oscar Pistorius with an advantage over other athletes." This is also my reading of paras. 83 and 99 of the decision. They had scientists to [meaningfully compare the relatively simple devices to the shin/calf/ankle/foot]. My original point is not refuted by the Panel opinion. The decision stated my point in paragraph 96: "it appears impracticable to assess definitively whether the [device] acts as more than, or less than, the human ankle and lower leg, in terms of 'spring-like' quality." The sides tried to prove or refute an "unfair advantage." How do you prove what is fair and unfair?
posted by Aardhart at 03:16 PM on May 18
" . . . the CAS panel has considered that the IAAF did not prove that the biomechanical effects of using this particular prosthetic device gives Oscar Pistorius an advantage over other athletes not using the device." Translation: His devices do not make him faster than other athletes. If he did win a race, that would be proof that he has an advantage over the other athletes, so his devices would not be allowed. Running with devices would have to be a separate event, as the wheelchair marathon is. The "biomechanical effects of using this particular prosthetic device" does not mean anything. It means that he is not faster. You cannot meaningfully compare the relatively simple devices to the shin/calf/ankle/foot. Let him run, as long as he cannot win? That sucks. But I'm sure you're more acquainted with the issue of cheating in sprinting moreso than the IAAF. . . . Oh wait - No you're not. The IAAF ruled he could not compete.
posted by Aardhart at 09:27 AM on May 17
If the prosthetics give him an unfair advantage, through lengthening his stride or whatever, it shouldn't be all that hard to prove scientifically. Prove what scientifically? Pistorius' strides with the devices are longer than without. Pistorius' whatever with the devices is faster than without. Carl Lewis' fast is faster than my fast. Pistorius' fast with the devices is faster than my fast. Pistorius' fast without the devices might even be faster than my fast. I don't think science can prove fair or unfair. And some shoes are specially made for a runner and no one else can buy those shoes. I would support requiring Nike, Reebok, Adidas, and any other major shoe maker to make all their shoes available to any qualifier for the right to have their product used in the Olympics. One more thing to keep in mind: The world record for running a marathon is about 2 hours, 5 minutes. The world record for a wheelchair marathon is about 1 hour, 18 minutes. Wheelchair marathoners are faster, therefore it is an unfair advantage? Pistorius is not yet faster, therefore it is not yet an unfair advantage? This distinction is arbitrary. This distinction is unfair.
posted by Aardhart at 02:52 PM on May 16
The burden of proof has to be on the agency that chooses to exclude the athlete. The way I see it, the athlete was not excluded, his devices were. If he could compete in an event without mechanical devices, he would be allowed to try. I vaguely recall an amputee competing in archery or shooting of some kind, but I could be mistaken. They made the assertion that his blades gave him an unfair advantage. As I wrote, "The devices certainly give Pistorius an advantage. Pistorius with the devices can run faster than Pistorius without the devices." The question becomes, what is unfair? Is it fair for the fastest man to win the race? My answer is yes. Should some slower athletes be allowed to use some mechanical devices that give them an advantage? IAAF answered no. CAS answered yes. My answer is no. On the other hand, is it fair that I am not fast enough to be in the Olympics? Otherwise they could ban people for whatever reason they wanted to, fair or otherwise, and the innocent would suffer. Pistorius was "banned" because he could not "run" (unaided by mechanical device, as the word has always been understood) fast enough.
posted by Aardhart at 01:43 PM on May 16
Relative to the world's fastest man, doesn't every other human have "certain disadvantages" in a race? I disagree with the decision and disagree with putting the burden on the IAAF to show that a prohibited device gave an unfair advantage. I think that the burden should have been on the athlete to show that only disabled athletes were prohibited from using mechanical devices or otherwise unfairly discriminated against. The devices certainly give Pistorius an advantage. Pistorius with the devices can run faster than Pistorius without the devices. The question traditionally has been whether Runner A can run faster than Runner B. The question is now whether Runner A with certain devices (and with what kind of devices) can run faster than Runner B without devices. I do not think that this question should be resolved in the Olympics. Races are contests to find the fastest. They are not primarily public accommodations or employment opportunities. Races, by there very nature, discriminate against the slow. A public track should be required to be opened to athletes with these devices, but I do not think the Olympics should be required to allow them in races.
posted by Aardhart at 01:20 PM on May 16
it would not be able to adjust itself to account for the differences in each batter (top/bottom). Sure it could. It would just need to be adjusted between batters. They do it on TV for replays in some big games. I have not designed and tested the system, but it is definitely possible. Many things would have to be resolved including the design and functioning, whether all 6'0" players have the same strike zone, or if crouching makes it easier to get a BB, etc. Hell, MLB umpires are currently being audited somehow. How is the performance standard measured? There could be a sensor that judges whether or not the bat actually crossed home plate. That would not be enough. A checked swing from the back of the batter's box has to be the same as a checked swing from the front of the box. (Although I know that every batter stands with his back foot several inches outside/behind the batter's box.) I could not picture a way that would be consistent with current standards, and I'm not exactly sure what the formal nominal standard is. I think automating check swings would be harder and more invasive that automating balls and strikes. But if there was a reliable consistent system, I would support it. ---------- Aardhart, please, please never let them automate the ball and strike calls. Howard_T, I don't have a vote or a veto. I'm also not aware of any serious discussion of this at any level (management, media). But if I could start one, good. Baseball is played by humans and should be officiated by humans. Do you oppose instant replay to overturn obviously blown calls in other sports? I think that players should decide the game, not the officials. I could never understand the merits of bad calls because they are "part of the game." Part of the game is for the players to adapt to the difference between umpires. I do not think that this has to be or should be part of the game. Argue/whine in the second to hope to get a call in the eighth? Making it harder for a rookie than a veteran to get a call on the exact same pitch in the exact same spot? Not good for the game in my view. As long as there is consistency . . . Just as long as there is not TOO MUCH consistency? [I think that this topic is relevant to the article, and not thread hijacking.]
posted by Aardhart at 03:24 PM on May 04
I have not read the whole article, but it seems to support my desire to see balls and strikes automated in baseball. Have some sensor/computer system beep when the ball is in the zone. Tennis does it with serves. Baseball has a lot more money. Let the game be about the players rather than umpires. Don't let crucial games be decided on a bad call if it is preventable. Replay is used in different sports on this principle.
posted by Aardhart at 11:58 AM on May 04
If Cuban buys the Cubs, they will certainly lose their label "Lovable Losers." Cubs fans will hope that it is because they start winning, but they will lose the label regardless.
posted by Aardhart at 07:41 PM on July 13
The things he said ... That should be "the things he allegedly said." It has not yet been decided if he actually said all the things Jennings accused him of. A trial has not been held yet. The trial court said even if he did everything he was accused of, he wouldn't be liable, so no trial is necessary. On appeal, a panel of the appeals court agreed affirmed that. Then a bigger panel of the appeals court overturned it. NOW there will be a trial to determine if he actually did anything he was accused of. there's a specific context for "hostile environment" that gives it a specific meaning. No there's not. The meaning is not specific. No one actually knows when a workplace crosses the line into a "hostile environment." If you think there is a specific meaning, you can read the 21 pages holding that something is a hostile environment, the 35 page concurrence that concluded there may have been a hostile environment but Jennings still couldn't win her lawsuit, and then the first appellate opinion (39 pages plus a 17 page dissent) where they "conclude that no reasonable jury could find that Dorrance’s remarks during Jennings’ two-year tenure on the team were sufficiently severe or pervasive to create a sexually hostile educational environment." All of these diverging opinions are written by people who not only know what a hostile environment is, they are people who define the term.
posted by Aardhart at 12:49 PM on April 14
Wright State Raiders for the 14 - 3 upset over Pitt! That score seems low. I almost guarantee that Pitt will score more than 3 points. That score even seems low for halftime, but I will seed that there is a remote possibility.
posted by Aardhart at 12:59 AM on March 13
I wonder if Ali G will host the show. Their interview together was classic.
posted by Aardhart at 04:45 PM on March 02
I think geography is the primary factor. Weren't street gangs in the US originally based from local athletic clubs or ethnic gyms or bars? London soccer teams were similarly originated. Whereas most US cities only had one baseball team (or two that didn't play each other), London has dozens of soccer clubs that played each other several times a year.
posted by Aardhart at 01:32 PM on February 09
Tieguy, Thanks for the link to the article. I think there's a huge difference between trying to get down to 150 pounds or 118 pounds and not trying to get up to 360 pounds. Regardless, I would wager that thirty years after graduation college wrestlers are far, far healthier than college football players. A 300 pound weight limit would not eliminate all bad effects, and may introduce some new ones, but I think the overall effect would be greatly beneficial.
posted by Aardhart at 06:02 PM on January 21
Twenty-five years ago, (almost?) all pro players were under 300 pounds. I wonder how much worse future generations of football players will be as weights continually increase. I think the NCAA and NFL should impose a 300 pound weight limit. I don't think any fan would notice any decrease in game quality.
posted by Aardhart at 12:51 PM on January 21
I only heard the term Downhill Runner (or that back runs downhill) a few months ago, but after watching the games this weekend, especially the Eagles-Saints game, it should forever be retired and never uttered again. It's meaningless and stupid. I know this rant is only tangentially connected to the playoffs, but I feel better now.
posted by Aardhart at 05:49 PM on January 14
I see nothing wrong with the policy. Everyone is focusing on the effect the policy has on visiting fans and ignoring the effect on home fans. This policy gives local fans a greater chance to go to a playoff game. There were only 1000 tickets that were put on sale. This policy would upset me if they didn't sell out immediately, but since they sold out "within minutes," I respect the team for not ignoring their fans. My favorite example of playoff tickets being sold is when the Cubs qualified for a one-game tie-breaker a few years ago, and the tickets were sold only at Wrigley Field with no prior announcement. People flooded out of local bars to get in line.
posted by Aardhart at 08:17 PM on January 10
I wonder how the beer wench enjoyed the day she attended (if they found one).
posted by Aardhart at 12:02 AM on January 07
You fools can talk all the trash you want on hoser's picks. But look at his season ATS...it's pretty damn good compared to most "experts". There is only one stat that strikes me as mattering. That stat is -$2,750, after going +$1,080 for the week. But the column is fun to read. EDIT: My gut says KC and the 3 home teams.
posted by Aardhart at 10:33 PM on January 03
Aardhart I really hope you're being sarcastic. YYM, don't you see how Kent State vs. Louisiana-Lafayette in the Buffalo Frostbite Bowl would draw more attendance and ratings than the Ole' Granddaddy Bowl (or whatever they call it) they play in Pasadena. Yes. I am being sarcastic.
posted by Aardhart at 07:29 PM on December 05
We need four more bowl games!! Pittsburgh, Kansas, SMU, Kent State, Wyoming, Washington St., Arizona, and Arkansas State are all still eligible and available (unless some are on probation). [EDIT: and Louisiana-Lafayette.]
posted by Aardhart at 06:27 PM on December 05
The BCS sucks. Everyone agrees (except edub1321). The most likely fix is a four-team playoff (edit: with no other major changes, e.g., same number of other games, etc.). I'm guessing it's close to unanimous that Ohio State, Michigan, and Florida make it, but who's the fourth team in? Would everyone be happy with LSU and an all Big Ten -- SEC playoff? Should there be a one-team limit per conference (and no Michigan)? Personally, if it were OSU, UM, and UF, I would like to see Boise State or Louisville as the fourth team. If the Big Ten is so upset about Michigan not getting a chance to play for the National Championship, they should work at getting the Michigan-Ohio State game scheduled for the beginning of the season ... Naaahh. The build-up to the OSU-Michigan game was the best thing about this season, and the rivalry weeks are annually some of the best weekends in American sports.
posted by Aardhart at 06:22 PM on December 04
LA Times reports that it's Florida to play OSU.
posted by Aardhart at 04:55 PM on December 03
After all FSU "got handled" earlier in the season ... To which of their SIX losses are you referring? Commander Cody, do you watch college football? You keep making a mistake that I find really surprising coming from a UofM Spartans fan and which undermines the point of your posts on college football.
posted by Aardhart at 03:53 PM on December 03
MSU fans would probably behave the same was FSU and Miami fans would, wanting Michigan to suffer. Georgia votes 76% Florida, making it more Florida than Florida. Bulldog fans differ from FSU & Miami fans in that they have SEC conference pride. If Bulldog fans are voting Florida, I find it likely MSU fans are voting Michigan. (And retired Michiganders in Florida. And Michigan is a more national school with more dispersed alums.) That's my story. I'm sticking to it. How much weight does the BCS give to ESPN polls and Sports Filter threads? Even though "SEC football is a lot like its fans -- insular and not very bright" according to SummersEve's link, I still oppose a rematch.
posted by Aardhart at 03:00 PM on December 03
Also interesting, at that time only 75% of those polled in Florida voted for the Gators, but 90% of those polled in Michigan pulled for the Wolverines. Maybe FSU and Miami (and FIU, FAU, South Florida and other) fans are more fueled by hate than MSU fans. MSU fans probably would like to see an all Big Ten game, while FSU and Miami fans may just like to see Gator fans suffer. This is only speculation, but I doubt that voting figure says much about the merits of the teams.
posted by Aardhart at 02:19 AM on December 03
Let Ohio State play Boise State in a meaningless game. Give Ohio State the Championship and make Michigan play Florida in the Tostitos BCS National Championship Runner-Up Game. Ohio State gets the trophy. Michigan and Florida play in the big game. Everybody's happy. (Barring this scenario, I say no rematch. Let Florida play.)
posted by Aardhart at 12:29 AM on December 03
I agree with Drood. Number 1 deserves the Golden Turkey (and not an MVP award). Number 2 isn't a leader of his team and one of the all time greatest in his sport, and the ramifications on his organization are minor by comparison. And grady, Happy Thanksgiving! (Get it? Or do you live in a country where Thanksgiving is illegal?)
posted by Aardhart at 01:16 AM on November 23
Good article, but it says "Chicago has one other claim to fame that no other city has -- sports curses." People from Philadelphia (and other places) would argue with this. Although it seems that in the Blackhawks' case, Dollar Bill rather than any mysterious curse holds them back.
posted by Aardhart at 09:41 PM on November 05
...but seeing a Penn game without you on the sideline just wouldn't feel natural. I disagree.
posted by Aardhart at 12:18 AM on November 05
did anyone know that Yahoo! Sports streams 3-4 live NHL games each week? I didn't. Thanks for the heads-up. Judging by the comments, I assume others didn't either. Do you think that having live games is a useful service, or are delayed/classic games more compelling? Live gemes are better, but I think that is trumped by being able to watch every game of a team of your choice if the delay is minimal. I would think it would be cool if the Miracle on Ice 1980 USA-USSR game were made available. (And I hoping it is and someone points me to it.)
posted by Aardhart at 08:54 PM on November 01
Aaaargh. This won't last. "To celebrate its 89th season and this increased access to video content, the NHL will be offering its content for free -- without ads -- for the first two weeks of November." Enjoy the next two weeks. Let's hope that its the "without ads" that changes and not the "for free".
posted by Aardhart at 03:25 PM on November 01
Time to run to the store for more memory and a bigger monitor, 'cause I'm gonna be watching the Blues all day at the store from now on! Will more memory allow it to run smoothly? I'm watching a game and it is jerky (but my computer is a piece of crap, with sound though).
posted by Aardhart at 03:02 PM on November 01
Point of clarification: I swear that I can normally read. I don't know where I got this idea from. Antiguans were meant for humor. Scientology and French point out that politally correctness doesn't protect all ethnicities and religions.
posted by Aardhart at 01:10 PM on November 01
So whaddya think: NBA heading out on some thin ice on this one? Do I think there will be any backlash or other negative effects against the NBA? No, absolutely not. Everyone will applaud their reaction. Do I think it is fair? Not at all. The government would not be able to punish someone without a regulation. (I believe private parties can revoke tickets for any or no reason.) I aagree with prohibiting all fan comments, cheers, chants, and heckles involving race, nationality (except French, French-Canadian, and Antiguan), ethnicity, and religion (except Scientology). I don't think a monkey comment necessarily qualifies as racial (as demonstrated by the Weedy/Ewing/Willis/Damon comments) and I don't think that this incident justifies a banning for life, especially if there was no formal prior policy. I'd say, at most, revoke his season tickets, ban him for the season (or not, but revoke his tickets), and let him get on the waiting list for season tickets. I think there should be a formal policy read out loud before each game. This thread demonstates disparity in understanding of what's acceptable, and views that diverge from my own: Obviously you can't use ... familial insults .... -willthrill72. MTV has a show called Yo Momma! I thought familial insults were all part of going to a game, or playing in the World Cup. Boo, hiss, but don't cross the lines of good taste. -mjkredliner. Many fans try to get into the head of the visiting team. They do this by doing way more than booing and hissing. Wit seems to be valued. I think a code that answers all my questions would be good, and I think it should be read before games.
posted by Aardhart at 12:48 AM on November 01
I apologize to everyone for mis-using a non-word. Thank y'all for learning me something new. Since no one claims that "Hamzehloui continue[d] using it once he was enlightened," I stand by what I wrote.
posted by Aardhart at 09:54 PM on October 31
Am I the only one that can see not knowing that "monkey" is a racial epitath? I'm pretty sure that I was not aware of this until I went away to a college filled with people from lilly-white towns. I did not grow up surrounded by people who used racial epitaths. If Hamzehloui didn't know that monkey was a racial epitath (which I believe is possible), how is it fair to ban him forever? If he yelled out that Mutombo was ugly, he wouldn't be banned. Hamzehloui thought that's what he did. I understand racism not being tolerated, but I think the punishment is far too harsh. I think that a code of acceptable fan behavior should be made explicit. Punishing fans without real guidelines seems unfair to me. Is it ok to make fun of Mormon players? Jewish (no)? French (yes)? Southern (yes)? Chinese? Is it ok to heckle based on a personal tragedy? Death of a parent or child? Cheating spouse? Criminal accusations? Rape accusations? Can you insult intelligence? Illiteracy? Ugliness? Greediness? Drug addiction? Steroid use? Alcoholism?
posted by Aardhart at 03:35 PM on October 31
Real Salt Lake Poised to Become Biggest Loser
"There have been 15 sub-.500 teams that have played in the Stanley Cup Finals." "The 1937-38 Chicago Blackhawks had the worst winning percentage (.385) of all the teams that have ever made it to the Stanley Cup Finals." And they won it. The 83-win Cardinals won the World Series a few years ago.
I think most Americans leagues have too many teams in the playoffs. I don't think there is anything unique about the MLS or something is wrong because of this.