"Hi America, we've got nothing!"

The latest Dodge commercial is pretty sad. The founding fathers, scaring off the British with Dodges. "Our cars aren't very good, but...IF YOU DON'T LIKE THIS YOU MUST BE A SISSY OR HATE FREEDOM. 'MERCA!"

Meanwhile: Chevy, Chevy, Chevy.

For those who can't read the tiny print on this ad for their Cruze (curse you blogger, and your photo compression), it says, "Like a Civic, but with everything you want." HARF HARF HARF. Yeah, like the benchmark of dependability and value over the past 20 years, except our cars are nothing like that, so instead here are some gadgets like navigation systems to distract you from this industry fact. Besides, don't they know, you don't tug on Superman's cape?

These two ads are the new template for American car companies. They are well aware they can't compete with Honda, Nissan, and Toyota (even post-sudden acceleration scandal), so they appeal to all they have left: Patriotism, the past, and/or hoping the consumer doesn't know better.

What now?

It took over 72 hours, but I think I've found a positive spin to be put on the Giants' collapse Sunday against the Eagles. It's not that champions have come back from "rock bottom" losses. That's true, but...been there, done that. And this was more a gut-punching loss than a rock bottom loss.

It's simply: Wake-up call. They can learn from it, use it as a rallying point, and come back more determined. The closest comparison I can make to this game, is not the "Miracle at the Meadowlands" (that game decided nothing but draft status for a sub-.500 Giants team), but the 2002-03 Wild Card loss to San Francisco. In it, they led by 24 points late in the 3rd quarter only to let the 49ers come all the way back, and also lost that game on a special teams gaffe.

So, better to learn this lesson (if you have to learn it, I suppose) in the regular season, than in the postseason. As for whether they'll rise to the occasion and come out fighting in Green Bay, or let the collapse define them...we'll find out Sunday.

And while I'm here, I'd also like to put to rest any notion that the best case scenario for the Giants is to miss the playoffs, fire Coughlin, and hire Bill Cowher. I like Bill Cowher, but Coughlin is a proven winner too. Plus, this is a team built to win now. A new coaching staff means a change of schemes, likely on both sides of the ball. That usually takes years for a team to master - and that's for the players who are even kept around. What if Cowher wants to play a 3-4 defense like he had in Pittsburgh, and half the Giants' defensive personnel aren't a good fit for that? There is no reason to go down that rebuilding road any time soon. The best case scenario is to win with what they have, and I think they can still do it.

Mild annoyance

You know how in advertising, usually with testimonials, they'll do the thing where they use a real person, and give their first name and initial of their last name? Example:

"This product worked great for me"

-Mike P., from Toronto

Well, I think they're stupid. Specifically, including the last initial is stupid. It adds nothing, and just strikes me as really cheesy and hacky.

If you're not going to use the person's full last name, why bother with an initial at all? Does market testing indicate that if you aren't going to learn someone's complete last name, at least if you know the letter it starts with you'll trust them way more or something?

On being at peace with fandom

What a turnaround the Giants have had. It's hard to believe that less than two months ago, this same team suffered two consecutive "rock bottom" losses to the Colts and Titans. Since then, they've looked dominant and almost unstoppable.

I have no good transition here, so I'll just say this is where I shift the focus to my own fandom. I have a self-created problem that I've never had in any other sport. I've been a Yankees fan since I was a young child, when they were awful. I never strayed. I don't really have an NBA team or a hockey team. And I have not much more than a passing interest in college sports. However, when it comes to the NFL, after having dated three teams over the course of my life, I still didn't feel quite right about calling myself a Giants fan. I didn't feel like I had earned it. Until this weekend.

First, some background. You'll recall here over two years ago when I pledged my full allegiance to the Giants. Re-reading it now, I don't even like my tone there - too much negativity about the Jets, rather than what I liked about the Giants.

The team of my childhood was the Giants. In 1990 they captivated me at age 9 with what was, until January 2008 of course, the greatest Super Bowl ever. I vaguely recall awareness of the 49ers-Bengals Super Bowl being on TV two years earlier, but this was the first sporting event I vividly remember watching. But then Bill Parcells retired, the Giants had some down years, and I began to look elsewhere. I flirted with the team of my father and grandfather, the Steelers. And quite honestly I'll always have a soft spot for them, thanks mostly to that side of my family, and to watching NFL Films make the Steelers dynasty of the 70s appear magical and larger than life. I was genuinely happy for them when they won Super Bowls XL and XLIII. In 1997, I came over to the Jets with Parcells. I thought it was okay at the time. I didn't ask any fellow Giants fans about it - or maybe I didn't want to know - but that's what I did. I had great years with the Jets. Curtis Martin is still my favorite player of all time, and I don't regret the time I spent rooting for him. But when Curtis retired, and the joyless Eric Mangini era began, I knew my time was finished there. They weren't really my Jets anymore. The change didn't happen overnight, but when they jettisoned Chad Pennington for the ol' Dongslinger, that tipped the scale for good.

Anyway, back to my realization. It began on Friday, when I presented my lady friend with a series of complicated options on how we could juggle visits to both our parents' houses but not miss the Giants-Seahawks game. (This wasn't really so she wouldn't miss the game...this was so I wouldn't miss the game.) I then realized, if I care this much about not missing a single snap of this game, I truly deserve to believe I'm a fan without feeling unworthy. I'm living it.

Sure, you can go through photos of me over the years, and see me wearing apparel for three different teams. But I'm okay with it now. This is about the present. Don't be afraid to love again! (Okay, so maybe I couldn't help but gay it up just a little.)

And on another poorly transitioned note, I wouldn't be surprised if Super Bowl XLII - again, the greatest victory in the history of sports - creates an entire generation of Giants fans the way the mid to late 1970s created an entire generation of Steelers fans. Super Bowl XLII was that powerful for me, and I was 26. If that's your first strong memory of football as a lad of maybe 8 or 9 years, how can you not love that?

(Lack of) Cable update

You may recall I touched on this subject about a year ago. Today, the whole Fox vs. Cablevision thing in New York makes me want to revisit how awesome it is to be free from cable. To date, I'll estimate that I have now saved $680 since my decision last summer to not get cable when I moved into my house last June (17 months, times $40 a month...and that's a low estimate I think).

For the most part, I don't miss it. Though I'll tip my cap to Hulu, SouthParkStudios, and my workplace having cable, for making it a lot easier. Otherwise, all hail the $30 HD antenna you can get from Best Buy or any similar store, which allows reception of all network stations with crystal clarity. What an age we live in.

Taiwanese news service, you've done it again

From my friend Joe, yet another spectacular Taiwanese news animated reenactment. This time, the Charlie Sheen hotel incident. They've got to keep these coming.

Keep up the good work Taiwanese news service, whoever you are

You may recall they did an animated recreation of the Tiger Woods cover-up last year. You may recall how hilariously awesome it was. Now, they've given the Brett Favre saga the same treatment.
This begs the question, what scandal should they cover next?

Among eventual champions, "rock bottom" loss rare but not unprecedented

The Giants looked disgraceful at Indy last night. They were flat, uninspired, and gave up two of the easiest touchdowns you'll see in the NFL: A 1st quarter 7-yard Donald Brown TD run where no Giants' defender got within 5 yards of Brown - the kind of play where, if you were playing Madden and were purposely positioning all your defenders as far away from the play as possible, one of them still would have wandered closer to Brown than the Giants came during this play...then in the 2nd quarter, they let the Colts' most sure-handed yet slowest receiver, TE Dallas Clark, get behind everyone down the middle of the field for an easy 50 yard TD. The Giants allowed 410 yards in all, and lost 38-14.

So where is the positive spin on this blowout loss? In trying to put it into perspective, I thought about how some teams that would go on to win titles, have faced this kind of embarrassment before. The best example is probably the 1994 49ers. They lost in Week 5 to Philadelphia, 40-8, during which Steve Young was benched. Those Eagles weren't world beaters either - they would finish 7-9 in '94. The 49ers went on to win 10 of the final 11 regular season games, and rout the Chargers in the Super Bowl.

Other, less dramatic examples of eventual champions looking awful:

1974 Steelers: Shut out at home by Oakland, 17-0, in Week 3. Went on to stomp those same Raiders in the playoffs, on their way to a Super Bowl IX victory over Minnesota.

1979 Steelers: Lost 34-10 at Cincinnati in Week 7. The Bengals had come into that game 0-6, and would finish 4-12. Pitsburgh used the loss as a wake up call, went 12-4, and beat the Rams in Super Bowl XIV.

1992 Cowboys: Beaten 31-7 at Philadelphia in Week 5, following their bye. Finished 13-3 and blew out Buffalo in Super Bowl XXVII.

2006 Colts: Dropped a Week 14 matchup at (eventual) 8-8 Jacksonville, 44-17. It was their 2nd loss in a row, and they'd go on to lose at 6-10 Houston two weeks later. Won Super Bowl XLI over Chicago.

2007 Giants: Several ugly losses, including an 0-2 start in which they gave up a combined 80 points to Dallas and Green Bay, a 41-17 loss in Week 12 to Minnesota (eventually 8-8) at home, and, even when it appeared they had things figured out late in the year, a Week 15 home loss against Washington, 22-10. So several terrible defensive performances, by the unit that would go on to shut down the most prolific offense ever, in the greatest Super Bowl ever.

I'm not saying an embarassing loss means a team is going to win a championship...but it doesn't necessarily disqualify a team from one either.

(Photo courtesy of Kissing Suzy Kolber.)

What would Public Enemy say about Week 1?

If there was a theme in Week 1 in the NFL, it was "Don't believe the hype." Let's take a look at a few highly touted, trendy-pick teams and how they fared.

*New York Jets: The Super Bowl pick of many, 9-7 a year ago with a miracle run to the AFC Championship, they were shut down by Baltimore. 9 points, 5 first downs, 1 Braylon Edwards beard. Apparently you also need an offense to win consistently in the NFL.

*San Francisco 49ers: In spite of no reason to think they are improved, annointed as the new NFC West favorite (though that's not saying much). They got clobbered 31-6 by Seattle. Yes, Seattle. When will Mike Singletary learn that acting all tough and wearing a stopwatch around your neck, isn't really coaching or strategy?

*Oakland Raiders: Supposed to be vastly improved. I bought into this somewhat, picking them to go 6-10, and I still think they'll win their fair share of games at home. But other than adding Jason Campbell, they're still the Raiders. They were smacked in Tennessee, 38-13.

Week 1 just goes to show - when you're presented with a disagreement between seemingly undeserved hoopla, and common sense, trust your gut. And don't believe the hype.

2010 NFL Preview

So apparently there's a football league that begins play tonight, or something? Yes, at long last, the NFL is back. Various NFL Films treats on Hulu have helped me to pass the long summer, but nothing beats a new season.

This will be my 3rd year of predictions in this space. Here are my previews from 2008, and 2009, for mockery's sake.

I thought quite a bit about how to approach my Super Bowl pick. I almost bogged myself down with too many rules: Don't pick prior participants because that's too easy, don't pick teams that are popular choices among others, and don't pick any teams you have a personal affinity for. But if you impose too many of these limitations, you're left picking the Raiders against someone from the NFC West. So every option is on the table. Rules? THERE ARE NO RULES!!! And away we go...

2010 Predicted NFL Standings

AFC EAST

New England 11-5
NY Jets 10-6*
Miami 9-7
Buffalo 3-13

TOTAL: 33-31 (Last season: 32-32)

Until the Patriots fall flat on their faces (a day I look forward to), I can't go against them. I can't ignore the Jets as a contender either, but expectations are sky high and Mark Sanchez still has a lot to learn - starting of course with how to not throw almost twice as many interceptions than touchdowns. Miami will be good. Buffalo will not.

AFC NORTH

Pittsburgh 11-5
Baltimore 10-6*
Cincinnati 6-10
Cleveland 5-11

TOTAL: 32-32 (Last season: 33-31)

Roethlisberger's suspension is only 4 games, and Pittsburgh's reasonable early season schedule will help them stay where they want to be. And this team just seems to thrive with lower expectations. The Ravens, like the Patriots, are always around. The Bengals, with Owens and Ochocinco together, are bound to implode. The Browns are the Browns.

AFC SOUTH

Indianapolis 12-4
Houston 10-6
Tennessee 8-8
Jacksonville 5-11

TOTAL: 35-29 (Last season: 37-27)

Houston closes a lot of ground, but they're still at least a year away from finally dethroning the Colts. Not much going on with the Titans and Jags, but the difference between these two teams is Jeff Fisher's consistency: only 4 losing seasons in 15 as head coach. So even a weak Tennessee team being terrible is unlikely.

AFC WEST

San Diego 9-7
Denver 7-9
Kansas City 6-10
Oakland 6-10

TOTAL: 28-36 (Last season: 30-34)

Not much to get excited about here. Norv Turner's Chargers will again win the division by default, only to exit the playoffs early. Oakland will improve the most, mainly thanks to the addition of the capable Jason Campbell. The Broncos and Chiefs are just kind of, eh, "there."

----------------------

NFC EAST

NY Giants 11-5
Dallas 11-5*
Philadelphia 10-6
Washington 8-8

TOTAL: 40-24 (Last season: 34-30)

A couple weeks ago, I talked about the reasons why the Giants should be better, even agreeing with Peter King in the process. They're healthy - the biggest acquisition in the NFL might have been the Giants getting Kenny Phillips back from injury - they added more depth to the defensive line, they replaced ineffective defensive coordinator Bill Sheridan with Perry Fewell, and a mostly young offense that was never the problem, is still intact. It will be a close race, but they'll win the NFC East over Dallas and Philadelphia, who won't look much like Super Bowl contenders for many weeks at a time, but will hang around. In Washington, bringing in Bruce Allen and Mike Shanahan to run things, replacing dum dum Vinny Cerrato and poor, overmatched Jim Zorn, is worth at least 4 wins alone. And McNabb is an upgrade over Campbell, though not as much as people might think. The Redskins will be a .500 team, with or without Haynesworth.

NFC NORTH

Green Bay 11-5
Minnesota 10-6*
Detroit 7-9
Chicago 4-12

TOTAL: 32-32 (Last season: 32-32)

I see Aaron Rodgers taking another step forward, this time to MVP status. While I see the Vikings taking a slight step backward. This will be the year Favre doesn't start all 16 games. I have a couple friends who are Lions fans, and I think they'd be delighted to see their team go 7-9, especially if it contains shows of promise by their young core. 4-12 for the Bears might be harsh, but if I can alter a quote from Joakim Noah..."What, you think Chicago's cool? What's so good about Chicago?"

NFC SOUTH

New Orleans 12-4
Atlanta 10-6
Carolina 8-8
Tampa Bay 4-12

TOTAL: 34-30 (Last season: 33-31)

I don't see any reason why the Saints can't be dominant again this year. The Falcons will again be tough, but again just miss the playoffs. Carolina just screams out "mediocre," and the Bucs are still years from being competitive.

NFC WEST

San Francisco 7-9
Arizona 6-10
Seattle 6-10
St. Louis 3-13

TOTAL: 22-42 (Last season: 24-40)

What can be said about this division that hasn't already been said about a dirty sidewalk in Calcutta?

PLAYOFFS!???

Wild Card Round:
Patriots over Ravens
Jets over Chargers
Packers over Vikings
Cowboys over 49ers

Divisional Round:
Colts over Patriots
Steelers over Jets
Giants over Cowboys
Saints over Packers

Championship Round:
Giants over Saints
Steelers over Colts

Super Bowl:
Giants over Steelers. That's right, I'm picking the Giants. Forget cautious optimism, forget not wanting to jinx your team, and forget the collapse of 2009. Do not be afraid to love again! Wooooo! And it's going to be all the sweeter when this comes true.

Finally, last season I think I said it well enough that it doesn't need changing, so I'll just repaste...

*And one final disclaimer: Reason # 13,661 that the NFL is so awesome, is that the landscape changes so quickly, and week-to-week it is like looking into a kaleidoscope. So, I fully expect that by week 2, these picks will look as dated as bellbottoms, long sideburns, or the goatee. (2010 add: or "Jersey Shore" references.)

Prediction Season!

It's a special time of year. The time when all kinds of prognosticators, with varying levels of direct access to the NFL, make bad predictions for the upcoming season - myself included. I'll have mine posted sometime before the start of the season. But for now I wanted to point out that Peter King picks the Giants (video embedded in Ross Tucker's column, for some reason) to win the NFC East. This terrifies me. And the fact that he puts together a solid argument why, terrifies me even more. But I'll set aside the obvious - that it's Peter King making the prediction, which means you should lean...no, run...in the other direction.

In 2007, the Giants thrived while little was expected of them. Coming into that season, they were seemingly a team in disarray, with coach Tom Coughlin on the hot seat. Of course, we all know what happened after that - only the greatest triumph in the history of organized team sports. On the other hand, in 2008 and 2009, they came in heavily favored, only to collapse.

Right now I have no clue what kind of Giants we'll see in 2010. But I'll try to keep my expectations low.

One network's bonehead mistake is another network's discovered gem

We saw two similarly colossal blunders made in broadcasting over the past year, and both have now been righted.

The first blunder happened in December 2009, when Steve Czaban's radio show, wildly successful for 7 years, was canned by Fox Sports Radio. I won't even mention his replacement beceause he doesn't deserve the publicity obtained by being mentioned on a sports blog with 7 readers, but trust me, he's been predictably awful since replacing Czabe.

The second came in January 2010, when NBC yanked Conan O'Brien from the Tonight Show after just 8 months, in favor of former host and current has-been Jay Leno. ("Ehhhhh, Kato Kaelin in the news again...")

Fast forward to August. Conan is less than 3 months from beginning his new late night show with TBS. And this glorious announcement came yesterday: Steve Czaban is returning to the morning sports radio landscape, joining the Sporting News Radio network in September.

NBC's and Fox's losses are examples of how arrogant, clueless network executives can screw up something that didn't need changing. But their losses are TBS's and SNR's gains, simply doing the common sense thing and scooping up tremendous talent that should have never become available in the first place.

The good news for TBS and SNR is, these common sense moves will pay huge dividends for years to come...provided they too don't screw up a good thing.

Today's free agent signing is tomorrow's expiring contract

For a General Manager in the NBA, the 2009-10 season was largely about expiring contracts. They just couldn't wait to get these bad deals off their books so they could go after the free agent class of 2010. If you listen to enough NBA General Managers, you'd think that these albatross-like contracts just magically appeared all over the league.

2010 was the biggest focus for freeing cap space, but it was hardly the first. We've been hearing this for a generation now. If a team could just get out from underneath these bad contracts, they could rebuild the right way and their problems would be over.

So what do they do when they're finally freed of these terrible contracts? Start being responsible? Nah...they use that cap space to sign more terrible contracts.

I have no problem with the top guys making $20 million a year. They are the ones bringing in the majority of the revenue. What does irk me though, are scrubs and also-rans getting $8, $10, or $15+ million. Also keep in mind, the NBA says it's feeling the recession. With that said, just look at some of the deals signed this summer:

Houston - Kyle Lowry - 4 years, $24 million. Career averages: 9.1 PTS, 4.5 AST, 39% FG.

Phoenix - Channing Frye - 5 years, $30 million. Career: 8.9 PTS, 4.7 REB.

Atlanta - Joe Johnson - 6 years, $119(!!!) million. For a non-difference-making 29 year old shooting guard.

Milwaukee - John Salmons - 5 years, $40 million. Career: 9.7 PPG, 3.0 REB, 2.3 AST. 30 years old.

New Jersey - Travis Outlaw - 5 years, $35 million. Career: 9.5 PTS, 3.4 REB. The Nets lost out on the marquee free agent sweepstakes...so hey, they've got to spend it on someone, right?

Toronto - Amir Johnson - 5 years, $34 million. Career: 4.7 PTS, 4.2 REB. I consider myself well-informed about the NBA and I have never heard of him before two weeks ago.

Minnesota - Darko Milicic - 4 years, $20 million. Career: 5.6 PTS, 4.1 REB. Sure, he's been a resounding bust everywhere he's gone...but WE CAN CHANGE HIM!

So, when it's 2015 or whatever and NBA GMs are giving you the "woe is us" routine over these very contracts, we'll know better. These contracts have to come from somewhere. As The Offspring once said, it all just happens again, way down the line...

The desert is hot now...who knew?

If you'll recall, last month I beamed about how mild the summer temperatures here in the desert had been up to that point. But now, I'm afraid there's nowhere to hide.

I don't quite have the "kinda-kidding-but-not-really" arrogance of Bill Simmons where I think I can jinx weather the way he can jinx NFL outcomes with his picks...but this is just more of an observation.

Here is how it's been the past 8 days:

87
90
91
91
89
84
91
85

Oops, those were the overnight lows. Let's try again:

106
108
110
108
107
106
107
105

Dagger.

Because I love anything from Steve Sabol

You might say that much like Michael Bolton falsely claimed in Office Space, I celebrate NFL Films' entire collection. So when I heard NFL Films President Steve Sabol filled in for NFL Buffoon Peter King at SI this week, I couldn't wait to read what Sabol had to say. He did not disappoint, touching on players he felt made the biggest impressions on him, the differences between follies, blunders, and bloopers, and why Hard Knocks is the most challenging show they do.

And I just love the way he wraps up the column:

I think I'd like to close with this: Erma Bombeck once said, "If a man watches three football games in a row, he should be declared legally brain dead." I say, "What a way to die."

Soccer jihadists, we're telling you for the last time...

First, a disclaimer. I don't require people to agree with me, but my plea is always that they argue fairly and within the bounds of logic. And when encountering someone who is genuinely misguided, it is important to respond fairly and logically, even if their position is mind-blowingly idiotic and they're not arguing fairly themselves. Just calling someone stupid won't convince them of anything. Therefore, there is value in practicing how to respond to a bad argument. With that said...

I came across this Youtube video via Uproxx: If George Carlin's Baseball and Football was a 75-yard touchdown pass, then this weak offering by John Cleese about football and soccer is a feeble Monty Burns throw that lands right at his feet as he lets out a lifeless, "feh." Among the cutesy, yet strangely disdain-soaked arguments made:

*Football has breaks in action so TV can have commercials - even though football was invented like 50 years BEFORE TELEVISION.

*Soccer is "creative" (always the go-to saying of the soccer jihadist), like jazz music. (You know, the kind of jazz music where you get grazed in the chest and flop like you've been shot in the head.)

*Coaches call plays. Therefore football players don't use their brains at all. (Interesting. Do you think strategy and playcalling makes for a better quality game, or worse? Would it be better to send the players out to the field with no plan whatsoever? "Alright men, just go out there and be creative.")

*Generic "Dick Cheney is bad" joke. (Even Jay Leno thinks Cheney jokes are tired. "Ehhhh, Monica Lewinsky in the news again...")

I'm not going to blame Cleese fully because maybe he was told to say everything as part of this show, but come on. Other than the name being "foot-ball" he's got nothing. And even then, his beef is with whoever named it in the late 19th century. I wouldn't have chosen "football" myself, but in fairness to the founders, when the game was invented field goals were worth more points than touchdowns so there was more emphasis on kicking than there is today. And near as I can tell, the title came from when the split was made between "association football" (note the "s-o-c" in association), and "rugby football," which was shortened to just "football."

Worst of all, it's supposed to be funny but just isn't. I'd gladly shrug off all the vertebrae-breaking reaches if there were some laughs involved.

The World Cup gives soccer the stage every 4 years to show us just how lame and boring it really is. The reason Americans don't like soccer is that we simply invented better sports.

It's funny how football fans are secure enough to not have to entertain comparisons between the two sports; yet so often we see soccer fans going out of their way to tell us how much better soccer is than American tackle football. As Shakespeare once wrote, "The lady doth protest too much, methinks."

So please, for the last time soccer fans, enjoy your World Cup but try to tone down the inferiority complex - it's unbecoming. Only 32 days until camps open...

Colin Curtis: A reminder of why we love sports

A special moment in Phoenix last night, as Yankees rookie Colin Curtis, just called up two days ago, got his first major league hit - an 8th inning two-run double to deep center - in a 9-3 win over Arizona. Curtis is a 2006 4th round pick from Arizona State University who overcame testicular cancer at age 15.

Seeing him earn a once-in-a-lifetime experience, with his family in attendance, just made me think that this is the kind of heartwarming feeling sports can deliver sometimes.

It's good to keep stories like that of Curtis in mind, when hearing about how Albert Haynesworth and his $21 million signing bonus didn't report to Redskins minicamp because they couldn't lure him with a big enough bacon and cheese cart.

Here's to this being the start of a long and prosperous career for Colin Curtis.

Fun with heat

It's the first day of summer, but here in the desert this rarely marks any type of significance. Most years we're well into triple digit temperatures by now, and usually have been for about a month.

However, this year has been different. The unseasonably cool April and May were absolute gifts. I didn't use my home's air conditioner until late May, and in this region that's almost unheard of. June has also been - dare I say - "not so bad," with highs most days in the upper 90s. And even when it's topped 100, it's been in the 101-103 range. Again, I can't believe I'm saying this, but that's not so bad. At least not compared to insane 110-115 degree heatwaves, which we're sure to see every summer for at least a few days at a time. Sure, 100 is hot, and 115 is hot, but failing to recognize a difference would be another good old line drawing fallacy.

The Farmer's Almanac long range forecast predicted this June would be 5 degrees below average, and so far they're spot-on. But what about July-September, which are expected to be just as bad as usual? Don't you worry, I've got a positive spin to put on that.

You see, I usually count April and May as part of the heat. And the pain usually leaves as September comes to an end. That makes 6 hot months out of 12 we're working with. Two of them are over, and the 3rd is almost over. Why, after this week we're right on July's doorstep!

So we've barely faced any awful summer heat thus far, and I'm declaring it half-over. Do you like how I did that?

Me neither. See you (outdoors) in October.

Why I don't have facebook

Facebook has taken the internet by storm over the past couple years. Everybody's doing it. Your boss, your grandma, everybody. ("Stan, why didn't you friend your grandma?") It's essentially the same thing as myspace (more on that later), but I used this transition period of the herd moving from myspace to facebook, as the perfect way to quietly slip out of the social networking business. I love the freedom and privacy, and I don't plan on coming back. Many people ask me why I'm not on it though, and I feel it deserves mentioning here. Not only as a personal explanation, but as a service to those who might be on the fence.

I know I'm out on a limb here. This isn't like saying "Brees is better than Manning," where most people can see both sides and it's maybe a 60% majority I'm going against. While I'm aware that there are people - wise people - who are leaving by the thousands, I know I'm part of about 10% vs. 90%.

So here we go! First, a couple disclaimers:

*Didn't you used to have a myspace?

Yes, and I don't regret it. That was a nice little two year era that helped me pass time while working weekend overnights before I got a house, a job with more responsibility, and in general a busier life. I won't go all the way and say I don't have any time for it - but I don't have as much free time anymore, and certainly not enough to where I'd want to spend it on facebook.

*What about this very blog?

There is a vast difference between a (mostly) sports blog, and facebook - in privacy levels (notice there are no full names, photos, birthdates, or other personal information anywhere to be found here), and in time commitment (with 4-6 posts a month, I admittedly don't devote as much time to this as I could). Failure to recognize the difference would be to fall victim to what the logic community calls a line drawing fallacy; they're not the same, and it isn't an "all or nothing" proposition.

Speaking of myspace, I find it hilarious when someone who is currently all about facebook, will go out of his or her way to rip myspace and say how stupid and worthless it is. I'm afraid this is common in human nature - it's easiest to condemn something that you yourself have overcome...or something you feel are in no danger of doing yourself. Like the insecure person who says, "Not only am I not gay...I hate gays!" Again, this isn't everyone, or even the majority of social network users, but I've heard it enough that it resonates with me. Where will these folks go when the next big site comes along? I bet they'll leave facebook for it, then talk about how lame facebook is/was.

Now, my friends and family don't really use facebook in the narcissistic "Hey everybody, look at me!" way, so I'm going to skip that argument here. But another problem I have is that many seem to feel facebook can take the place of real communication. Social networking communication can be misinterpreted, or missed altogether. A couple weeks ago I had a friend who wanted to put an event together. Whereas he used to email me personally, this time he only sent it via facebook, perhaps thinking it's now his "one-stop-shop" for friend communication. It did get to my girlfriend, but she misunderstood what it was. So if it wasn't for the fact that I called him on the phone out of the blue last week - something friends actually used to do - I may have missed the event altogether.

Still don't accept my reasons? How about this: Facebook owns everything you post...forever...even if you take it down. I don't know about you, but that gives me the willies.

If you're my friend, I hope you'll respect my desire to not have facebook. Please communicate with me directly - I don't care so much whether it's by email, phone, text, or singing telegram...just don't assume facebook is the only way to communicate anymore. I'll never say never, but I can safely say I won't be joining unless I can find a way to make it comfortable for me - such as by using an alias, by creating a page as a different person altogether, like movie hero Zap Rowsdower, or by simply not sharing enough information that it's all a good hacker needs to steal my identity. But it's still a long shot.

Thanks for reading, and happy facebooking. By the way, it saddens me that "facebooking" is used as a verb...

Sometimes, you just don't get to gloat, revisited again

Last year, I talked here and here about how the very nature of something slowly fading away, rather than ending with a singular win/loss type of event, robs us of that "gotcha" moment where you'd get to gloat about it to those whose prediction was incorrect.

Well, remember all that panic over how home runs were flying out of the new Yankee Stadium at an alarming pace...like after one week...and how much hand-wringing was done over it? How did that turn out?

Does the NFL know about this?

I'm sure most of you knew this before I did, so I hope I'm not going all Peter King on you here ("Hey, I just saw Saving Private Ryan, that's a pretty good movie"). But I just discovered this, and it's spectacular. The NFL section of Hulu.

Every "Super Bowl Highlights" show. An "America's Game" feature on every Super Bowl winner. Greatest Games. Hard Knocks. Game of the Week, going back to over 10 years ago. A section for each team. I feel like I'm stealing, or that the NFL will take all this down as soon as they find out I'm watching it.

I will no doubt spend countless hours between now and September watching these features, to the point where others who care about me will have to pry me away with a pretty good amount of force.

Bad sports logic strikes again

I have always felt the layperson has nothing to apologize for, or to be ashamed of, when giving genuine sports analysis the way he or she sees it. I often hear regular people bullied off their point by the supposed trump card, where the other person (usually a current or ex-jock but not always) says something like "What do you know, you never played in the NBA/NFL/MLB..."

We the commoners should never be shy to have a view, even if we've never played at a high level. If we watch enough games, and understand the sport, we can have valid and meaningful analysis. Especially if we can easily look at records and/or statistics to back up our arguments.

This sort of leads into another example of poor sports logic I grow weary of: The bitter old man. Even if he was legitimately great, he is not secure with his own legacy. As a result he'll take any opportunity to slight the players of today.

One recent sports dust-up combines elements from both example pools - from the New York Times, the Sayers/Butkus vs. Urlacher feud. In short, Gale Sayers says the Bears stink now, Brian Urlacher puts it in perspective by pointing out that Sayers never won anything, and Dick Butkus says Urlacher wasn't born yet, so what does he know?

True, Urlacher wasn't born yet, but he could use something called THE INTERNET, and see that indeed, the Bears with Sayers never made the playoffs. He could have even added that the Bears were under .500 during those years if he wanted to.

Mike Ditka then added in a radio interview, that had Sayers not gotten hurt, no one would ever be able to break his records. After another look at the Internet, (Pro Football Reference in this case), in Sayers' first 5 years before serious injury he rushed for these yardage totals (with rushing TDs):

867 (14)
1231 (8)
880 (7)
856 (2)
1032 (8)

I'm not sure I understand what kind of record pace Sayers was setting, but maybe Ditka thought Sayers was about to double these totals over the next 5 years had he stayed healthy. And Sayers only missed 5 games combined over those first 5 years. Could Ditka have been thinking of career yards per carry? 5.0 is damn good, but not a record, Jim Brown's 5.2 leads all running backs. (And that's not a volume stat anyway.) Maybe he meant a fumbles record, as Sayers coughed it up 34 times in 68 career games?

Ditka and Butkus came up in a time when there was no internet, so they probably feel they can make any claim and not be called on it. But come on fellas, times are different, people can actually check stuff now. No longer can you just say whatever you want and pass it off as a given.

The fun of saving draft day predictions

Mel Kiper Jr., on draft day 2007:

"JaMarcus Russell's going to immediately energize that Raider nation, that fan base, that football team, on the practice field, in that locker room. Three years from now, you could be looking at a guy who's certainly one of the elite top 5 quarterbacks in this league."

"And mobility's a little underrated."

"The skill level that he has is certainly John Elway-like."

That, or he's a lazy, bloated bust who's going to be cut in May of 2010...

(Photo courtesy of Kissing Suzy Kolber)

Are you sure about that?

I kid you not, I just heard these words come from Erin Andrews on Dancing With The Stars, and in fact I backed up the video just to make sure I heard her right.

On being in the "bottom two," facing elimination from the show: "That was the grossest feeling I've ever had."

Wow. (Blink. Stare. Blink.)

Another example of life imitating South Park

There are three television shows throughout history that I feel life imitates pretty much on a daily basis: The Simpsons, Seinfeld, and South Park. Sure, they also happen to be my three favorite comedies ever, but at least in my world that's how it goes. Anyway, I saw yet another imitation this week that I thought would be fun to explore...

There was a South Park episode a few years back called "Stanley's Cup," in which Stan coaches a rag-tag Pee Wee hockey team. Stan's team appears to be the subject of a movie script...until the very end when they are crushed in the championship game by the other team, who had their own movie going all along, and got their happy ending. I probably couldn't have worded that any worse, but if you've seen the episode you know what I mean. (And if you didn't, it doesn't matter anyway right?)

Anyway, in real life the hockey movie appeared to be about the Phoenix Coyotes. They were an underdog story all season, overcoming low expectations, threats of moving out of town, and an indifferent home fan base. But they had a big season, and as my friend Luke pointed out, it had all the makings of a Hollywood script.

On Tuesday, the Coyotes were crushed by the Detroit Red Wings, 6-1, in the 7th and deciding game of the Western Conference Quarterfinals. This exhausts my knowledge of the game of hockey, but my knowledge of South Park is what's driving this thing anyway. So all along, unbeknownst to Coyotes fans, it turned out the movie was about the Red Wings. (Maybe that movie was about how the city of Detroit's economy is in trouble, or that it's just kind of a dump overall or something.)

And even more ironic was that in the South Park episode, the opponent in the championship game was portrayed as the actual, professional Detroit Red Wings. They outscored Stan's Pee Wee team 30-0 in the 3rd Period - my hockey knowledge tells me Stan's 5 year olds were just physically overmatched.

Ridiculously early 2010 NFL schedule "win-loss" game

What fun would the 2010 schedule's release be without predicting a team's finishing record 4 1/2 months before the first game is played?

Before I get to the Giants, I'd like to clear up a couple myths about the NFL schedule. I have a feeling the percentage of fans who believe these is small - maybe 15-20% of fans - but I've heard both just within the past couple days so for what it's worth, let's help a few people here and there...

Myth 1: "Team X will have a tough year because they're playing a 1st place schedule."

There was a time when the "first place schedule" was a lot more meaningful, but in today's 8-division, 32-team NFL, it's a matter of two games. Which brings me to...

Myth 2: "Oh, Jets vs. Steelers, they scheduled that because of the Santonio Holmes trade."

Not only do just two games vary due to finishing order in the 16-game NFL schedule, but the NFL has control over exactly none of them. Here is how a team's schedule is put together:

*6 Division games (2 against each of 3 in-division opponents).
*4 Out of division, conference games (1 against each of 4 "dance partners" in that other division...for example, this year everyone in the NFC East plays everyone in the NFC North. Rotates every 3 years.)
*4 Out of conference games (again, 1 against each of 4 "dance partners"...this year, the NFC East plays the AFC South. Rotates every 4 years.)
*2 based on division finishing order, vs. in-conference team who finished in the same spot. The Giants finished third in the NFC East last season, so they'll get the third place team from the NFC West (Seattle), and the third place team from the NFC South (Carolina)

And there's your 16 games, folks! If I had to bet, I'd say all of my 4 or 5 readers already knew that, in which case this part was a waste of time. In any event, on we go to the wacky, meaningless, premature predictions! I'm basing the picks on current rosters, pre-NFL draft.

2010 Giants Regular Season Schedule:

Sept. 12 CAROLINA - W
Sept. 19 at Indianapolis - L
Sept. 26 TENNESSEE - W
Oct. 3 CHICAGO - W
Oct. 10 at Houston - L
Oct. 17 DETROIT - W
Oct. 25 (Mon.) at Dallas - W
Oct. 31 BYE
Nov. 7 at Seattle - W
Nov. 14 DALLAS W
Nov. 21 at Philadelphia - L
Nov. 28 JACKSONVILLE - W
Dec. 5 WASHINGTON- W
Dec. 12 at Minnesota - L
Dec. 19 PHILADELPHIA - L
Dec. 26 at Green Bay - L
Jan. 2 at Washington - L

So I've got 9-7, with another late season collapse (this time based more on schedule difficulty, contrasted with ought-nine when it was due to completely giving up on tackling, covering, and in general, life). The NFC East will be challenging as always, so 3-3 in-division seems about right. The split with Washington is due to them being improved, the sweep of Dallas is due to owning them in recent years (and the fact that I really dislike Dallas), and being swept by the Eagles is due to the continual nightmare of seeing DeSean Jackson at least 10 yards behind any member of the Giants' inept secondary, now led by inept Antrel Rolle. Playing Seattle and Carolina will help matters (hooray for the third place schedule, ironic isn't it?), though drawing the NFC North and AFC South makes for a tough group of opponents, save for the Lions and Bears.

And lacking here were adjustments for something you see from just about every team in a given season: winning a couple games they should have lost, and losing a couple they should have won. Upsets will happen. I just don't know where, so I don't believe in picking them here, as I feel that would be like a referee making one bad call, then later another bad call against the other team to make up for the first bad call.

Now all that's left is to actually play the games.

On silly baseball superstitions

I've heard about some Yankees fans getting miffed at Joe Buck and Tim McCarver for "jinxing" C.C. Sabathia's no-hitter by mentioning it while it was still going on (before being broken up in the 8th inning). These people aren't serious, are they?

We all know it's not just Yankee fans who follow ridiculous superstitions like this, and not all Yankee fans think alike, just like no other fan base in any sport thinks alike. But still, I have to admit I'm embarrassed. I really hope those who complained were just trying to be cute, ironic, or pay some sort of homage to the game's silly, traditional past. And if they were just joking, well then, as our beloved FJM once said, "I've taken the bait, and it's delicious."

So, if any of these people were indeed serious in thinking announcers can somehow jinx what's happening on the field, I'll offer them this plea: Please stop it. You're making Yankee fans look bad, and you're making yourself look like some 17th century dumbass who would also believe that a sneeze means your spirit is trying to escape, and that left-handed people are evil, and that we need to set people on fire to find out if they're witches.

McNabb to Redskins, revisited

Thanks to some interesting comments by loyal readers and more time to contemplate the trade, I feel like I have enough to say to merit revisiting the McNabb trade topic.

Age-related joking aside, I do think this move makes the Redskins immediately better. A .500 record this year isn't too much to expect, and if they can get 2 or 3 healthy seasons out of him, they could make a deep playoff run in that 2nd or 3rd year.

From the Giants fan perspective, this trade worries me too. The Redskins won't be two "gimmie" wins as they had been in recent years. Yet the Eagles don't seem that much worse, and could continue to have the Giants' number. (In my nightmares I still see DeSean Jackson catching bombs 10 yards beyond any Giants' defender.) Meanwhile, the Giants' big move so far has been signing Antrel Rolle...though they already had plenty of guys in the secondary who can't cover or tackle. (Boom, roasted, Antrel.)

McNabb trade

You so rarely see a star player traded in-division, but the Eagles had to be okay with trading Donovan McNabb to Washington simply because the Redskins overpaid. I think the price of a 2nd round pick this year - which alone would have been enough, arguably more than enough - along with a 3rd or 4th next year, will prove to be too much. Especially for a Redskins team that isn't quite "one player away," and is getting a 33 year-old, high-mileage player.

And I'll close this post with a hilarious comment from the guys at Kissing Suzy Kolber..."Together with Willie Parker, the Skins are now officially a contender to reach the 2004 Super Bowl."

Farewell, Shawn!

For my fellow wrestling fans, Shawn Michaels retired from the WWE this week after about 25 years of amazing performances. What a treat it was to watch him, and as far as both mic skills and in-ring performance go, he may have been the best ever.

Grammatical Nuisance #13,552

Phrases like, "Get at least 7-8 hours of sleep per night." Either it's a minimum of 7, or, if you think people should really have 8, make the minimum 8.

A sports example we often see is, "Chris Paul will be out a minimum of 4-6 weeks." If you're giving a minimum, it would just be 4 weeks. The 6 isn't necessary, unless that's truly the minimum, in which case you'd say he's out a minimum of 6 weeks. Or, if you feel that 4-6 weeks is the window of time he'll miss, you don't need the minimum part at all: "Chris Paul will be out 4-6 weeks."

Let's try to use the language we've all agreed upon.

Maybe the best line in the history of television

From last night's South Park...

Cartman (to Kenny): "Oh, dude, here come the cops. We gotta lie to them, hit X to lie."

Kyle: "Wow, I didn't know golf games were this cool."

Congrats, Galdi!

If you're up early on a Saturday morning, and enjoy radio sports talk, I highly recommend the premiere of Sports Saturday with Al Galdi, tomorrow at 9 AM Eastern, 7 Mountain, on WTEM 980 in Washington, D.C. You may remember Galdi as mostly the update anchor, on the terrific "Steve Czaban Show" (before the show was canceled by the dillweeds at the company that shall remain nameless, as their decision was so bad they do not deserve any publicity from me).

Anyway, Galdi is a rising star in the business and I am delighted he is beginning what I feel will be a long, prosperous career as a show host. Here is an article from the Washington Examiner detailing Galdi's promotion. And here is the link to WTEM's live streaming audio player. The station was recently made into an ESPN affiliate, but don't let that fool you; they're not technically owned by ESPN so they don't have to do things like purposely take the opposite sides of contrived arguments and yell at each other, or worship at the church of the holy athlete.

Because who doesn't love a good women's basketball brawl?

Yikes.

Now, much had been made of one of the players involved in this brawl, because she can dunk. I think women do themselves a disservice by reacting like this to women who dunk. You can't try to counter the argument that men are better by saying you play a different kind of game, with fundamentals and such...but then also be obsessed with trying to barely drop a dunk over the rim. You must pick one or the other.

Old cover-ups die hard

So Eldrick Woods is having his little pep rally tomorrow. We can't call it a press conference, since questions aren't allowed. But, with the proper credentials granted, reporters can watch from a bar a mile away, so they've got that going for them. No, this is only an assembly of Woods' "friends." It's kind of sad that ESPN and the rest of the sports media goes along with this, instead of refusing to carry this farce.

Nice try again, Urkel. You're only delaying your comeuppance, not canceling it. FAIL. Also, you're 1/3rd of a mediorce-to-good Ping Pong player, 1/64th of Curtis Martin right up until the end of his career, and 1/18th of David Eckstein (with 1/97th the amount of grit). Oh, and you're uglier than this guy. (Incidentally, that guy is married to the underrated Candace Parker. Who'd have thunk it, right?)

I wanted to spend more time crushing this dirt-bag, given new information such as the yet more women surfacing, but frankly it isn't worth that much of my computer time. I'll instead just relay a couple thoughts from others regarding what to expect tomorrow that I enjoyed - WTEM's Andy Pollin predicting that Woods has been working with an acting coach and will fake-cry...and author John Feinstein joking that pom-poms will be handed out at the door.

2009 NFL Predictions, Revisited

So I had Saints + 5 1/2, and the under. Let's get that out of the way, as it takes a little of the sting off of my mediocre predictions from September. And let me also say that while my picks were lame, they weren't Peter King bad. (Sure, anything can happen, but the Bears in the Super Bowl? The Bears???)

But saying I'm better than Peter King would be like pushing the weakest kid in school in the mud. Everybody knows you basically go in the exact opposite direction of whatever Peter King says. Let's look at how I did...(Predicted records in parenthesis.)

AFC EAST

New England 10-6 (12-4)
NY Jets 9-7* (9-7)
Miami 7-9 (8-8)
Buffalo 6-10 (8-8)

TOTAL: 32-32 (37-27)

GRADE: B+. Got the order and Jets' record right, but overestimated overall division strength. And bonus points for predicting the Dolphins' backslide after a cinderella 2008. As for the Bills, they wish they could have a .500 season!


AFC NORTH

Cincinnati 10-6 (6-10)
Baltimore 9-7* (10-6*)
Pittsburgh 9-7 (11-5)
Cleveland 5-11 (5-11)

TOTAL: 33-31 (32-32)

GRADE: C+. Close on division record. Predicted the Steelers' struggles. Said the Browns would be 5-11, but really, how hard is that? On the other hand, I sure didn't see the Bengals coming.


AFC SOUTH

Indianapolis 14-2 (10-6*)
Tennessee 8-8 (11-5)
Houston 8-8 (7-9)
Jacksonville 7-9 (8-8)

TOTAL: 37-27 (36-28)

GRADE: C. The Titans got red hot and almost made the playoff run I thought they would, but it was too little, too late. The Colts didn't take the moderate slide I expected. But, again I was close on overall division strength.


AFC WEST

San Diego 13-3 (9-7)
Denver 8-8 (5-11)
Oakland 5-11 (3-13)
Kansas City 4-12 (4-12)

TOTAL: 30-34 (22-42)

GRADE: C-. Almost had the order right, and was close on KC and Oakland. But when it comes to those teams, who cares? I'll avoid giving myself a "D" by virtue of saying the Chargers would again make a quick playoff exit in spite of winning their division easily.

----------------------

NFC EAST

Dallas 11-5 (11-5)
Philadelphia 11-5* (11-5*)
NY Giants 8-8 (11-5*)
Washington 4-12 (8-8)

TOTAL: 34-30 (41-23)

GRADE: C. This was looking like the best division in the league, as I predicted, but that fell apart in December thanks mostly to the Giants. Still, I hit the Cowboys' and Eagles' 11 win records and playoff appearances.


NFC NORTH

Green Bay 11-5 (11-5)
Minnesota 12-4 (9-7)
Chicago 7-9 (7-9)
Detroit 2-14 (4-12)

TOTAL: 32-32 (31-33)

GRADE: B. I've got to hand it to the ol' Gunslinger on a fine regular season. I was correct on Green Bay, and Chicago (take that Peter King, I just put your retainer on top of the chalkboard where you can't reach it), and was close on the Lions and total division record.


NFC SOUTH

New Orleans 13-3 (11-5)
Atlanta 9-7 (10-6)
Carolina 8-8 (10-6)
Tampa Bay 3-13 (5-11)

TOTAL: 33-31 (36-28)

GRADE: B-. Finishing order is essentially correct. And Atlanta took that projected, Miami-like step back. The Bucs were predictably awful, and Saints predictably good. But I sure didn't have the Saints winning it all.


NFC WEST

Arizona 10-6 (7-9)
San Francisco 8-8 (5-11)
Seattle 5-11 (5-11)
St. Louis 1-15 (5-11)

TOTAL: 24-40 (22-42)

GRADE: C. Predicted Arizona would win the division. (Woo, that was hard.) Pinpointed this would be again the worst division in the NFL. (Woo, hard again, really went out on a limb.) I think even the Matt Leinart-led Cardinals can continue to win this slop with their eyes closed for years to come.

So in general, a very average set of regular season predictions. Let's see how I did in the...

PLAYOFFS!???

AFC: 4 of 6 teams correct - Patriots, Ravens, Colts, Chargers.
NFC: 4 of 6 teams correct - Cowboys, Eagles, Packers, Saints.

Preseason Super Bowl prediction of Titans vs. Packers:
It didn't come close, but I'm not completely embarrassed. For a while the Titans were the hottest team in the league, and the Packers had a nice year. (And if they hadn't been hurt by a couple bad calls in their wild card game, who knows, they could have gone much farther.)

At least I didn't pick the Bears.

Super Bowl pick

If you're just joining us, I'm 3-1 ATS (Against the Spread, for you non-gambling perverts) in the past 4 Super Bowls. I had Pittsburgh - 3 1/2 over Seattle in 2005-06. I was correct in '07, taking the Colts -9 1/2. I was right two years ago taking the Giants +14 against the Patriots. (Have I mentioned lately that the Giants won the Super Bowl?) And I was wrong last year in taking Pittsburgh -7 over Arizona. So, we're hoping to get back on the right (Super) track, and I think the right play here is Saints, + 5 1/2.

I think the Colts will win the game, and I wouldn't be surprised if they covered the spread too. But on paper, we haven't had a Super Bowl this evenly matched in a while, and I just think 5 1/2 is a good value. Though it's only a slight lean. Also, in a contrarian play, I like "under" the posted total of 57. Wacky things happen in Super Bowls, so I don't think a shootout is quite the lock it seems to be.

On a personal note, I'll be feeling the most relaxed I've felt going into a Super Bowl in 7 years, as this is the first time since 2002-03's Bucs-Raiders matchup in which I don't really have a dog in the fight. No, I'm not a Panthers, Eagles, Colts, Giants, and Steelers fan; my amount of desire of course varied game-to-game on which team I wanted to see win. But I had my reasons each time.

So, this one should just be fun to watch, and I think of all 32 teams, it's the perfect matchup if you don't care who wins either. Though if I had to choose, I'd go for the Colts, as I'd like to see Manning take his rightful place among the greatest quarterbacks of all-time.

Enjoy the game, and we'll see what happens!

Grammatical Nuisance of the Season

I'd like to point out that Super Bowl is two words, not one run-on term. I am confident the vast majority of people already know this, but I've seen even die-hard sports fans write it as "superbowl." I don't think it's because they're any less intelligent; just that they probably haven't seen it written correctly, or taken notice of the right way.

So, go easy on these folks...but now they know, and no longer have an excuse.

Thanks for the laughs, Conan

I felt like I should throw in my final thoughts on the Conan-NBC-Leno triple threat match, so here they are. Conan's last show was fantastic, and his farewell speech was classy, interesting, and even inspiring. He really took the high road in this whole thing, and I'll certainly miss watching him...at least until he signs on with another network, which can't be far off. (I've heard it's 9 months, in his contract.)

Thanks for all the good times Conan, you're the best in the business.

And with this, I'm back on the "shoot" side again

This Conan clip was the first, at least that I've heard of, that was pulled from the air, by both NBC and Hulu. Thanks to the Huffington Post for having it.

As you read in my prior post, my main hang-up with the legitimacy of the NBC screwing Conan story was that they weren't censoring anything. Well, now they are, so I'm back to believing the feud is legit.

Favre/Leno revisited

I'll begin with a link today...Czabe's friend Skip Oliva does a great job of expanding my initial snap comparison of Jay Leno to Brett Favre.

Also today, after hearing from my good friend Andrew, I'm starting to lean towards thinking a lot of this feud, among Conan, Leno, and NBC, is planned. If I can go heavy on wrestling terms now - as after all, I do believe life imitates wrestling almost as much as it imitates Seinfeld, which is an awful lot - this whole thing could be a work. (Originally, I was 90% sure it was a shoot.)

In really thinking about it, who benefits the most from the fued? NBC. They're playing the heel here, yet they're in charge and making the most money off of the situation. Both shows' ratings are up since the controversy began. And with all the sniping from Conan and Leno, both at each other and at NBC, wouldn't NBC be able to silence them if they wanted to? Take them off the air completely, stop them from making any jokes at NBC's expense, or at the very least, have final edit of what jokes/skits make air? This thing is starting to smell.

Or maybe it started out as a shoot, and NBC is turning it into a work after the fact. At this point wouldn't that be their best move? Maybe they'll call the whole musical chairs thing off and keep Conan and Leno where they are. It takes more intelligence and guts to reverse-field on a terrible idea than to go through with it...and with the bump in ratings Conan and Leno have been experiencing since the controversy started, they could really be turning a negavite into a positive. Plus, NBC could pretend it was a work all along even if it wasn't, and not look so stupid.

I'm not convinced of any of this...I'm maybe 60% sure at best that it's all a work. But this thing could get interesting. Stay tuned!

Long overdue

It was about time they finally made a movie about the life and times of David Eckstein.

No word on when the sequel, entitiled "Grinder," will be released.

Have you heard about this, have you seen this?

It has occurred to me that Jay Leno is the new Brett Favre: Gets catered to, can't make up his mind about retiring, doesn't know when it's time to step aside, and makes the situation uncomfortable for everyone involved. (One difference though, Brett Favre is the better comedian of the two.)

Stay strong, Conan.

Dawson's Creek*

Former Expo, Cub, Red Sox, and Marlin Andre Dawson was voted into the Baseball Hall of Fame today. With seven seasons of an under .305 OBP (.323 OBP for his career), I'm lukewarm on his selection. Though I think it does give hope to fans of two superior position players of the same era, Tim Raines and Don Mattingly, on their future chances.

*Yes, I realize Dawson's Creek makes no sense in relation to Andre Dawson and is not a clever pun. But really, when am I going to get another chance to title a post thusly?

Movie pitch

A sassy mother has to take her two kids all the way across Canada in just 3 days, to make it to her husband's rap concert. But there is only one who knows the shortcuts to get there in time...and he's not even human! Starring Ice Cube, Queen Latifah, and introducing Mark Eaton as the Abominable Snowman, in...

Are We There, Yeti?