- 02:53 PM
- 05/20/13
| Name: | Eric Young |
|---|---|
| Location: | Columbus, OH |
| Gender: | Male |
| Member since: | September 19, 2005 |
| Last visit: | May 15, 2013 |
littleLebowski has posted 4 links and 297 comments to SportsFilter and 1 link and 19 comments to the Locker Room.
What are SpoFites' favorite books?: "I get no respect. I was crossing the street. I got hit by a mobile library. I was lying there in pain, screaming. The guy looked at me. He went, 'Shhhh.'" (Rodney Dangerfield)
posted by littleLebowski to navel gazing at 10:50 PM on April 24 - 104 comments
Lions' Roy Williams says "score means nothing": ... even though those wacky NFL rules suggest otherwise.
posted by littleLebowski to football at 02:02 PM on September 18 - 34 comments
The Decline of Civilization - Bambino #3? ... Ease up: I don't read this columnist consistently enough to have a global opinion of his work, but I thought this was a very well-written article on a piece of this topic that gets irresponsibly blown up (as in the case of the LSU professor) but not often talked about from what I've seen on SpoFi.
posted by littleLebowski to baseball at 07:57 AM on April 13 - 58 comments
Would you rather run laps or ... ?: Nottingham Forest manager Gary Megson came up with a novel way of punishing his under-performing soccer players over the weekend when he made them face disgruntled fans in the changing rooms.
posted by littleLebowski to general at 03:11 PM on October 26 - 11 comments
Is Daly back?! Hopefully, for the game's sake, but his putter and Tiger weigh in - : In the midst of mediocre football and incredible baseball, the two most arguably polarizing PGA pros provided high drama. Plus, interested in agreement or disgust with the notion that Tirico, Faldo, Azinger make the most genuine, insightful, and quality golf broadcast team in recent memory.
posted by littleLebowski to golf at 12:27 PM on October 10 - 10 comments
The Ravens kicker ... isn't legal and should have been penalized.
It felt weird to me, too, but I'm not aware of any rule explicitly forbidding it. I could be un-lazy and look this up myself, but since you're the one calling shenanigans - do you have a source for the claim that it's illegal?
posted by littleLebowski at 01:08 PM on January 14
Detroit in 7
Verlander
5 IBB
3:38
posted by littleLebowski at 03:18 PM on October 24
I wouldn't consider myself "invested" but I definitely think the punishment is appropriate ... but, I'd honestly almost rather see the team perform admirably and even win throughout this. I hold no ill will toward the current staff and certainly not the players. While I feel punishment had to be levied, as a reminder of the athletic program's proper "place" in the grand scheme of things and what is "right", the most severe penalites against the most applicable offenders have or are going to be assessed directly to those individuals. Heck, if the university and the football team approach this in a humanly decent way, they could use "football wins" to bring even more positive light to the healing process, moreso than they'd probably have a pulpit to do, if they were losing.
posted by littleLebowski at 01:56 PM on July 23
"this be the last thread on the front page"
With much respect, scully, I don't "get" this stance. Why avoid SpoFi for a period of time or beseech the rest of the site, when you essentially have the ability to "change the channel"? Simply don't open these threads and focus on the other commentary here that you seem to value.
And claiming that this isn't relevant to a sports site reminds me of the critics saying that the NCAA shouldn't have been involved in punishment because this situation wasn't football-related. That latter sentiment is utter horseshit. The coverup was purely to maintain the perceived prestige of Paterno, the football program, and the university, with the end-goals being to keep Penn St football a desirable destination for recruits and continue to win football games. The lack of morals and the desire and ability to cover something like this up represents a "competitive advantage" because I can't fathom many other programs or universities being willing to guarantee their spot in hell, just in the hopes of not losing a couple recruits. This isn't JUST a football thing (lord, I wish it was), but it sure as hell is AT LEAST a football thing. This inability to recognize the full scope of the issue is exactly the reason the NCAA HAD to step in.
"just seems to create an untenable position for a school"
Untenable, really? Difficult, maybe. Yes, the police and prosecutors let everyone down in 1998. That doesn't eliminate Penn St. from doing what is "right". And I don't think "right" smells like granting someone who you're pretty damn sure is a child predator with a sweet retirement package and continued access to your university. Couldn't the appropriate actions taken by Penn St be conversations such as a) "Police and prosecutors, you might think you're doing Penn St a favor be sweeping this away, but please don't go soft on this guy on our account." and b) "Sandusky, we can't take criminal law into our own hands, but there is the gate leading out of this university. Walk through it, never look back, never set foot on these grounds again, and by god, if we even catch a whiff of you being up to no good ..."
Certainly not a fun situation to find yourself in as a university, but to say you can't do anything about it ... BS.
posted by littleLebowski at 10:54 AM on July 23
"just seems to create an untenable position for a school"
Untenable, really? Difficult, maybe. Yes, the police and prosecutors let everyone down in 1998. That doesn't eliminate Penn St. from doing what is "right". And I don't think "right" smells like granting someone who you're pretty damn sure is a child predator with a sweet retirement package and continued access to your university. Couldn't the appropriate actions taken by Penn St be conversations such as a) "Police and prosecutors, you might think you're doing Penn St a favor be sweeping this away, but please don't go soft on this guy on our account." and b) "Sandusky, we can't take criminal law into our own hands, but there is the gate leading out of this university. Walk through it, never look back, never set foot on these grounds again, and by god, if we even catch a whiff of you being up to no good ..."
Certainly not a fun situation to find yourself in as a university, but to say you can't do anything about it ... BS.
posted by littleLebowski at 10:54 AM on July 23
That's likely the most appropriate response any of the original Dream Team-ers could've offered. Well done, Mr. Bird.
posted by littleLebowski at 07:22 PM on July 12
there's a legitimate point to be made about someone being both judge and jury.
That might be a fun discussion ,but then they should've made that point before agreeing to it in the CBA. Your judge-and-jury stance is fair, in a vacuum, but that's not what this grievance is about - not just my opinion, but look at the details of the grievance. So, turns out out to be simply "even thought we allowed it in the CBA, we don't like anything-Goodell, plus we have to stand up for our players, who feel they got the shaft (even though what they participated in is afront to other players), so we're throwing a couple loopholes against the wall and hope they stick." That's why, despite an acknowledgement of the union's purpose, some folks might have a foul taste from this kind of gamesmanship.
posted by littleLebowski at 12:40 PM on May 04
AL East : NY
AL Central : Detroit
AL West : Texas
AL WC 1 : Anaheim
AL WC 2 : Tampa
NL East : Philly
NL Central : Cinci
NL West : Arizona
NL WC 1 : Miami
NL WC 2 : LA
posted by littleLebowski at 01:52 PM on April 04
I haven't seen anything about them being warned.
From what I recall, there were inklings/rumors floating around about this, specific to the Saints, a couple years ago. The NFL looked into it but didn't find (or want to find, at that time) absolute proof, so they went to Saints ownership and management and said something like "we're pretty sure this is going on here; knock it off". Benson reinforced that to Loomis and the current perception is that Loomis, Payton, and Williams (any or all) essentially mooned the NFL and went on their merry way without addressing this at all.
posted by littleLebowski at 03:34 PM on March 21
They wouldn't be so dirty to Sanchez ...
Makes every second I read SpoFi worth it.
posted by littleLebowski at 02:37 PM on March 21
I am not the biggest imbecile on the planet.
This thread was worth reading, just for that quip.
posted by littleLebowski at 09:42 AM on March 20
I'm not following your question ... the intent for bypassing of the public school system seems immaterial. I think the question is simply, if you choose to not participate in the applicable public school's academics, do you have the right to its other "activities"? If you're point is that "what difference does it make whether we're talking home-schooled or parochial, I'll give you that. I don't know that there was a sound difference between parochial and homeschooling; it was just a mental exercise. On the other hand ... Interesting callout, opel70. I wasn't aware of those kinds of arrangements. So, that seems to further support a home-schooled student to be able to have access to the public school's athletics (or band, theater, or other programs). My point was simply that it "felt like" crossing the line to go to a "competing, formal" educational environment and then cherry-pick the public school system. And, based on your comments, at least in part, I'm hearing less-and-less solid justification to exclude home-schooled kids from public school activities.
I'm not seeing this as "a la carte government services". Maybe an analogy, is ... my tax dollars go in part to community infrastructure, including roadways and public transportation. If I choose to not use the city bus system (aka, public schools) and decide to use my own car (homeschooling), does that mean I'm not allowed to drive on city streets or use city bike paths (public school athletics)?
posted by littleLebowski at 04:41 PM on February 10
We've seen this kind of thing before ... officials unaware of an infraction or not wishing to do anything about, until the opposing team brings it up (I remember a thread on here a while ago about a women's softball team losing a game because the game-winning homerun hitter hugged her 3rd base coach while rounding the bases, or something).
The comments beneath the article provide more insight than the actual article. Sounds like the opposing AD showed up part of the way through the game, noticed the "odd" uniforms, and approached his own coach about it, who in turn went to the officials. The technical foul resulted in a lead change but the whistleblowing team ended up winning by a decent margin. But, who knows the full effect.
Yeah, "rules are rules" and "if you allow this, then where do you draw the line", blah, blah. To me it boils down to : if it wasn't glaring enough that the officials caught it on their own and/or has a direct impact on that game, then get some perspective and keep your trap shut, otherwise you look like (and probably are) an asshat.
posted by littleLebowski at 02:49 PM on February 10
It might be one thing if a taxpaying but homeschooling family would try to pull a stunt where they try to say "we pay school levy taxes, and since we don't use the schools, we want to receive some other public service in exchange". But, in these cases, although it still feels hinky to me, they're actually just utilizing something that would otherwise be at their disposal.
On the other hand, this potential slippery-slope just popped into my mind ... What if a taxpaying family who had consciously decided to bypass the public school system in favor of a parochial school, but upon realizing that the local high school would provide greater exposure for their child, they want to have him/her still receive their education from the parochial but play sports for the public school team? I don't think that would fly at all. (It's admittedly on-the-fly thought and may easily be debunked.)
posted by littleLebowski at 01:44 PM on February 10
SportsFilter: The Sunday Huddle
Former referee Mike Pereira clarified that while it is not allowable in the rules, there is no penalty.
That's precious. So, do it and you're only on the receiving end of a finger-wag? When I questioned dyams, it was purely out of curiosity. As a Brown's fan, I long ago swore in blood to forever hate the Ravens, and the practice kick "felt" wrong. So, I agree - that should be sured up in the offseason.
But, I don't have a problem at all with the "practice kick" after a late icing timeout - within reason. Like others have said, anything that discourages that childish practice is fine by me. But, maybe a solution is to have an official stand between the snapper and holder and then leave the "pocket" after the line is set. That way, the rule could be "you can still be an asshat and call a timeout whenever you want, but if you call it after the official steps away, the kicking team gets to take that practice shot." but at the same time, the kicker can't abuse the situation if the timeout is called in undeniably plenty of time.