jez...tough crowd! what do you want the guy to say? people are saying that federer is the greatest sportsman of all time. in the new sports media age, press conferences where an athlete is honest and doesn't stick to the same tired cliches and PR blah blah, is a refreshing change in my book. Unfortunately sometimes the media can't handle that.
posted by oliver_crunk at 08:47 AM on January 26
horse racing is in danger. it is losing out on the gambling dollar and the casual player which was a big part of it's success long ago. problem is that the new look of racetracks are like casinos or las vegas sports books. a place like saratoga will never die. charlestown, delaware and soon philadelphia and aqueduct will just be slot havens that happen to run horses now and then. relegating the horse player to an upper level so the slots can run 24-7. good horse racing will never die. full fields, smaller takeout and treating the betting publics winnings the same the casinos are treated. ie lower the takeout and players will come back. eliminate a lot of tracks and shrink the amount of live racing days. less is more. saratoga, del mar, belmont, churchill, santa anita, keeneland et all are still huge handle draws. they don't race all year round like a philadelphia or mountaineer would. but there'd be more interest if these tracks didn't run 250 days a year. say 50 days instead. i love the track. it's good fun. a lot better than playing lotto or scratch offs. good people too, if they are not degenerates (which unfortunately is all that's left at some tracks these days as simulcasting and internet playing has left some of the smart players home). there's still nothing like a cold beer in the paddock looking over the form and speculating with a couple of dollars who's going to win. it's the casual horse player that's being pushed out....and if it continues, then with the exception of a very select amount of tracks then there's not going to be much good left in any of it.
posted by oliver_crunk at 10:16 PM on August 02
worth noting as the note at the end points out: The sexual harassment allegations are even more laughable when you consider that he is being replaced by Steve Phillips -- a man who has never met a skirt he wouldn't chase and who was caught in one of the more embarrassing front office sexual harassment scandals in MLB history." kinda interesting to think about. even more interesting is the idea thrown out just before that line that says he had a meltdown because of ESPN's coverage of arod. which is kinda believable to me since, sportscenter, baeball tonight et al would cause my ass to meltdown if i had to deal with it on a daily basis. espn teevee sports news coverage in general has pretty much sucked ass for quite awhile now. maybe harold just woke up to it.
posted by oliver_crunk at 08:58 PM on July 25
barbaro looks like he can run all day. will be interesting to see who draws into the preakness, as he appears to be more vulnerable short than long. of course, there's no 5 week layoffs for matz to sit on now, what with 3 races in 5 weeks, barbaro does seem capable though. would think if he can get to the wire in the preakness....we'll have a triple crown winner. there isn't a 3 year old in the country right now that can look barbaro in the eye at a mile and a half in the belmont.
posted by oliver_crunk at 01:20 PM on May 07
littlepage is right about what? that the media should be tossing him softball questions about the process? forget about the talking heads here or why cbs should 'work better together ' with the committee. if 'better information and accurate information [should be] out there', then littlepage should start telling everyone what that is instead of worrying about what billy packer has to say.
posted by oliver_crunk at 11:13 PM on March 13
end of day. no matter how you slice it, there are always going to be those 4 or 5 teams where a solid case could be made. although this elicited a little laugh: Littlepage, the athletic director at the University of Virginia, praised the 10-member committee for its dedication, thorough evaluations and ability to work under a challenging deadline. i mean c'mon. how hard is it fuck up picking the best of the rest and you get 30+ tries at it? is the ad @ george mason making a 'thorough evalutaion' when his team gets slammed twice in 10 days by hofstra and still putting his squad in the tourney? either open up the system for all to see or let the computer pick them. this way these knuckleheads don't get the oppurtunity to act like they're 'dedicated' to getting it right.
posted by oliver_crunk at 08:56 PM on March 13
I'm not sure where some of you are coming off with statements like this: Steriods will finally take a toll on the body. LOL. He's 41 years old. How many 41 year old non-pitchers have a shot at starting 100 games / 400 PA? Not many. if not for steroids Bonds would have gotten 50 carreer homeruns LOL. Even if you throw out his suspected use years. Hell, throw out his last 10 years, he's still got 250+ homers & 3 MVP's. Hall worthy before any of that. He is no better than Conseco Gratned, Bonds is an asshole, generally. Granted, he's been on the juice for some time. He's still a hell of a ball player.
posted by oliver_crunk at 06:41 PM on February 19
posted by oliver_crunk at 08:46 PM on August 10
posted by oliver_crunk at 08:02 PM on August 10
((met fan zone)) I've really enjoyed watching this guy pitch all season. It's like he focuses more when runners are on base. Adjusts when he doesn't have his best stuff. Just an absolute tremendous pitcher, even today. Probably the smartest pitcher I've ever seen. So stating the obvious here...but I wouldn't have a problem with him sitting out at all. That's just another inning he throws in a real game. Though he deserves it, I think there's something to the idea that he has nothing to prove. Just look at some of his seasons a couple years ago. No one out there today could touch those numbers and probably not anyone anytime soon either. Love of 'em or hate 'em, and that sure is the case with the guy, I think he's *earned* the right to sit one out.
posted by oliver_crunk at 05:54 PM on July 01
I never played anything more advanced than high school ball and the base of my index finger would be bruised all season long. Funny thing is I was a catcher and a second baseman and I always wondered how much more it would hurt catching a hard throwing 98mph fastball. I couldn't have been catching anything harder than the low 80's. I'd be interested to know the percentages of non-catchers. Playing second base I had a really small glove. Catching the ball in the same spot is the only way to catch the ball with these type of gloves. I never took to padding, just couldn't get the same feel for catching the ball with it...although if I was a big leauger Im sure I'd reconsider.
posted by oliver_crunk at 05:43 PM on July 01
^who let you in? gotta say though 'ass backwards crackbaby' is sort of funny. Steroids do not ruin the integrity of sports at all. you know what...i kind of agree with this. for every bonds or sosa...there's some idiot testing positive who has 10 career homers and a .210 average. though they may be bad for your health, i've yet to see real live evidence that says PED's actually live up to their name, specifically in the game of baseball. and what's this i'm reading about minor league pitchers testing postive for steroids...wtf? that said, the people have been speaking with their wallet. baseball attendance has been on a steady rise for quite some time. if it's the home run or not is up to debate. but for sure, congress isn't seeing that smoke signal. in the end congress is probably going to be the one that wind up looking like big mac getting grilled, if they haven't already.
posted by oliver_crunk at 07:38 PM on May 19
posted by oliver_crunk at 05:48 PM on February 20
great link. Huckaby: I think it’s important to understand that a lot of people have overclaimed what you can do by statistical analysis. It’s a tool. A car is a tool as well—you can use it to drive to the store, or you can use it to drive into a tree. Very interesting. Hughes comes off like a huge ass and basically makes the argument for the pro stat postition by himself by being such a numb skull for his own pro scout postion.
posted by oliver_crunk at 01:33 AM on January 09
what the hell are either of these two articles trying to say? the first one goes a little overboard. i don't know what type of standings one would expect after 60 games, but the way it stands now, i'm not all that suprised by what's going on in the standings, sans reds. the second one has the usual comparisions to the NFL and others, while not making much of any point regarding parity. anyone who's really been following baseball knows both the AL & NL west divisions were up for grabs. is anyone really suprised that san diego is in front of a totally depleted giants and snakes? or that anaheim is running ahead of the a's while the rangers are returning to their norm? the AL central was wide open before the season....is it really suprising to see the chisox ahead of the twins? or that the cubs injured arms have cost them thus far? who'd a thought that the marlins would be ahead of the phills in the NL east? i think it's all much ado about nothing. the bottom line is that both the yanks and red sox have two of the best records in the bigs and they are *not* even hitting on all cylinders yet due to injuries and slow starts. there's still a 100 games left. as much as i'd like to believe there's actual parity in MLB instead of the rich winning everything, i think the answer is somewhere in the middle. it's a screwed up system where the world champion marlins are collecting 8 digit revenue sharing checks from the team they beat in the series last year.
posted by oliver_crunk at 02:37 PM on June 03
*warning...foul language ahead* it's about fucking time....someone, anyone calls kobe out. guilty or not (and i think he's not guilty), the ridiculous hyping of whoever is the next michael jordan jumped the shark about 4 years ago. it's getting old. there was an article in espn magazine about kobe a week ago. it's a pure dick ride. and it's not the press either. phil jackson is quoted as saying about kobe's play in the middle of this season as 'the best couple of weeks of basketball played by anyone. ever.' give me a break. there's not one ounce of modesty in any of this....it's pure southern california bullshit. (sorry to the spofi'ers out there in socal...just calling it like i see it) the blind support from the fans in la-la land add to it....the casting of shaq as someone holding kobe back is also crazy. what the hell are the fans smoking out there? kobe's shooting through triple teams...there's clear outs for him every other possesion. the guy's good...but not so much that he *deserves* to be treated as the second coming. i watched my first nba game last night in a couple of months. the whole game was a PSA for kobe bryant. al michaels is prolly pulling a 'marv albert' with kobe after the game. kobe is lame. send him to philly. the fans on the east coast can see through the hype.
posted by oliver_crunk at 08:42 AM on May 14
i'll give the guy the benefit of the doubt until it's proven that he used steroids. as much as i might dislike the guy, the media has always tried to mess with bonds because of their mutual dislike of eachother. until then, i won't believe either of them until there's cold hard evidence in front of my eyes. what's interesting to me....why aren't post-season hr's, or any post-season stats for that matter, considered to be part of a players career totals? hard for me to stomach that a hr in april counts and a hr in october doesn't count toward career totals.
posted by oliver_crunk at 02:35 PM on April 19
nothing against you, dzot, for posting this it was an enjoyable read but.... can people stop ridin' bill simmons dick like he's the last funny sportswriter in the world or somethin'. there's typically funnier stuff in the free rag i pick up at the bagel store. the guy is funny...but i'm jus' sayin'. he's played out. /rant.
posted by oliver_crunk at 01:21 PM on April 16
the older i get the more i appreciate baseball. while kids today in the US may be playing more organized soccer than organized baseball, i really don't think that speaks to the future of either of the sports successes in the future. it's a lot more important to look at what sporting activites kids are into that are outside of the organized structure. most kids play little league or soccer because their parents encourage the activity....and how many of those go on to play *competitive* soccer or baseball as they get older. i bet the percentage is pretty low. that said, i saw tons of kids this weekend out at the local skate park. everytime i go snowboarding there's more kids than adults on the mountain. it's just a lot more social for kids to go skateboarding with their friends then it is to get a stickball game together or kick around the ball. either way, baseball isn't going anywhere and i'll go with it never playing second fiddle to soccer in this country.
posted by oliver_crunk at 12:59 PM on April 14
wow. that article is rubbish. horse racing shouldn't be the whipping boy for drunk gamblers. it's no more at fault than boxing, soccer, the ncaa tournament or your local 7-11 which have turned into gambling stations where gamblers hang out all day scratching off lotto. i'd go through each instance in the article where the author is way off.....but it's just easier if you insert your sport of choice in place of horse racing in the article and watch it develop from there. i have no idea how horse racing goes down across the atlantic but the author should probably stay away from where drunk gablers hang out in general. as an occasional visitor to the track (maybe 8 times a year), i've found the last place i want to be is at OTB or aquaduct....i've quite enjoyed summer afternoons outside with a cooler full of beer at monmouth or saratoga. as dylan would say, the game is the same just up on another level.
posted by oliver_crunk at 09:23 AM on April 13
What's gonna happen when they play a good team? since when is toronto not a good team? if they were in the central last season they would have cleaned up. i'm excited about the baseball season but it's just 3 games. can they turn it around? sure, anything can happen. after last year, it can't get any worse for the tigers....and the central is wide open, the division is for the taking. but if i were a tigers fan, i'd take 75-77 wins and run....that would be a killer turn around. anything more than that almost defies the laws of turnarounds. (whatever those laws are)
posted by oliver_crunk at 02:20 PM on April 08
re: 'yankees suck' chant saw a concert at great woods the night pedro struck out the side in the all star game in 1999. on the way out of the show there was a 'yankees suck' chant by the majority of the crowd. i kid you not. the concert: phish.
posted by oliver_crunk at 09:22 AM on April 06
I hope it doesn't come to someone getting seriously injured or killed before people chill a little. i'm usually the first person to do a doom dance proclaiming the apocalypse of both the yanks and the sox....but i can feel that in the air this year, more than any year ever and i'm afraid that one, if not both, of these teams are going to burnout. forget about the extra-curicular stuff, you can guarentee the circus will get even crazier. from a pure baseball perspective, that's a shame because i'm hoping that the incredible play and drama of last year can somehow be replicated, but even that might be asking too much.
posted by oliver_crunk at 09:11 AM on April 06
In first place, and current world champs. Thanks. funny how the yanks overlooked the marlins too. look what it got them. guys, it's only april and spofi's favorite topic is already starting to rear it's ugly head. i'm just holding out hope that the jays can shock the world and put both teams shit storm on the side....preferably with neither team making the playoffs (laugh all you want, i certainly think it's in the realm of possiblity...and in baseball stranger things have happened). i've said it before....the yanks are no more guilty than the sox...or even the stinkin' mets.....which is to say the real enemy, as others have pointed out, are those shady owners who choose to not be competitive.
posted by oliver_crunk at 08:17 AM on April 06
Dear Milton, Welcome to the Mets. We will put up with whatever hangups you have. Masturbation in the bullpen? No problem. Smoke pot? Here's some sensi seeds. Beat up pizza delivery boys? Don't forget to piss on the establishment also. Got clips, a comb and scissors? We cut our hair in-house. Gambling habit? Good, because when the baseball gets boring we just play poker in the clubhouse during the game. After a mediocre season here, we will give you a big contract and you'll be over paid handsomely. When you start to suck ass, which you eventually will, we'll bring in more overpaid replacements to compete with you....and when you can't beat the likes of Matt Lawton, Roger Cedeno, Timo Perez, Shane Spencer or Karim Garcia, you can whine and ride pine with your head held high knowing that you'll be taking us to the bank. Love, Fred Wilpon
posted by oliver_crunk at 08:44 AM on April 02
i noticed that too. reminded me of the old school video games where michael jordan wasn't on 'bulls vs. lakers' (if i remeber right....one of those gensis games) but his likeness and stats were there though. as a kid, it made the game seem a little imperfect....like a mix between 'bases loaded' and 'rbi baseball'....but after the first game, i forgot about it and just pictured MJ as the guy who's name no one knew (or was he just a number 23) i didn't get the point then and i still don't now. why? is it a money issue? if not, then why pass it up?
posted by oliver_crunk at 11:26 AM on March 26
I agree, that the statistics are a little misleading, however if you include Newark's surrounding area, why not include Brooklyn's? because brooklyn is a county, newark is a city within the county essex with a population of 700k. granted, not 2m but if you want to include other surrounding areas....i'm sure jersey would easily push well over 2m peeps in essex, hudson, bergen, sussex counties...basically northern NJ. i'm not sure if you make it out to jersey much but the tranist time to newark from times square is comparable to parts of brooklyn. the PATH train functions much like a subway and the NJ RAIL would connect from NYC and pretty much anywhere in jersey. to say that newark doesn't compare to brooklyn's subway is true....but what does compare to NYC's subway? the point is...anyone from any of the surrounding areas could access newark very easilly via rail. this thread is degnerating into a jersey vs brooklyn thing...and me living in jersey, i'm sort of bias.
posted by oliver_crunk at 01:54 PM on March 24
jugwine, those statistics you cite about population are kind of misleading. brooklyn is *huge*...as you say it's the size of a county. if you were to include the surrounding areas of newark you'd probably come up with a population figure not quite as big as brooklyn, but not near as small as the gap portrayed in your post. the nets would do well in newark, they've rebuilt parts of the city and though the redevelopment is still in it's early stages, there's already been people returning to live and invest in the community again. the ironbound section and the new performing art center are neat places to live and visit. but, it still is newark, it's going to take awhile to dig the city out of the rubble it was in years past. the biggest problem with the meadowlands is with public transport. there is none. in newark this wouldn't be a problem....asking the average jersian to suffer through anymore traffic in addtion to already terrible commutes is too much. newark is a hub to southern/central jersey as well as NYC. moving to newark they would be able to build on the fan base that already exists. it's not that the knicks are a popular ticket....it's a more a cultural thing. the knicks are the city. just looking at the history of the nets franchise, one can see that even the nets can't penetrate that even when they've been on the outside looking in (long island, meadowlands). the cyclones have done very well....but i think that has more to do with the cheap ticket and the romance of seeing a ballgame in coney island / brooklyn. the average fan will go to the history and lure of the garden and the knicks instead of paying the same price to see the nets in some mall in brooklyn.
posted by oliver_crunk at 12:46 PM on March 24
i see that jug and though it might increase their chances, it's still too early to tell who is paying for what....and that's the crux of the matter. and in NY these things are an uphill battle....they've been fighting over the railyards in hell's kitchen for years. IMHO, this is no different. the local communities also can't be underestimated either.
posted by oliver_crunk at 10:22 AM on March 24
it ain't going to happen IMHO... the nets are getting in line with almost every single pro sports franchise in the NYC area. we've seen models of shea pt 2, yankee stadium pt 2, a new MSG, a new stadium for both the jets and the giants and of course whatever small island planned to be built for the olympic bid. the only team that's making any headway is the jets.... so the nets can take a number and get in the back of the line because i don't know where all the money is coming from to pay for all these new projects... ultimately....i think it's in the best interest of nets ownership to go for newark, and though i've read about plenty of problems with making that move, i think brooklyn could be a worse altenative. forgetting all the local residents voaclly voicing displeasure with any move to brooklyn, if everything goes perfectly, the earliest any of this is happening is years away and by that time the current buzz around the nets as the best pro basketball team in the area will probably fade and NYC will reamin the knicks domain, as it is even now the nets are better. they'll stay in jersey if they are smart and try to re-build a better fan base.
posted by oliver_crunk at 10:02 AM on March 24
scott- you're right. but i once was an avid NBA fan. they lost my hard earned cash when this crap became acceptable. there's absolutely nothing going to be done about this behavior. iverson has been pulling this type of thing for years....the NBA and the sixer organization has done nothing to even attempt to cure it. in fact, all they've done is positively reinforce his antics with more money and coaching changes on demand. it's garbage that doesn't even approach what's going on in the NFL. if this was the NFL, iverson would have got cut, keyshawn johnson style. while there's no doubt there's troubling antics that are on par with some NBA antics...i'd love to see a big name NFL player pull a stunt that iverson pulled yesterday without serious repercusions. there's coaches in the NFL who would have had his ass on plane home. there's not one coach in the NBA who has the balls to do that to a high profile player. i've said it before....the NBA continues to wane in popularity in the US and though the international game might bring back some respect....the public will grow tired of these stunts and take their money elsewhere. iverson's selfishness cost the NBA a lot of fans yesterday. that's the star power at work in the NBA these days.
posted by oliver_crunk at 12:53 PM on March 15
saw this on my local sports newcast last night. glad i've not watched too much NBA this season. there's some poor souls in detroit who payed inflated ticket prices to see iverson battle the home squad only to see iverson selfishly suit up for warm ups and in street clothes by game time because he felt like he was a starter. the NBA is doomed if this behavior continues on the road it's been on for the last couple of years. david stern be damned.
posted by oliver_crunk at 11:45 AM on March 15
this is a waste of time and taxpayer loot. what can the gov't possibly do? what action could they take to stop this? other then parading the usual suspects in to a committee every once in awhile for a public verbal spanking...there isn't much else other then rescinding anti-trust, which IMHO is about as likely as the devil rays winning the AL east. while i think that there needs to be better enforcement, it's still not going to stop players from trying to get whatever edge they need to be better both on the field and in the wallet. unfortunately, there's a vested interest by all the parties involved to keep the game as popular as possible and keep the dollars rolling in as large as possible. the more home runs and records shattered the better for all of these parties involved. that doesn't make it right, but their bottom line says otherwise. i want the game to be respectable just as much as the next spofi'er, but we're coming into an age where the cheaters are three steps ahead of the screeners. while all this is going on there's probably a new drug that the public is unaware of that acts like a steroid. you think a player is going to resist that temptation? i think not. for all i know there's pitchers taking drugs to increase coordination. bottom line....it's up to MLB and the MLBPA to work together to make sure the players are not endangering their own health while having, at the very least, an acceptable testing and screening policy of banned substances. this way everybody is happy and the public can act like we're getting a legit clean product on the field....but, IMHO, the reality of it is either or any way you cut it, it ain't ever going to be legit.
posted by oliver_crunk at 11:30 AM on March 11
giambi looked like skeletor or something. he got any hair under that hat? looks like he had a shaved head.
posted by oliver_crunk at 03:04 PM on March 04
man...shit. if you're going to self link at least do it right. /mefi snark
posted by oliver_crunk at 09:21 PM on March 03
Only in Boston can you have a $120 million payroll stocked with bought-and-paid-for talent and still believe you're the little guy, fighting the good fight. what's it going to be? it can't go both ways.
posted by oliver_crunk at 10:19 AM on February 18
relax....you're all over-reacting. and i'm sorry if it's coming off like a 'fight'...i certainly don't take it like that. it's a goddamn internet message board. all i think is that the trade stings sox fans and judging by the responses that appears to be true. hell, it stings me just because the mets should have had him in the first place.
posted by oliver_crunk at 05:24 PM on February 16
oh please.... i know it doesn't guarentee a title....but you have to admit that it's an interesting team with all the additions. it is the eight wonder of world with the press the way it is in NYC and the backpage will be broiling with all sorts of arod/jeter drama....let alone all the other 'bad apples' sheff, brown et al on the yanks and from where i sit out at shea it seems a helluva lot more interesting and wild then mike cameron and matsui. it's still sour grapes for the sox fans....i'm sorry, i'm just not buying that this doesn't sting every sox fan in sox nation. the same spofi'ers that were so gung ho about getting arod are now using the same numbers to prove that he doesn't mean much....give me a break...do we have to go to the archive and dig out all the sox/arod posts and prove this. the sox wanted him bad....and how ironic it is that the dude winds up on the yankees... i'm a met fan and i'm going to give the george support for just putting the team on the field....and i have a feeling if the shoe was on the other foot we wouldn't be hearing about it....we'd be hearing about how the red sox won the hot stove this winter.
posted by oliver_crunk at 03:08 PM on February 16
They didn't know they couldn't. Surely you aren't saying the Sox shouldn't try and make deals unless they're 100% confident of the outcome? uh...yes....they had an agreement with arod/texas that wasn't within the rules. seems fairly reasonable to say that if they wanted him they could have structured the deal so as to insure that they could dictate the outcome and not give the MLBPA the benefit of the doubt. i don't buy for one minute that they didn't know they couldn't. a signifignat devalue of arod's contract was sure to draw the unions ire, it was well reported in the press before it even got that far. my point is if they wanted to seal the deal they could have taken on the contract....which apparently they weren't willing to do....so why bother in the first place?
posted by oliver_crunk at 12:47 PM on February 16
because they had a budget, because they have financial limits (unlike the Yankees) they can't play hardball? So every team should start spening 200m otherwise they aren't serious about getting anywhere? If the Red Sox went way above and beyond the rest of the high spending pack (Dodgers, Mets, etc) , they'd be chastised like the Yankees are by everyone. If they don't, they are chastised for... having limits? i don't think that's my point at all. my point is, if the sox were serious about getting arod they knew that any sort of a substantial reduction in salary was never going to get approved, if they wanted him they had to play hardball and suck it up. they had to take on the extra 15 mill or so that was obviously beyond it's budget. good on them for staying within their means, but the consequence was unforseen and large. it's the equivelent to the sox missing an open court lay-up and the yanks coming down the court and hitting a three for a 5 point swing. what initally looked like a missed oppurtunity to score turned into a much larger deficit and consequence. if the sox wanted to get arod so bad this is what the price would be and they shouldn't tease fans by trying to pull off what was never going to happen.... and i sympathize with this as a mets fan. the same thing happens every year. the mets threw their names into the vlad sweepstakes at the last minute as they did with arod and others only to not be at all serious about what it would take to get it done. if the sox couldn't afford the guy in the first place they shouldn't have acted like they could play hardball. and that's why it stings more and should be a lesson learned for future moves.
posted by oliver_crunk at 10:27 AM on February 16
i seriously still can not believe the yanks grabbed arod out thin air. it's ridiculous. crazy! as much as everyone is worried about the chemistry on the field, i really don't see that big of a deal. if this yanks lineup all has down years or below their averages they still will be better then last year on the offense side. these guys added sheff AND arod!?!?!?! and ditched, what IMHO, was the biggest wrong in the lineup by throwing soriano's strikeouts out of the leadoff spot. the yanks are playing fantasy baseball and all the other teams have to check their wallets to play....as much as i hate the yankees....i mean HATE the yankees...it was only 2 months ago that people were saying that king george had lost his mind again....2 months later the guy looks like a genius and this lineup will have every pitcher in MLB shaking in their boots before they even take the field. i can see schilling pulling his hair out thinking about a jeter, arod, giambi, sheff, posada, bernie punch that just can't be pitched around. that's really scary. there's a lesson here for the sox front office, for 15 million more this could have been avoided. if the sox want to play hardball in an off season coldwar they better be ready to have their cash speak just as loud as their brains. as much as sympathize with any sox fan that says this isn't a big deal....i ain't buying that. mets fans know better. we were supposed to have arod in the first place. and we know when the front office lets the fans down. obviously health is an issue for every team....the yanks need to keep the pitching healthy and i just don't see how this team doesn't roll over the entire AL East. i'll be rooting for the sox, but the improvements made by the yanks are too much to ignore and i think the challenge facing torre this year will re-invigorate him after being bored the last couple of years.... sad to say....but i plan on catchin some yank games at the stadium this year. king george has once again cut into my mets season ticket budget and i just can't pass up seeing this yankee team. it's seriously the eighth wonder of the world.
posted by oliver_crunk at 07:35 AM on February 16
My argument is the current system allows advantages that it doesn't allow for men. Combine everyone and chop 'em up by the 100s for tours. you can't count the number of people that the current system *might* give advantages to on one hand, if that. by breaking down the systems into to tiers....you're taking away it's marketability and appeal. no one is going to care about the third tier and it won't even show up on the golf channel. as it stands right now, there's 3 top level tours on network teevee. i think the responses in the this thread alone prove that it's to the PGA's advantage to continue the experiment the way it's going. there's free publicity all around this issue and outside of tiger no one is watching golf.
posted by oliver_crunk at 03:49 PM on February 05
while that maybe true rocket....why aren't norman and others saying exactly what you are saying. instead we get comments like this: "If the girls come out and think they can play against the guys and fail every time, that can't be very positive."
posted by oliver_crunk at 03:42 PM on February 03
since when is the PGA's by-laws sexist? that's part of my point. you can't compare the two. they both have 2 seperate sets of rules.
posted by oliver_crunk at 02:09 PM on February 03
by definition, yes it is sexist. the sponsors, paticipants, media, spectators and pretty much everyone with half a brain realizes, though, why the LPGA is sexist. to use the the example that the LPGA is sexist and compare that to the PGA by-laws where the LPGA provisions are absent doesn't really illustrate any point about why a women should be able to compete with a man where a sponsor sees fit within the rules.
posted by oliver_crunk at 01:33 PM on February 03
This comment suggests that you have a problem with the sexist LPGA by-law prohibiting male golfers from gaining sponsor's exemptions. That's precisely in agreement with Norman's comments. uh...no. the sponsors know the rules. the rules are no men on the LPGA tour. if they think it's sexist they don't have to participate. the money talks, if a sponsor had a problem with the rules, i'd doubt they'd participate at all. are YOU saying the LPGA is sexist? how is this in agreement with norman? the big picture here is that this isn't something the players will ultimatly decide. they can whine all they want but if it's good for ratings and draws attention to the sport you can bet your ass it'll continue to happen.
posted by oliver_crunk at 01:03 PM on February 03
if the girls come out and beat half the guys in the tournament, that can't be positive for the old line's manhood. the shark needs to relax. all i'm reading are excuses. like this guys cares about sponsership for women golfers. the chicks are showing that they can be competitive and some of the old line are a little scared or put off by that. these are competitive people so i can understand some of negative reaction to playing with the ladies in tournaments. as long as people tune to see the ladies play in men's tournaments the fad won't go away. the only people going away, judging by norman's comments, are him and his buddies. eventually one of these ladies is going to make the cut and eventually one is going to win a tournament and that's what these guys are scared of.
posted by oliver_crunk at 09:41 AM on February 03
it doesn't make you a better person to take less money. it's just a stupid business move. like it or not, getting paid to play baseball is a business. it makes it so by the very nature of that statement. like it or not, from a players perspective it's a job to play. you'd be pissed too if someone your equal was getting more pay for the same job with same level of output. i understand that we're talking about millions of dollars and much of the petty squables over a couple of millions here or there doesn't make much sense. but everyone's goals are different. to say that winning *should* be the goal of every player is a bit suspect, especially after that player has already attained that goal. maybe pudge has goals off the field that he can reach by making as much money off of it. can't fault him for that and i think most fans, if put in the same position, would do the same. i know i would.
posted by oliver_crunk at 03:41 PM on February 02
it's a battle of the basement as far as i'm concerned when it comes to the super bowl unis this year. this is easily the most ugly looking super bowl ever. and i challenge anyone to come up with something worse. when did the NFL get all world league on the unis? seriously, if i weren't already familiar with the unis i would think it was the orlando thunder vs the ohio glory..taken it back to '92 in the WLF.
posted by oliver_crunk at 01:03 PM on January 27
posted by oliver_crunk at 05:20 PM on January 26
TJ's head is about as thick as byron's neck. no reason for this comment....jus sayin'.
posted by oliver_crunk at 03:36 PM on January 26
poor byron. i'm not a big fan of the guy but he got no credit when they truned it around and now he's the first sacrificial lamb when some injuries and a little losing come down the pike. he's not the best coach in the world and probably not the best suited for the situation as it stands in jersey right now. the press has had him on the chopping block for the last 7 months and i think it effected the nets play somewhat. don't think this move helps the team much for this year. wonder who'll they'll bring in though.
posted by oliver_crunk at 12:41 PM on January 26
i think i speak for all met fans when i say: don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out. i wanted mo to do well, but he was never going to be a part of any met team that was going to win. of course the double whammy here is that he takes up a roster spot for last year and this year while he collects big fat checks so the mets insurance will cover some of that. unfortunatly, such is life as a met fan out at shea these days.
posted by oliver_crunk at 12:24 PM on January 25
relax red sox fans. the hot stove cooled off for a couple of weeks and now that the next football game isn't for 2 weeks, the media needs something to talk about. we've heard 'this weekend' for how long?
posted by oliver_crunk at 03:02 PM on January 20
still hung up on arod? keep dreamin'!
posted by oliver_crunk at 07:44 AM on January 20
if i were a betting man....i'd take the panthers. the pats weren't effective in the red zone against a very suspect defense in indy. if they play like that against carolina and they'll let carolina hang around and grind it out. frankly, the pats have been pretty cluch. and clutch is a fleeting thing in football. carolina just keeps wearing down opponenets with good football. i wouldn't at all be suprised to see carolina win the game. i feel like the panthers are going to do the same thing the pats did to the rams a couple years ago.
posted by oliver_crunk at 09:35 AM on January 19
Once again, "I don't like it" seems to be the limit of the integrity argument. i guess not. horn was fined for his conduct on the field. obviosuly the NFL feels that his behavior was not becoming of an NFL player. that behavior lacked integrity. still not sure why this behavior is acceptable or is even defensible. it's just not. whether the clock had stopped or not.....there's 52 players on one sideline and 52 on another. seems like there was a game going to me and the 70k+ folks packed into a dome. they're not there for the cheerleaders.
posted by oliver_crunk at 08:42 AM on January 06
a tangent in response to forks: while i agree that comparing the NBA and NFL nielsens is silly, i didn't really develop my point. i cited the NBA nielsens because they've been going down consistently since the gold ole days of jordan, bird and magic. though there isn't any concrete evidence to suggest why. some say it's because the NBA hasn't had the star quality that it once did. i think that does have something to do with it, but in addition to that, i think that today's typical NBA star is selfish, arrogant and cares more about their own style on the court than whether their team wins. granted some of these qualities could be seen in jordan and company, but it's not so up front as it's been in the last 5 years or so. that said....it's been a big reason why i haven't watched as many NBA games as i used to. and i think with these celebrations in the NFL you can see a parallel to what has been happening in the NBA. to tell you the truth......it's a turn off to me. while some people may appreciate it, the ego and such, the NFL has built a bulletproof business model that has stressed teamwork....and there's nothing about some of these 'celebrations' that smells anything like teamwork or winning. just braggadocio....and i suspect the longer that type of behavior is accepted by the league, the more people will be turning the channel or going somewhere else for their sporting needs.
posted by oliver_crunk at 03:25 PM on January 05
posted by oliver_crunk at 01:45 PM on January 05
2) Seeing as Horn's display happened with the clock stopped, it's not of the game any more than loud music that comes on after a touchdown. well horn could have been penalized for the play. the point is....it damn sure was a part of the game. the rules don't stop being applied because the clock has stopped. 3) The point is that you can't play the integrity card with Horn, then more or less ignore the rest of the "integrity issues". It seems like the NFL picks and chooses, based on popularity contest and not common sense. huh? a player planted a phone on the field of play. then when he scored he used it as a prop to celebrate. are you saying that this is okay behavior for a player in the NFL? if it is okay, integrity is surely erroded. and i'm condused by 5?
posted by oliver_crunk at 01:44 PM on January 05
Copyright © 2016 SportsFilterAll posts and comments are © their original authors.