- 09:24 AM
- 11/22/08
| Name: | Jeff Zelek |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fairfax, VA |
| Gender: | male |
| Member since: | September 13, 2006 |
| Last visit: | November 21, 2008 |
bender has posted no links and 151 comments to SportsFilter and hasn’t posted any threads or comments
Ice Bowl is one for the ages The consensus about the Ice Bowl, aka the AMP Energy NHL Winter Classic? It was cool.
posted on January 02, 2008 - Go to the detail view for this result
The Hoser's NFL Picks, Week Eight 2008 NFL picks that miss a good Waffle House smothered 'n' covered breakfast now and again.
posted by wfrazerjr at 04:20 PM on October 29
The Hoser's NFL Picks, Week Eight 2008 NFL picks that miss a good Waffle House smothered 'n' covered breakfast now and again.
posted by wfrazerjr at 04:20 PM on October 29
I'm not entirely familiar with why Washington's team originated the mascot as a "redskin"?
The term Redskin (as explained here) is offensive not because Native Americans have red skin but because of this country's bloody past with regard to treatment of Native Americans.
posted at 08:22 AM on October 29
A Prayer for the Tampa Bay Rays While the Cubs fan has the pity of national baseball writers and the consolation of a fraternity of similarly deluded millions, Rays fans are seen as a possibly spectral phenomenon. Dick Vitale is the team's only celebrity fan; a great proportion of the typical Rays crowd shows up wearing a Manny Ramirez or Derek Jeter shirt. In enemy territory, even at home in Floridathat's the life of a Rays fan.
posted by justgary at 07:49 PM on October 09
Bperk:
I agree that this wasn't meant to be taken too seriously (although there may be some real points in there), but are you seriously saying that Tampa fans didn't support the Florida Marlins (particularly in '97, before the Rays even existed), but Cubs fans should be happy about the White Sox winning the title?
posted at 07:52 AM on October 09
The Hoser's NFL Picks, Week Four 2008 NFL picks that wonder if anyone in the States watches "Little Mosque On The Prairie".
posted by wfrazerjr at 10:14 AM on September 26
I found your apostrophes!
posted at 11:01 AM on September 26
Reliant Stadium severely damaged by Hurricane Ike. There are parts of the roof that are completely gone,--
posted by boknows at 07:42 PM on September 15
I'm curious, if the stadium hadn't been damaged, do you think they still would have played the game tonight?
posted at 01:04 PM on September 15
9 year old with a 40 mph fastball, gets the boot. I'm not sure what to make of this. On one hand I can see the punishment for being very good. On the other hand they allowed him to either play a different position or go up to the next level. I really dont know what to think about this but I have a 9 year old who I think could hit him :)
posted by firecop at 01:14 AM on August 27
Yes!! Sponsers do in fact "pay money to sponsor teams because they hope to get something out of it even if it's for a championship and a team picture to hang on their wall or to have the community see that they're being involved with sports for children, that's the point of sponsering a team.
If a team loses every single year, do you honestly believe that sponsers will be banging on the teams doors and continue to dish out hundreds or even thousands of dollars to support that team? Every sponser wants to be the one that has their team on the winning side of things in the end in this day & age, don't get it twisted. Just take a look and see what's happening with this kid. It's just a damn shame.
(1) You make that out to sound like I said that sponsors are not looking for something in return. That is not what I said at all. Rather, my point is that championships are not the major motivation but rather a bonus.
(2) What is an instructional league 9-10 baseball team that loses every year? The team turns over (players and coaches) every two years if not every year. I'm not talking about pro teams or college teams or even high schools. Of course sponsors at that level are looking to back a winner. If we were even talking about sponsors of a 9-10 select or travelling team, you could have a point, but we're not. It is an instructional league for young kids. Outside of the players and the parents, no one cares who wins, so whether the team you are sponsoring is undefeated or winless doesn't make the slightest bit of difference.
posted at 10:49 AM on August 27
9 year old with a 40 mph fastball, gets the boot. I'm not sure what to make of this. On one hand I can see the punishment for being very good. On the other hand they allowed him to either play a different position or go up to the next level. I really dont know what to think about this but I have a 9 year old who I think could hit him :)
posted by firecop at 01:14 AM on August 27
This has to be the single most head-scratching statement made by a poster on this site. How could you even suggest that sponsers don't care about winning championships? In sports, regardless of the age group and if it's amatuer or professional, if a team is being sponsered, championships are a main reason as to why a team is sponsered in the 1st place no matter if it's Home Depot or Bob's Tree King, they all want to back a winner.
Really?! For 9-year-olds? Sponsors (at any level) pay money to sponsor teams because they hope to get something out of it.
Sure, if you sponsor the Patriots and Belichick is wearing your hooded sweatshirt on the sideline when they win a ring, that's a better situation than sponsoring the Falcons and Mike Smith is sitting at home watching it on tv.
If you're sponsoring a 9-10 instructional baseball team, you get your company's name on their jerseys and a sign on the outfield fence. The parents know who you are and maybe they stop in. You get to hang the team picture on the wall, and your clients say, "Oh look, they're involved in the community." Oh by the way, you probably also get a tax writeoff for your donation. Of course you wouldn't mind seeing the team win, too, but if that's higher on the list than the other things listed above for the majority of sponsors, I'd be very surprised.
posted at 09:09 AM on August 27
9 year old with a 40 mph fastball, gets the boot. I'm not sure what to make of this. On one hand I can see the punishment for being very good. On the other hand they allowed him to either play a different position or go up to the next level. I really dont know what to think about this but I have a 9 year old who I think could hit him :)
posted by firecop at 01:14 AM on August 27
micmckit:
I xoordinate youth sports leagues for the city I grew up in. It's laughable that they are trying to bill a league with sponsors as a purely instructional league. In my years of experience, you can't have a purely instructional league with team specific sponsors. Sponsors want championship trophies.
I don't agree with this on two levels. First, at this age group, I really think that sponsors are mostly interested in having a picture of their team to hang on their wall to say that they support the community. Sure, championships are nice, but I don't think that is really the motivation. Second, even if it is an instructional league, that doesn't mean that a desire to win by the team or the sponsors detracts from that mission.
I pretty much agree with what you have said about the on-field activities, though.
posted at 08:03 AM on August 27
9 year old with a 40 mph fastball, gets the boot. I'm not sure what to make of this. On one hand I can see the punishment for being very good. On the other hand they allowed him to either play a different position or go up to the next level. I really dont know what to think about this but I have a 9 year old who I think could hit him :)
posted by firecop at 01:14 AM on August 26
The article doesn't even say that playing for the the other team is a move up. As far as I can tell, this other team is in the same level as the team this kid plays for. It really sounds like there's something shady going on, perhaps like what directpressure mentioned.
posted at 09:42 AM on August 26
When is enough "enough"? Hoping to put a definitive end to a simmering controversy, China was asked to provide additional documents that prove that five of the six team members were old enough to compete at these games. Although they had already provided these documents several times before, due to a website claim that the Chinese gymnasts were underage, the inquiry persists. Sour grapes for the Americans? Many international commentators think so.
posted by knowsalittle at 10:37 PM on August 25
Neither. I'm saying that nobody should be surprised that there are elite athletes (or their parents or coaches or etc.) who will try whatever they think they might get away from in order to gain an advantage. So you "train yourself to a frenzy", get all worked up for your Big Moment, and go and compete in an environment where you know that everyone is trying to get an edge. For their own mental health, honest athletes should approach the situation a bit more cynically. Losing because someone else used an outside-the-rules advantage and didn't get caught is a fact of sports: it doesn't happen all the time, but it happens, and the higher the stakes, the more likely it's going to happen. Athletes have to want to win, but they also can't be so emotionally brittle, so dependent on winning that they can't handle losing -- for whatever reason. The Chinese gymnastics team has a history of underage athletes, and it seems it popped up again at this Olympics? Well...you knew it was a snake when you picked it up.
I don't think anyone is arguing (or at least I certainly am not) that they are surprised that China (or anyone, for that matter) could be cheating to try to gain an advantage to win gold. I'm sure it happened more than will ever come to light. You're argument seems to be that if someone cheats and wins, the other competitors are supposed to just suck it up and get over it. Why can't they cry foul if they have probable cause? That doesn't make you a sore loser if you're right. Hell, that might not even make you a sore loser if you're wrong.
As for being emotionally brittle with regard to losing, I really don't see that being the case here. This was the talk of the Olympics from day one (and I'd bet sooner in gymnastics circles, but I am not familiar), and it still hasn't gone away. The problem there is that this is going to be tough to prove either way. That said, even if it ultimately doesn't change anything this time, it might make someone think twice about trying to pull it in 4 years.
posted at 12:32 PM on August 25
When is enough "enough"? Hoping to put a definitive end to a simmering controversy, China was asked to provide additional documents that prove that five of the six team members were old enough to compete at these games. Although they had already provided these documents several times before, due to a website claim that the Chinese gymnasts were underage, the inquiry persists. Sour grapes for the Americans? Many international commentators think so.
posted by knowsalittle at 10:37 PM on August 25
This is a somewhat heartless thing to say, but I guess I don't understand why an athlete today would go to the Olympics and not expect to be up against against this kind of shenanigans as well as their opponent's athletic ability.
I'm confused. Is your point here that everyone should cheat to level the playing field or that the non-cheaters should just try their best knowing that others in the competion are creating their own advantage?
posted at 08:51 AM on August 25
Rays Walk Hamilton Intentionally with Bases Loaded The Tampa Bay Rays made history Sunday night, walking Josh Hamilton of the Texas Rangers on purpose with the bases loaded so they could face Marlon Byrd, who struck out to cement a 7-4 Rays win. The intentional walk was the first time in 107 years that an American League player was walked intentionally with the bases full and only the fifth overall since 1900. "You don't pitch to Superman when you have Wonder Woman on deck," said Rays closer Troy Percival.
posted by rcade at 10:57 AM on August 20
Hal, do you happen to have the players' AVG and OPS stats with bases loaded or at least with RISP? Not that it necessarily makes a difference, but it might make a difference
posted at 07:57 AM on August 20
Spitz spits fit US swim legend Mark Spitz won't be on hand in Beijing if Michael Phelps breaks his record of seven gold medals at a single Olympics because, he says, no one bothered to invite him. Should he be reacting this way, or is he simply overreacting?
posted by Kendall at 12:34 AM on August 13
And his assertion that he could have done anything Phelps is doing now, well, STFU Mark.
Spitz said that if they had the 50 free in 1972, he would have won that, too. He never said that he could win 8 golds today.
As (still) the only person to win 7 golds in one Olympics, he has earned the right to a little arrogance. I also belive that he is right when he says that he should have been invited by the USOC. Furthermore, I can understand his desire--as the owner for 26 years of a pretty impressive record--to want to see his record stand. He doesn't even go overboard there! He seems to be wishing Phelps well.
I don't have any major problem with anything Spitz has said in this interview.
posted at 04:03 PM on August 13
Michelle Wie Disqualified for Scorecard Gaffe In second place at 17 under after three rounds of the State Farm Classic Saturday, Wie was disqualified from the tournament for failing to sign her second-round scorecard until after leaving the scorer's tent. "She was like a little kid after you tell them there's no Santa Claus," said LPGA official Sue Witters.
posted by rcade at 05:17 PM on July 22
But you can't talk about that group as though the other doesn't exist. Ease up on the rules because of good people who make a mistake and you're also easing up on bad people who cheat. But I'm not advocating changing the rules so that they don't punish cheaters. Only change the rule that says that you are disqualified if you forget to sign your card to allow you to sign it later. If people are going to try to cheat, they are going to do it whether this rule is in place or not. Those two things are not related.
posted at 02:46 PM on July 22
Michelle Wie Disqualified for Scorecard Gaffe In second place at 17 under after three rounds of the State Farm Classic Saturday, Wie was disqualified from the tournament for failing to sign her second-round scorecard until after leaving the scorer's tent. "She was like a little kid after you tell them there's no Santa Claus," said LPGA official Sue Witters.
posted by rcade at 05:17 PM on July 22
bender, I would guess if the penalty weren't a death penalty, there's not enough incentive to keep people from trying to bend the rules. If the only penalty is 1 or 2 strokes, why not try to beat the system? So you are implying that players are willing to try to cheat but that the penalty for not signing the card is somehow stopping them? I'm talking about someone who forgot to sign the card, not someone who was trying to cheat (at least that is my assumption considering that she went right back and signed it when she found out she had forgotten to do that). bender, the penalties are: Sign for a higher score than you actually made? The higher score stands, but there is no further sanction. Sign for a lower score than you actually made? Disqualification, whether it was an innocent mistake or a Vijay magic pencil moment. Fail to sign the card? Disqualification. For my money, that's all the rule can be. There is no attested record of your score if you didn't sign it. The whole leaving the tent before you signed it thing is an issue of where you draw the line as the tournament organiser. They drew a line at the door of the tent and she crossed it *shrug*. I'm with you on the first two points; those seem reasonable. Disqualification for forgetting to sign the card is just too harsh to me. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. They drew a line at the door of the tent and she crossed it. Then she went back and signed the same card she would have if she hadn't forgotten. *shrug*
posted at 11:35 AM on July 22
From the same website I linked above, and since someone mentioned it before, there was a resolution from the DC City Council in 2001 about changing the name. The "Home" link at the bottom of the page also leads to other information germane to this discussion.