I can't help but listen to this song today...
i know we're going to meet some day
in the crumbled financial institutions of this land
there will be tables and chairs
there'll be pony rides and dancing bears
there'll even be a band
cause listen, after the fall there will be no more countries
no currencies at all, we're gonna live on our wits
we're gonna throw away survival kits,
trade butterfly-knives for adderal
and that's not all
ooh-ooh, there will be snacks there will
there will be snacks, there will be snacks.
Hopefully I won't need to trade butterfly knives for adderal.
But we shall see... I know the US market was up today, but that may not mean a whole lot. It's one day, and yesterday's fall was pretty big (3.5%). This article points out, correctly, that we're by no means out of the woods. Nor are we deep in the woods. Caution is probably the best course of action, but a day like yesterday was coming for a while now. The White House has done a fantastic job at racking up a huge debt and encourage US citizens to rack up huge debts too. China's economy has been so hot for so long that at some point it was going to slow down. And I've touched on the US economy not being nearly as strong as your political leaders would like you to believe for a while now.
Things are fixable here in the States. If the White House ever decided to encourage people to save, that would be a great start. Another idea is for the White House and Congress to realize that:
1) They can't keep spending like they have in the last five years. Who ever wins in 2008 has a mess on their hands.
2) At some point they are going to have to do something about medical costs, Medicare, and Medicaid.
Of course, DC is too busy fighting over what you can and can't watch on TV and other 'moral' issues that look fine in print, but matter little in the grand scheme of things.
28.2.07
23.2.07
The Who's Who of Who Has a Chance in 2008
This New York Times graph or blurb sums up who has a shot in 2008 (and honestly, I really really don’t walk to talk about the Presidential election for the next 20 months or whatever it is, but apparently we are going to have to do so because it’s the only some what positive thing to come out of DC right now; but isn't this insane? I mean Bush is still going to be President for a good amount of time, yet all anyone wants to talk about is 2008; maybe that says something about Bush come to think of it, people want to move on... the future seems brighter, a lot brighter). Anyway, I’ll break it down for you:
Democrats
No Chance:
Joe Biden
Chris Dodd
In Hot Water, in other words, probably in a lot more trouble that they think they’re in:
Hillary Rodham Clinton
On Thin Ice:
John Edwards
So You’re Saying I’ve got a chance:
Mike Gravel
Dennis Kucinich
Tom Vilsack
Frontrunners:
Barack Obama
Bill Richardson
In case you didn’t click on that link, this basically sums up where these candidates were on Iraq in 2003 and now today. Today they all oppose the war, but the ‘key’ is where they stood in 2003. Dodd has zero chance since he voted for the war and wants a phased redeployment. This will not go down well with Democrats in the primaries. Clinton’s in the same boat as Dodd, but I won’t move her into the no chance category because she’s got a lot more support, money, and all that jazz than Dodd. Biden is done since he: 1) voted for the war, 2) is an idiot. Edwards voted for the war, but he’s been anti-war since he lost the VP race, so I think he’s convinced some people that he never really supported the war. Gravel and Kucinich really have no shot, but since they’ve been against the war from the beginning, they’re going to appeal to some who were never big on the war to begin with. In other words, even though they’ve got pretty much no chance at being elected President, a voter may be more attracted to one of them than say, Clinton, because of Iraq.
That leaves Obama and Richardson. Obama’s been against the war from the get go so even if he supports a phased redeployment it's his plan and he can do no wrong in many people's eyes. He’s going to appeal to pretty much everyone because of his original stance. Richardson claims he’s against the war… and hey, why not?
One other note about Obama... has there ever been a "Great White Hope" to the degree that Obama is? I mean it's amazing... everyone on the left loves this guy and sees him as the one who will 'change' the country. I know I've never seen anything like it.
Republicans:
These candidates are much harder to ‘grade’ or ‘gage’ since the GOP is much more divided about how to handle Iraq and what to do in Iraq. I’m sure the candidates will figure out a ‘stance’ by April 2008, but right now, I can’t see a single GOP candidate winning the Presidential election besides Chuck Hagel. Iraq is so unpopular across the voting population in this country (and stories like this don’t help) that I can’t see a pro-war, pro-stay in Iraq candidate winning in 2008. That means guys like McCain or Giuliani can’t win considering their stance right now. And it’s going to be tough for McCain to get the nod from the GOP as it is… same with Giuliani. What does this mean for Mitt Romney? I have no clue. Same for Mike Huckabee. I still think that Chuck Hagel would win the GOP nod if he ever decides to run, but he’s probably too good of a guy to run for President.
Let me put it this way… I have no clue who’s going to win the GOP Nod. I could see Romney, Huckabee, Hagel, even some random entry who’s a bit off the radar right now getting the GOP nod. And as I said, I can’t gage how the ‘average’ GOP voter views Iraq. I’m sure it’s a mix of “Get the Hell Out and give me back that money you're spending with tax cuts”, “Well since we’re there…” and “STAY UNTIL THEY VOTE FOR THE PEOPLE WE TELL THEM TO VOTE FOR!” which makes it all the more difficult to figure out who’s has a chance in this race.
Anyway, I firmly believe that Iraq and each candidates position on Iraq is going to be the major factor in the 2008 election. I doubt it will be the #1 reason in exit polls in the general election, but in figuring out who’s going to face who in the general election, I can’t see an issue being bigger than Iraq at this point since there are so many different view points.
And I swear, I’ll get that Sox stuff up soon. But writing about the Sox is sort of like writing about Helen of Troy for this guy.
Democrats
No Chance:
Joe Biden
Chris Dodd
In Hot Water, in other words, probably in a lot more trouble that they think they’re in:
Hillary Rodham Clinton
On Thin Ice:
John Edwards
So You’re Saying I’ve got a chance:
Mike Gravel
Dennis Kucinich
Tom Vilsack
Frontrunners:
Barack Obama
Bill Richardson
In case you didn’t click on that link, this basically sums up where these candidates were on Iraq in 2003 and now today. Today they all oppose the war, but the ‘key’ is where they stood in 2003. Dodd has zero chance since he voted for the war and wants a phased redeployment. This will not go down well with Democrats in the primaries. Clinton’s in the same boat as Dodd, but I won’t move her into the no chance category because she’s got a lot more support, money, and all that jazz than Dodd. Biden is done since he: 1) voted for the war, 2) is an idiot. Edwards voted for the war, but he’s been anti-war since he lost the VP race, so I think he’s convinced some people that he never really supported the war. Gravel and Kucinich really have no shot, but since they’ve been against the war from the beginning, they’re going to appeal to some who were never big on the war to begin with. In other words, even though they’ve got pretty much no chance at being elected President, a voter may be more attracted to one of them than say, Clinton, because of Iraq.
That leaves Obama and Richardson. Obama’s been against the war from the get go so even if he supports a phased redeployment it's his plan and he can do no wrong in many people's eyes. He’s going to appeal to pretty much everyone because of his original stance. Richardson claims he’s against the war… and hey, why not?
One other note about Obama... has there ever been a "Great White Hope" to the degree that Obama is? I mean it's amazing... everyone on the left loves this guy and sees him as the one who will 'change' the country. I know I've never seen anything like it.
Republicans:
These candidates are much harder to ‘grade’ or ‘gage’ since the GOP is much more divided about how to handle Iraq and what to do in Iraq. I’m sure the candidates will figure out a ‘stance’ by April 2008, but right now, I can’t see a single GOP candidate winning the Presidential election besides Chuck Hagel. Iraq is so unpopular across the voting population in this country (and stories like this don’t help) that I can’t see a pro-war, pro-stay in Iraq candidate winning in 2008. That means guys like McCain or Giuliani can’t win considering their stance right now. And it’s going to be tough for McCain to get the nod from the GOP as it is… same with Giuliani. What does this mean for Mitt Romney? I have no clue. Same for Mike Huckabee. I still think that Chuck Hagel would win the GOP nod if he ever decides to run, but he’s probably too good of a guy to run for President.
Let me put it this way… I have no clue who’s going to win the GOP Nod. I could see Romney, Huckabee, Hagel, even some random entry who’s a bit off the radar right now getting the GOP nod. And as I said, I can’t gage how the ‘average’ GOP voter views Iraq. I’m sure it’s a mix of “Get the Hell Out and give me back that money you're spending with tax cuts”, “Well since we’re there…” and “STAY UNTIL THEY VOTE FOR THE PEOPLE WE TELL THEM TO VOTE FOR!” which makes it all the more difficult to figure out who’s has a chance in this race.
Anyway, I firmly believe that Iraq and each candidates position on Iraq is going to be the major factor in the 2008 election. I doubt it will be the #1 reason in exit polls in the general election, but in figuring out who’s going to face who in the general election, I can’t see an issue being bigger than Iraq at this point since there are so many different view points.
And I swear, I’ll get that Sox stuff up soon. But writing about the Sox is sort of like writing about Helen of Troy for this guy.
19.2.07
I'm Never Going to Texas
Seriously... check out the new law the State government is considering:
"At issue is a proposed state law that would give Texans the right to use deadly force as a first resort when they feel their safety is threatened."
WHAT?!?! And check out what the politicians are saying:
"You've got to assume a criminal's not there to buy Girl Scout cookies, you could be harmed," said Rep. Joe Driver, one of two original sponsors. "You should be able to meet force with force without getting in trouble."
Okay seriously, this has to be a joke right? I mean this can only end badly. I have zero back ground in law, but even your average Joe on the street knows that this is going to get out of hand. I mean, isn't this basically legalizing murder?
Talk about stupid laws... this will take the case if passed. Just insane... the right to shoot someone first. What's the point? I'm staying far, far away from "Shoot to Kill" Texas.
This article doesn't go into it, but it does mention that Bush's attempt to reform Social Security as the turning point in his administration. This is a good question... when did it go all round for Bush. Not when did he start making huge mistakes (because that's fairly obvious), but when did he lose it? Was it social security? Was that the issue that really began to turn the public against him? I don't know, but it's something to think about.
Finally, after seeing about a million previews for "Wild Hogs" and "Ghost Rider" I have one question... why? Why must we waste millions of dollars on shit movies not only making but even worse, promoting, movies like this? Why? Can't the money they waste on movies like that go towards either better movies (I vote for foreign flicks since Hollywood seems to struggling with coming up with new ideas) or the poor? Wouldn't that make the world a better place? Because honestly, can you even classify "Ghost Rider" as art? I would think not.
"At issue is a proposed state law that would give Texans the right to use deadly force as a first resort when they feel their safety is threatened."
WHAT?!?! And check out what the politicians are saying:
"You've got to assume a criminal's not there to buy Girl Scout cookies, you could be harmed," said Rep. Joe Driver, one of two original sponsors. "You should be able to meet force with force without getting in trouble."
Okay seriously, this has to be a joke right? I mean this can only end badly. I have zero back ground in law, but even your average Joe on the street knows that this is going to get out of hand. I mean, isn't this basically legalizing murder?
Talk about stupid laws... this will take the case if passed. Just insane... the right to shoot someone first. What's the point? I'm staying far, far away from "Shoot to Kill" Texas.
This article doesn't go into it, but it does mention that Bush's attempt to reform Social Security as the turning point in his administration. This is a good question... when did it go all round for Bush. Not when did he start making huge mistakes (because that's fairly obvious), but when did he lose it? Was it social security? Was that the issue that really began to turn the public against him? I don't know, but it's something to think about.
Finally, after seeing about a million previews for "Wild Hogs" and "Ghost Rider" I have one question... why? Why must we waste millions of dollars on shit movies not only making but even worse, promoting, movies like this? Why? Can't the money they waste on movies like that go towards either better movies (I vote for foreign flicks since Hollywood seems to struggling with coming up with new ideas) or the poor? Wouldn't that make the world a better place? Because honestly, can you even classify "Ghost Rider" as art? I would think not.
16.2.07
I Wanna Live With A Musician
"I've been dusted in the dark up in Penetration Park... But I ain't ever been with your little hoodrat friend."
I love those lines from who we'd call one of the five best bands in American right now... The Hold Steady.
And with that we launch I Wanna Live With A Musician which will be a daily musical blog about songs and how they relate to our life. It's our little piece of very own High Fidelity to you. And a chance to remember where I was the first time I heard that new song that's on the iTunes chimerical (it's "Flathead" by the Fratillies in case you were wondering; and yeah they're a Libertines rip off which makes them a Clash rip off, but whatever we like it).
It's easy, we'll give you a song a day and our memories of that song. Since this is the way music works... I mean why else do couples have 'our' song? And why else are soundtracks so huge? It's because the music becomes ourmemory, a way to classify everything that happens in this so called life (the critics STILL love that show).
As Chuck Klosterman pointed out once, the reason why Big Brother sucks is because unlike the Real World, there is no music. The beauty if the Real World is that it gives us a soundtrack as we're watching the show... basically it tells us how to feel. I agree.
I'm sure there is some science out there that proves the connection between music, memory, and life; but I'm to lazy to google it.
But check it out if you're into the more "oh my gawd this person leads an interesting 21st century Midwest via East Cost originally from the Midwest life!" Maybe you'll find something you like since I'll be attempting to give you a listen to each song I'm talking about.
And more importantly, it's time to get ready for baseball. I know, I know, we're still 6 or 7 weeks from Opening Day, and there's snow on the ground in most of America, and Chicago hasn't seen above freezetemperatures in like four or five weeks, but hope springs eternal and baseball combines hope and spring and that's a good thing (and this is a run-on-sentence). So that means we'll deliver our thoughts on the Chicago White Sox, the love of our life, in the next few days.
Yay.
I love those lines from who we'd call one of the five best bands in American right now... The Hold Steady.
And with that we launch I Wanna Live With A Musician which will be a daily musical blog about songs and how they relate to our life. It's our little piece of very own High Fidelity to you. And a chance to remember where I was the first time I heard that new song that's on the iTunes chimerical (it's "Flathead" by the Fratillies in case you were wondering; and yeah they're a Libertines rip off which makes them a Clash rip off, but whatever we like it).
It's easy, we'll give you a song a day and our memories of that song. Since this is the way music works... I mean why else do couples have 'our' song? And why else are soundtracks so huge? It's because the music becomes ourmemory, a way to classify everything that happens in this so called life (the critics STILL love that show).
As Chuck Klosterman pointed out once, the reason why Big Brother sucks is because unlike the Real World, there is no music. The beauty if the Real World is that it gives us a soundtrack as we're watching the show... basically it tells us how to feel. I agree.
I'm sure there is some science out there that proves the connection between music, memory, and life; but I'm to lazy to google it.
But check it out if you're into the more "oh my gawd this person leads an interesting 21st century Midwest via East Cost originally from the Midwest life!" Maybe you'll find something you like since I'll be attempting to give you a listen to each song I'm talking about.
And more importantly, it's time to get ready for baseball. I know, I know, we're still 6 or 7 weeks from Opening Day, and there's snow on the ground in most of America, and Chicago hasn't seen above freezetemperatures in like four or five weeks, but hope springs eternal and baseball combines hope and spring and that's a good thing (and this is a run-on-sentence). So that means we'll deliver our thoughts on the Chicago White Sox, the love of our life, in the next few days.
Yay.
15.2.07
Watch John Mulaney Tonight
Well I can say with confidence and confirm that former science partner, turned comedian, John Mulaney will be on the Conan O'Brien Show tonight. This is very exciting because John is a friend and we once decapitated a fetal pig together. We laughed about that a lot.
Anyway, everyone should watch because well...John is funny. And he makes us laugh and we have been known to make him laugh. But this is a cool day because for years I was telling everyone that John was going to make it... and now here he is on the best late night show in all the land. It makes us proud for various reasons we won't go into because I'm tearing up as it is (and yes I totally realize I went from the first person plural to the first person singular JUST... LIKE... THAT).
So that's I'll I've really have to inform you about on this effing cold morning in Chicago. But watch John because I'm sure you'll enjoy it.
Anyway, everyone should watch because well...John is funny. And he makes us laugh and we have been known to make him laugh. But this is a cool day because for years I was telling everyone that John was going to make it... and now here he is on the best late night show in all the land. It makes us proud for various reasons we won't go into because I'm tearing up as it is (and yes I totally realize I went from the first person plural to the first person singular JUST... LIKE... THAT).
So that's I'll I've really have to inform you about on this effing cold morning in Chicago. But watch John because I'm sure you'll enjoy it.
13.2.07
There Hasn't Been Much, Giving REM some Ups (pun intended)
It's snowing... a lot... the mind wonders in the silence of the snow...
- It's a real shame that REM doesn't get more props. They really were a kick ass band in the 80s and into the 90s. I know, they haven't done much since the mid-90s, but they're musical library pretty much blows U2 out of the water. And this isn't a slam on U2, they do what they do perfectly (basically be rock stars and writing big sweeping songs that try to mean everything and thus either mean nothing or are a complete joke (see: "Pride", "Beautiful Day", or "Vertigo" for various examples). Then again, can you really blame U2? They started off as a sort of punk/rock band ("I Will Follow") then turned into something bigger than life (The Joshua Tree), then tried to change direction and get back to the music (even though everyone likes it, the still underrated Achtung Baby) and even tried new things in the late 90s (Pop and Zooropa). The got slammed for being different and trying something new (well maybe not slammed, but no one even mentions how kick ass "The Fly" or "Numb" is) so they went back to the Joshua Tree days and made All That You Can't Leave Behind. They made millions and officially became the biggest band in the world. But back to REM, it's amazing that U2 is about a million times bigger than them. I'll put any REM song up against any U2 song, head-to-head, and let you decide. Serious. I know they're sort of different bands then went down different roads (it's easy to argue that U2 sold out in the 80s while REM tried to keep it real but ended up selling out in the mid 90s only to pretty much end their musical careers), but "Radio Free Europe" and "I Will Follow" do sort of have the same vibe. Okay whatever, just listen to REM all their stuff from the 80s is pretty awesome.
(BTW, this is when we should note that we have met Bono... and it was at Sen. Ted Kennedy's house of all places. The strange and totally true things that happen when you live in DC. ANYWAYS, Bono is about five foot nine, wears those sunglasses, and his hair was long and I swore he had hair plugs. Now that he's shaved his head, he either still has his real hair or he has the greatest hair plugs of all time).
- SOME GOOD NEWS! Looks like North Korea may give up some of their nukes for some aid. Yay! If Condi Rice was a major player in this deal, then she'll get some of that tarnish off that bruised reputation, which is always a good thing.
- It's that time of the year... The Westminster Dog Show! Which means that pitches and catchers are reporting... right... about... now... thank Allah.
- Someone to watch on the international, social justice stage: Former Bishop Fernando Armindo Lugo Méndez. He's a former bishop in Paraguay and appears to be running for President in the country next year. I don't know a ton about him, but the Vatican just suspended him in politics which is probably the right decision, but whatever). The Economist says that Mendez is "an admirer of Venezuela's socialist president, Hugo (the Vatican isn't big on people in the clergy participatingChávez, and of Bolivia's Evo Morales." Which as we've pointed out is a double edged sword. But Father Lugo says that he wants “a different country, of equality, without discrimination.” Of course I'm on board with messages like that. Freedom and justice for all. But as the Economist points out, "whether he is a democratic reformer or a demagogic populist remains to be seen." So like the Economist, we'll wait and see... and hold out hope that Father Lugo is the fomer.
- It's a real shame that REM doesn't get more props. They really were a kick ass band in the 80s and into the 90s. I know, they haven't done much since the mid-90s, but they're musical library pretty much blows U2 out of the water. And this isn't a slam on U2, they do what they do perfectly (basically be rock stars and writing big sweeping songs that try to mean everything and thus either mean nothing or are a complete joke (see: "Pride", "Beautiful Day", or "Vertigo" for various examples). Then again, can you really blame U2? They started off as a sort of punk/rock band ("I Will Follow") then turned into something bigger than life (The Joshua Tree), then tried to change direction and get back to the music (even though everyone likes it, the still underrated Achtung Baby) and even tried new things in the late 90s (Pop and Zooropa). The got slammed for being different and trying something new (well maybe not slammed, but no one even mentions how kick ass "The Fly" or "Numb" is) so they went back to the Joshua Tree days and made All That You Can't Leave Behind. They made millions and officially became the biggest band in the world. But back to REM, it's amazing that U2 is about a million times bigger than them. I'll put any REM song up against any U2 song, head-to-head, and let you decide. Serious. I know they're sort of different bands then went down different roads (it's easy to argue that U2 sold out in the 80s while REM tried to keep it real but ended up selling out in the mid 90s only to pretty much end their musical careers), but "Radio Free Europe" and "I Will Follow" do sort of have the same vibe. Okay whatever, just listen to REM all their stuff from the 80s is pretty awesome.
(BTW, this is when we should note that we have met Bono... and it was at Sen. Ted Kennedy's house of all places. The strange and totally true things that happen when you live in DC. ANYWAYS, Bono is about five foot nine, wears those sunglasses, and his hair was long and I swore he had hair plugs. Now that he's shaved his head, he either still has his real hair or he has the greatest hair plugs of all time).
- SOME GOOD NEWS! Looks like North Korea may give up some of their nukes for some aid. Yay! If Condi Rice was a major player in this deal, then she'll get some of that tarnish off that bruised reputation, which is always a good thing.
- It's that time of the year... The Westminster Dog Show! Which means that pitches and catchers are reporting... right... about... now... thank Allah.
- Someone to watch on the international, social justice stage: Former Bishop Fernando Armindo Lugo Méndez. He's a former bishop in Paraguay and appears to be running for President in the country next year. I don't know a ton about him, but the Vatican just suspended him in politics which is probably the right decision, but whatever). The Economist says that Mendez is "an admirer of Venezuela's socialist president, Hugo (the Vatican isn't big on people in the clergy participatingChávez, and of Bolivia's Evo Morales." Which as we've pointed out is a double edged sword. But Father Lugo says that he wants “a different country, of equality, without discrimination.” Of course I'm on board with messages like that. Freedom and justice for all. But as the Economist points out, "whether he is a democratic reformer or a demagogic populist remains to be seen." So like the Economist, we'll wait and see... and hold out hope that Father Lugo is the fomer.
7.2.07
Gregg Easterbrook is a Blowhard
I could pretend to make up stuff on why the Bears lost on Sunday, but it was pretty simple. The Bears lost for the following reasons (rank as you see fit):
- They were out played
- Grossman sucked in the second half
- They didn't run the ball enough
- The Defense couldn't stop the Colts on third and long to save their life
- The Bears got out coached on special teams, even though they outplayed the Colts special teams
- The Bears go out coached in general.
I'm sure there's more, but the Bears didn't play well on Sunday. Some how this is a bit easier to take than if they were one play away from winning.
And one more thing, Peyton Manning did not win the Super Bowl for the Colts. The fact that he was named MVP just goes to show how much the media loves him. Manning wasn't amazing or anything along those lines. He played well. That's it. He looked bad at the beginning of the game, calmed down, and didn't do anything to cost his team the game. But it wasn't like Peyton was zipping balls in all over the field. All he did was dump the ball off to the running backs and let them run for five yards. Big deal.
Enough of that... let's move on to Gregg "Two Gs are better than one" Easterbrook (aka, TMQ) who wrote the biggest pile of shit I've ever read in my life. It's not Skip Bayless pointless or Jay Mariotti "see which way the wind is blowing and then say it's blowing the other direction" type column. Rather it's some sort of mythical fantasy-land "the NFL and America will make the world a better place!" piece where I couldn't believe what I was reading. I'll break it down nice and quickly (here's the full piece here):
Football is on its way to becoming more important than it already is, though for reasons that might surprise you... The popularity of American-style football is likely to grow internationally – gridiron is taking off in Mexico at the moment, for instance.
This is an odd thing to say for two reasons:
1) Yes the NFL is huge in the US, but one has to wonder how much more of a market exists for the NFL. Pretty much every male I know follows the NFL in some shape or form. The Super Bowl is watched by 1/3 of the nation. In other words, there aren't many more people in the United States that are going to start following the NFL unless you are someone that believes every single person in the United States is a potential NFL consumer (I'll lay it down quickly, that's not realistic). Is there room for growth? Yes, but it's some what marginal since the NFL would have to do something I suggested the other day - expanding the schedule. This makes a lot of sense for the NFL. The only problem is that by expanding the schedule, it would make it much more difficult for the NFL to fix the schedule so that teams that are not as talented (ie, good) to appear to be better than they are and make the postseason (since as we pointed out, the bad teams get to play the bad teams which means that one bad team is going to be better than the rest of the bad teams, this will cause them to win more games and make that team appear to be better than it is (imagine if the Devil Rays, Royals, Mariners, and Orioles played each other 12 times each and only the Tigers, Twins, Yankees, and A's 3 times and what that would do to the standings). But theNFL's thinking must be that if the bad teams had to play more games against teams that were good or okay, then the true colors of those bad teams would shine. They would not do as well finishing bellow .500 and thus there would be less incentive to go watch those games on TV or at the stadium (or so the thinking must be). This probably is bad logic considering that in Europe the football season there is twice as long as the NFL season, and aside from Italy, they still fill the stadiums and get good ratings on TV. Other than "football is a tough game" I don't see a reason not to expand the schedule since it benefits teams that are talented.
2) The bigger problem with a statement like what Easterbrook proclaims is that the NFL has attempted to expand into other markets and has not done so well. NFL Europe can be traced back to 1991 in five different European countries (if you count England and Scotland as separate countries). Today, the six league team has five German teams and one team located in the Netherlands (and that team will soon move to Germany). And I've yet to read about a European player who is playing in the NFL or even college football for that matter. The best way to judge a sport's impact and potential for growth is if people from other country are playing the game. It's pretty clear that almost no one outside of the United States plays American football. Meanwhile, attendance at these NFL Europe games are typical of your averageMLS franchise (almost 19,000 for NFL Europe) but TV deals were cancelled. Pretty much the only reason why NFL Europe exists is because it's a developmental league. The NFL is willing to write off the league's losses (I assume) in order to have some sort of presence outside of the United States no matter how marginal that presence may be. The fact that American football hasn't really caught on in Europe would totally defeatEastbrook's point of course. His point is that it's growing... but it isn't. Yes, the league has a decent following in Mexico. But as the New York Times wrote this weekend, it has has much less success in gaining popularity among Latins in the United States. This is a major problem for the NFL. Seeing that Latins are the largest racial minority in the United States and they are also the fastest growing, maybe just maybe the NFL is peaking as we speak.
So is there room for growth for the NFL? Yes, but mainly in the United States which is a saturated market as it is. American football has not translated well throughout most of the world, though. I don't have the answer for why this is... but my best guess is that it's too expensive for most of the rest of the world to play. And I don't think the commercials help either. If you come from a ruby playing nation and then watch a football game, you can't help but be amazed by all the stoppages in play.
Not only is football fun to watch and to play, most of the world continues to admire the United States and look up to us – it's our foreign policy the world disdains; the American dream remains beloved almost everywhere. As democracy expands and more nations liberalize, more nations will long to become like the United States. And since football resides near the core of American culture, more people internationally will want the sport. They will reason, "America is strong and free and prosperous, America loves football, maybe football somehow helps you become strong and free and prosperous."
It has been a while since I've read something as ignorant as this. Let's take it one at a time:
1) Most of the world admires the United States.
This is a loaded question and it is half true and half false. Do people want to move to the United States? So do yes, but this is usually only for economic reasons. People move to Europe for economic reasons. People from other countries move to Canada for economic reasons. Hell, people move to Chile for economic reasons (Peruvians and Bolivians move to Chile to attempt to build a better life for them and their family. Like Mexicans who come to work in the States, they send the money they make back home to Peru or Bolivia). This happens all over the world. There is no doubt, that the US economy is admired, but this does not make us any more admirable than the United Kingdom, Sweden, or Chile for that matter (depending on who's point of view you are coming from). I do agree with his American Dream statement, but as statical data is showing us, social and economic mobility, which is the cornerstone of the American Dream, is more attainable in Europe than the USA right now.
2) Expansion of Democracy
Overlooking the failure of democratization of Iraq (debatable I know) and the Middle East; this still isn't true. As the Economist pointed out late last year, the spread of democracy is stalling. The Middle East is the most obvious example. Most of Africa is not democratic and not becoming democratic any time soon unfortunately. Russia and many of the former Soviet republics are far from democratic. And the events in Thailand last year proved how fragile democracy really is. There have been great strides made in Latin America, but today Hugo Chavez is leading Venezuela away from democracy. Basically,Easterbrook is way off on this point.
3) More nations will long to be the United States
A lot like point one, but I'd like to add this. If this was so true, why don't we see citizens of the developed world knocking down the door of entry to the United States? Fact is, pretty much everyone is proud of who they are be it American, Brazilian, Mexican, Egyptian, English, Scottish, French, Chinese, Japanese and on and on. And people will not move unless they have a incentive or reason to do so (which as I said, is almost always economic in today's world). But even when they do, they still a prideful of their nation or home. America is almost living proof of this - we are obsessed with where we came from, who are ancestors were. And most people in the US are proud of their ancestry. This is why people fly Polish, Italian, Irish, Mexican, and other flags here in the US. Some governments* may strive to follow the US/French model of 18th century enlightenment and liberalism, but most people do not want to be American any more so than most Americans want to be English or Canadian or Jamaican. (*I stress some because it appears that much of the developing world have leaders than do not want to have a model that is based upon the US desire for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness).
4) They will reason, "America is strong and free and prosperous, America loves football, maybe football somehow helps you become strong and free and prosperous."
As I pretty much just laid out, this logic is incorrect.
Soon Congress might break the cartel arrangement by which only DirecTV can broadcast NFL Sunday Ticket, the paid service that allows a viewer to watch any game.
I'm with him on this one. Though I'm not sure DirecTV's control over Sunday Ticket is a cartel since it's only one provider. Usually cartels consist of more than one firm or organization.
For the past 60 years, large organizations have dominated the social structure of the West. Large organizations ask large numbers of people of diverse backgrounds to work together cooperatively. Football asks large numbers of people of diverse backgrounds to work together cooperatively.
True, but sadly like most large organizations in United States, the NFL is pretty much a good ole boys club that's dominated by rich, white males. I'm not sure this has lead to the popularity of the NFL though. I would venture to guess that the NFL has been so successful in expanding in post War America for two reasons:
1) It is a fantastic sport to watch on TV thanks to replay. Watching an NFL game on TV is often times much better than attending a game in person where you sit around picking your nose for most of the the three and a half hours.
2) Since its season is only 16 games long, it is easy to follow. The 'investment' to a NFL team or season is once a week for 17 to 21 weeks (or 22 since it takes two weeks to play the Super Bowl). Considering that the average NFL game seems to last three and a half hours and we'll say keeping up with your team during the week would take no more than 90 minutes, the NFL is only a time investment of 85 hours. Compared to baseball, where a team plays six days a week for 26 weeks now we're talking about a 546 hour investment (an average of 21 hours a week). In other words, following an NFL team is easy for most Americans. It doesn't take a lot to know a little about the team. In other words, the NFL is the sports equivalent of a one night stand. Quick, easy, and fun. There's no need to build a relationship since you'll be spending so little time together. This is why,imo , the NFL is more popular than anything else in American sport; there is little investment of time and therefore is easy to follow.
Oh and baseball could totally make the argument he lays out here about working together, people being behind the scenes, and communicating. And the NBA. And the NHL. And football, er, soccer. All sport is based on communication, gathering information, and applying that information. Teams that are able to gather that information and communicate to everyone on the team in an efficient and quick manner are successful. This is not unique to the NFL in any way, shape, or form. Every sport functions like this on some level. In fact, I would say that the level of communication is just asneccessary in football/soccer as it is in the NFL.
Now consider the direction in which the global economy is headed. In a global world, communication and interpersonal skills grow ever-more important. The explosion in communication, especially, means the successful person of coming decades must be able to cooperate with not just those in his or her immediate field of vision, but people all around the country and all around the world. Daily contact with people all around the country, if not all around the world, is the likely state of affairs for coming generations. Because sports are part of education, there will be rising emphasis on sports that teach interpersonal skills. And that points to more importance for football.
Obviously, Easterbrook believes that globalism is here to stay. History has shown that this might not necessarily be the case (war has nasty habit of breaking communication lines; see World War I). And it seems to me that even the Economist, the champion of free markets and globalism, is a bit worried about the future of globalism. A lot of people are being left behind in every part of the world (are factory workers or Rust Belt mayors fans of globalization? Probably not). History has shown that if you piss enough people off, tipping points occur, when a tipping point is reached, it's usually bad news for stability. Stability is a key ingredient in government, communication, and free markets. To assume that the world will continue down the path of globalization is wishful thinking. There was a time in the 20th century were it appeared that socialism was going to be the path of the future remember. All I'm saying is, don't count your chickens yet.
The ability to get along with others is more important to football than to any sport. Some star basketball players barely speak to their teammates. In football, even the most renowned star must be a good teammate and must interact constructively with everyone in the locker room down to the lowliest player, or the game simply cannot be won. There's a reason towns view the success of their high school football teams, and cities view the success of their NFL teams, as symbolizing the town's and cities' prospects – because football cannot happen unless large numbers of people get along. And we're entering a world in which it will matter more than ever that large numbers of people get along. Football teaches that very thing: So expect the sport to grow in importance.
Here's the problem, all team sports function like this... this idea is not unique to the NFL or American football in any way, shape, or form. All teams must get along in order to win. Or better yet, they must agree to get along while they are playing. Just as the people in an office must agree to work together in order to accomplish all their tasks. This is not a novel or even interesting idea. And to say that it is unique to the NFL is down right wrong. Easterbrook cites star basketball players not speaking to teammates, while this might be true, I'll go out on a limb that even if this is true, there does need to be some sort of understanding and communication between teammates, even if they hate each other. Shaq and Kobe come to mind and prove Easterbrook wrong right off the bat. The two of them pretty much hated the others guts, but they had an understanding and a level of communication on the court that propelled them to victory. There have been people that I worked with that I did not like personally, but I put aside my personal feelings towards them to work together to get everything done because it was a loteasier for me to get the work done than it was to fight these people every step of the way. Of course communication and team work are necessary... but to claim that this is unique to the NFL is flat out stupid. Journalists often speak of the defense and offense in an NFL locker room being separate identities. This raises the obvious question of whether NFL teams are as close knit asEasterbrook claim they are. And since neither Easterbrook or I have ever played in the NFL, we can't really settle this in any way.
He then goes on to write his normal column which is very interesting at times and makes him sound like a blowhard at others. I kind of wish he'd just go away.
- They were out played
- Grossman sucked in the second half
- They didn't run the ball enough
- The Defense couldn't stop the Colts on third and long to save their life
- The Bears got out coached on special teams, even though they outplayed the Colts special teams
- The Bears go out coached in general.
I'm sure there's more, but the Bears didn't play well on Sunday. Some how this is a bit easier to take than if they were one play away from winning.
And one more thing, Peyton Manning did not win the Super Bowl for the Colts. The fact that he was named MVP just goes to show how much the media loves him. Manning wasn't amazing or anything along those lines. He played well. That's it. He looked bad at the beginning of the game, calmed down, and didn't do anything to cost his team the game. But it wasn't like Peyton was zipping balls in all over the field. All he did was dump the ball off to the running backs and let them run for five yards. Big deal.
Enough of that... let's move on to Gregg "Two Gs are better than one" Easterbrook (aka, TMQ) who wrote the biggest pile of shit I've ever read in my life. It's not Skip Bayless pointless or Jay Mariotti "see which way the wind is blowing and then say it's blowing the other direction" type column. Rather it's some sort of mythical fantasy-land "the NFL and America will make the world a better place!" piece where I couldn't believe what I was reading. I'll break it down nice and quickly (here's the full piece here):
Football is on its way to becoming more important than it already is, though for reasons that might surprise you... The popularity of American-style football is likely to grow internationally – gridiron is taking off in Mexico at the moment, for instance.
This is an odd thing to say for two reasons:
1) Yes the NFL is huge in the US, but one has to wonder how much more of a market exists for the NFL. Pretty much every male I know follows the NFL in some shape or form. The Super Bowl is watched by 1/3 of the nation. In other words, there aren't many more people in the United States that are going to start following the NFL unless you are someone that believes every single person in the United States is a potential NFL consumer (I'll lay it down quickly, that's not realistic). Is there room for growth? Yes, but it's some what marginal since the NFL would have to do something I suggested the other day - expanding the schedule. This makes a lot of sense for the NFL. The only problem is that by expanding the schedule, it would make it much more difficult for the NFL to fix the schedule so that teams that are not as talented (ie, good) to appear to be better than they are and make the postseason (since as we pointed out, the bad teams get to play the bad teams which means that one bad team is going to be better than the rest of the bad teams, this will cause them to win more games and make that team appear to be better than it is (imagine if the Devil Rays, Royals, Mariners, and Orioles played each other 12 times each and only the Tigers, Twins, Yankees, and A's 3 times and what that would do to the standings). But theNFL's thinking must be that if the bad teams had to play more games against teams that were good or okay, then the true colors of those bad teams would shine. They would not do as well finishing bellow .500 and thus there would be less incentive to go watch those games on TV or at the stadium (or so the thinking must be). This probably is bad logic considering that in Europe the football season there is twice as long as the NFL season, and aside from Italy, they still fill the stadiums and get good ratings on TV. Other than "football is a tough game" I don't see a reason not to expand the schedule since it benefits teams that are talented.
2) The bigger problem with a statement like what Easterbrook proclaims is that the NFL has attempted to expand into other markets and has not done so well. NFL Europe can be traced back to 1991 in five different European countries (if you count England and Scotland as separate countries). Today, the six league team has five German teams and one team located in the Netherlands (and that team will soon move to Germany). And I've yet to read about a European player who is playing in the NFL or even college football for that matter. The best way to judge a sport's impact and potential for growth is if people from other country are playing the game. It's pretty clear that almost no one outside of the United States plays American football. Meanwhile, attendance at these NFL Europe games are typical of your averageMLS franchise (almost 19,000 for NFL Europe) but TV deals were cancelled. Pretty much the only reason why NFL Europe exists is because it's a developmental league. The NFL is willing to write off the league's losses (I assume) in order to have some sort of presence outside of the United States no matter how marginal that presence may be. The fact that American football hasn't really caught on in Europe would totally defeatEastbrook's point of course. His point is that it's growing... but it isn't. Yes, the league has a decent following in Mexico. But as the New York Times wrote this weekend, it has has much less success in gaining popularity among Latins in the United States. This is a major problem for the NFL. Seeing that Latins are the largest racial minority in the United States and they are also the fastest growing, maybe just maybe the NFL is peaking as we speak.
So is there room for growth for the NFL? Yes, but mainly in the United States which is a saturated market as it is. American football has not translated well throughout most of the world, though. I don't have the answer for why this is... but my best guess is that it's too expensive for most of the rest of the world to play. And I don't think the commercials help either. If you come from a ruby playing nation and then watch a football game, you can't help but be amazed by all the stoppages in play.
Not only is football fun to watch and to play, most of the world continues to admire the United States and look up to us – it's our foreign policy the world disdains; the American dream remains beloved almost everywhere. As democracy expands and more nations liberalize, more nations will long to become like the United States. And since football resides near the core of American culture, more people internationally will want the sport. They will reason, "America is strong and free and prosperous, America loves football, maybe football somehow helps you become strong and free and prosperous."
It has been a while since I've read something as ignorant as this. Let's take it one at a time:
1) Most of the world admires the United States.
This is a loaded question and it is half true and half false. Do people want to move to the United States? So do yes, but this is usually only for economic reasons. People move to Europe for economic reasons. People from other countries move to Canada for economic reasons. Hell, people move to Chile for economic reasons (Peruvians and Bolivians move to Chile to attempt to build a better life for them and their family. Like Mexicans who come to work in the States, they send the money they make back home to Peru or Bolivia). This happens all over the world. There is no doubt, that the US economy is admired, but this does not make us any more admirable than the United Kingdom, Sweden, or Chile for that matter (depending on who's point of view you are coming from). I do agree with his American Dream statement, but as statical data is showing us, social and economic mobility, which is the cornerstone of the American Dream, is more attainable in Europe than the USA right now.
2) Expansion of Democracy
Overlooking the failure of democratization of Iraq (debatable I know) and the Middle East; this still isn't true. As the Economist pointed out late last year, the spread of democracy is stalling. The Middle East is the most obvious example. Most of Africa is not democratic and not becoming democratic any time soon unfortunately. Russia and many of the former Soviet republics are far from democratic. And the events in Thailand last year proved how fragile democracy really is. There have been great strides made in Latin America, but today Hugo Chavez is leading Venezuela away from democracy. Basically,Easterbrook is way off on this point.
3) More nations will long to be the United States
A lot like point one, but I'd like to add this. If this was so true, why don't we see citizens of the developed world knocking down the door of entry to the United States? Fact is, pretty much everyone is proud of who they are be it American, Brazilian, Mexican, Egyptian, English, Scottish, French, Chinese, Japanese and on and on. And people will not move unless they have a incentive or reason to do so (which as I said, is almost always economic in today's world). But even when they do, they still a prideful of their nation or home. America is almost living proof of this - we are obsessed with where we came from, who are ancestors were. And most people in the US are proud of their ancestry. This is why people fly Polish, Italian, Irish, Mexican, and other flags here in the US. Some governments* may strive to follow the US/French model of 18th century enlightenment and liberalism, but most people do not want to be American any more so than most Americans want to be English or Canadian or Jamaican. (*I stress some because it appears that much of the developing world have leaders than do not want to have a model that is based upon the US desire for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness).
4) They will reason, "America is strong and free and prosperous, America loves football, maybe football somehow helps you become strong and free and prosperous."
As I pretty much just laid out, this logic is incorrect.
Soon Congress might break the cartel arrangement by which only DirecTV can broadcast NFL Sunday Ticket, the paid service that allows a viewer to watch any game.
I'm with him on this one. Though I'm not sure DirecTV's control over Sunday Ticket is a cartel since it's only one provider. Usually cartels consist of more than one firm or organization.
For the past 60 years, large organizations have dominated the social structure of the West. Large organizations ask large numbers of people of diverse backgrounds to work together cooperatively. Football asks large numbers of people of diverse backgrounds to work together cooperatively.
True, but sadly like most large organizations in United States, the NFL is pretty much a good ole boys club that's dominated by rich, white males. I'm not sure this has lead to the popularity of the NFL though. I would venture to guess that the NFL has been so successful in expanding in post War America for two reasons:
1) It is a fantastic sport to watch on TV thanks to replay. Watching an NFL game on TV is often times much better than attending a game in person where you sit around picking your nose for most of the the three and a half hours.
2) Since its season is only 16 games long, it is easy to follow. The 'investment' to a NFL team or season is once a week for 17 to 21 weeks (or 22 since it takes two weeks to play the Super Bowl). Considering that the average NFL game seems to last three and a half hours and we'll say keeping up with your team during the week would take no more than 90 minutes, the NFL is only a time investment of 85 hours. Compared to baseball, where a team plays six days a week for 26 weeks now we're talking about a 546 hour investment (an average of 21 hours a week). In other words, following an NFL team is easy for most Americans. It doesn't take a lot to know a little about the team. In other words, the NFL is the sports equivalent of a one night stand. Quick, easy, and fun. There's no need to build a relationship since you'll be spending so little time together. This is why,imo , the NFL is more popular than anything else in American sport; there is little investment of time and therefore is easy to follow.
Oh and baseball could totally make the argument he lays out here about working together, people being behind the scenes, and communicating. And the NBA. And the NHL. And football, er, soccer. All sport is based on communication, gathering information, and applying that information. Teams that are able to gather that information and communicate to everyone on the team in an efficient and quick manner are successful. This is not unique to the NFL in any way, shape, or form. Every sport functions like this on some level. In fact, I would say that the level of communication is just asneccessary in football/soccer as it is in the NFL.
Now consider the direction in which the global economy is headed. In a global world, communication and interpersonal skills grow ever-more important. The explosion in communication, especially, means the successful person of coming decades must be able to cooperate with not just those in his or her immediate field of vision, but people all around the country and all around the world. Daily contact with people all around the country, if not all around the world, is the likely state of affairs for coming generations. Because sports are part of education, there will be rising emphasis on sports that teach interpersonal skills. And that points to more importance for football.
Obviously, Easterbrook believes that globalism is here to stay. History has shown that this might not necessarily be the case (war has nasty habit of breaking communication lines; see World War I). And it seems to me that even the Economist, the champion of free markets and globalism, is a bit worried about the future of globalism. A lot of people are being left behind in every part of the world (are factory workers or Rust Belt mayors fans of globalization? Probably not). History has shown that if you piss enough people off, tipping points occur, when a tipping point is reached, it's usually bad news for stability. Stability is a key ingredient in government, communication, and free markets. To assume that the world will continue down the path of globalization is wishful thinking. There was a time in the 20th century were it appeared that socialism was going to be the path of the future remember. All I'm saying is, don't count your chickens yet.
The ability to get along with others is more important to football than to any sport. Some star basketball players barely speak to their teammates. In football, even the most renowned star must be a good teammate and must interact constructively with everyone in the locker room down to the lowliest player, or the game simply cannot be won. There's a reason towns view the success of their high school football teams, and cities view the success of their NFL teams, as symbolizing the town's and cities' prospects – because football cannot happen unless large numbers of people get along. And we're entering a world in which it will matter more than ever that large numbers of people get along. Football teaches that very thing: So expect the sport to grow in importance.
Here's the problem, all team sports function like this... this idea is not unique to the NFL or American football in any way, shape, or form. All teams must get along in order to win. Or better yet, they must agree to get along while they are playing. Just as the people in an office must agree to work together in order to accomplish all their tasks. This is not a novel or even interesting idea. And to say that it is unique to the NFL is down right wrong. Easterbrook cites star basketball players not speaking to teammates, while this might be true, I'll go out on a limb that even if this is true, there does need to be some sort of understanding and communication between teammates, even if they hate each other. Shaq and Kobe come to mind and prove Easterbrook wrong right off the bat. The two of them pretty much hated the others guts, but they had an understanding and a level of communication on the court that propelled them to victory. There have been people that I worked with that I did not like personally, but I put aside my personal feelings towards them to work together to get everything done because it was a loteasier for me to get the work done than it was to fight these people every step of the way. Of course communication and team work are necessary... but to claim that this is unique to the NFL is flat out stupid. Journalists often speak of the defense and offense in an NFL locker room being separate identities. This raises the obvious question of whether NFL teams are as close knit asEasterbrook claim they are. And since neither Easterbrook or I have ever played in the NFL, we can't really settle this in any way.
He then goes on to write his normal column which is very interesting at times and makes him sound like a blowhard at others. I kind of wish he'd just go away.
4.2.07
Super Thoughts
A few articles and thoughts on this Super Bowl Sunday:
- Peyton Manning has a lot more pressure on him than Rex Grossman. Yet no one has said anything about this in the national media. If Manning plays poorly today, what are they going to say? What excuse are they going to make? I don't get this... why does the media play favorites so often? It's weird, the the political section of a newspaper, journalists are, for the most part, neutral. Sure the op-ed pages may rip a politician or give a politician praise, but they're also objective (news channels aside).
- I've never met a real life Colts fan. I'm not kidding. I didn't think they existed. Apparently a few of them made their way down to Miami.
- Two great articles in the Guardian. The first is about the best player in the Premiership this season - Didier Drogba. Drogba's been great for Chelsea this season netting 15 goals so far this season in the Premiership. Much has been said about the Blues being in second this year, but they're probably be sniffing around the likes of Liverpool and Arsenal if it wasn't forDrogba's play this year. As the article points out, he's lining himself up for the Player of the Year Award in England and if he keeps it up, I could see him being in contention in 2007. I know it's early, but since September he's been fantastic. A Champions League run would really help build his case. Anyway, an interesting interview if nothing less.
The second article is talks the impact of "Moneyball" and Malcolm Galdwell's work has had on coaching football in England. Even if you aren't a footie fan this is a great read (plus it stars Watford's coach, Aidy Boothroyd and his trials and tribulations this year with Watford). Great read and very interesting. [I should know that I'm reading Blink right now and like the Tipping Point, it is very good.]
- I was thinking in the shower about how short the NFL season is... a scant 16 games plus a four round postseason. No team can play more than 20 games or less than 16. This is sort of amazing when you think about it... why so short? Obviously the NFL would be better served to play a few more games, gain a few more bucks from TV deals and home games. And the other thing that bugs me is that the regular season is only 16 games... this is clearly too small of a sample size to determine much of anything. The NFL sport is the only sport where the schedule has a greater impact than the team itself (every year at least three or four teams that are not that talented seem to 'come out of no where' and even make the playoffs. These teams almost always play a weak schedule which is based on the previous seasons record; so the bad teams play the bad teams, the good teams play the good teams. Obviously, since someone has to win, a bad team that's marginally better than the other bad teams is going to win those games... while the good teams beat the crap out of each other). Expanding the NFL schedule would make the NFL more money... but it also would take away the equality that the league loves to promote, that your team has a chance to win the Super Bowl (unless you root for the Cardinals, Browns, or Lions; and probably Texans too). If the NFL were to play a 20 game schedule (thus expanding the season a month) the bad teams would be more likely to play the good teams. Chances are they would lose those games. In losing those games we would see the true colors of these teams. And instead of getting crap teams like the Jets in the playoffs, we'd get to see the better teams who had to play better teams in the playoffs. This would be good for some fans, but bad for the league. What I'm trying to say is that the NFL is some what able to rig their league to help the bad teams appear to be better than they are because of the way the schedule is made. I don't have an statical information to back me up... but I'm sure it wouldn't take me too long to prove this. Something to do maybe?
- I should also say, that the way the NFL treats former players is borderline inhumane. The pensions these guys have received (especially players who played before 1977) are a disgrace and has been well reported. But they haven't been reported upon enough. For reasons I'll never understand, the NFL gets a pass from the media. There is nothing that the NFL can do wrong. Players doing 'roids? That's okay, we'll make him a star and put him in the Pro Bowl. Put our season ticket package games only on DirectTV? That's cool, it's the best for business. Of course if a baseball player juices he's the one of the worst humans alive and if MLB puts it's games only on DirectTV, it gets ripped by the media and has Congress thinking about making laws restricting it (which by the way is a farce itself, Kerry doing this makes ZERO sense on so many levels and is a complete waste of time; thousands of Americans are dying in Iraq and John Kerry thinks it's important to restrict MLBs TV deal; get real John). The double standard that the NFL has in the media and with the public continues to not only bug me, but really turn me off from the game. And finally, Greg Gumbel's comment a few months ago about Gene Upshaw is 100% correct. The man is a lap dog for the NFL. And I'm 92% sure Vegas controls the NFL as it is. That's a different day. I watched less football than I have in years... aside from Bears game, I don't think I sat though more than three or four regular season games this year (and those were because I was with a buddy most likely watching the Eagles). In other words, the continues NFL to lose me. And I don't think I'm alone. I remember saying to people a few years ago that the NFL had reached it's pinnacle. Since Americans are the only people who actually give a rats ass about football, the NFL could not get any bigger... and that's starting to happen. The Super Bowl will probably always be the biggest sporting even in the US during my life time, but ten years from now the league will not be as strong as it is today.
- Of course go Bears... I'll be watching. The Super Bowl really is a fantastic event even if about 150 million people watch it in the entire world, most of them living in the US.
- Oh, and if you have not seen this it might be the greatest thing ever on YouTube. Bubb Rubb is awesome and that 1:45 mark when he pulls away is really just amazing.
- Peyton Manning has a lot more pressure on him than Rex Grossman. Yet no one has said anything about this in the national media. If Manning plays poorly today, what are they going to say? What excuse are they going to make? I don't get this... why does the media play favorites so often? It's weird, the the political section of a newspaper, journalists are, for the most part, neutral. Sure the op-ed pages may rip a politician or give a politician praise, but they're also objective (news channels aside).
- I've never met a real life Colts fan. I'm not kidding. I didn't think they existed. Apparently a few of them made their way down to Miami.
- Two great articles in the Guardian. The first is about the best player in the Premiership this season - Didier Drogba. Drogba's been great for Chelsea this season netting 15 goals so far this season in the Premiership. Much has been said about the Blues being in second this year, but they're probably be sniffing around the likes of Liverpool and Arsenal if it wasn't forDrogba's play this year. As the article points out, he's lining himself up for the Player of the Year Award in England and if he keeps it up, I could see him being in contention in 2007. I know it's early, but since September he's been fantastic. A Champions League run would really help build his case. Anyway, an interesting interview if nothing less.
The second article is talks the impact of "Moneyball" and Malcolm Galdwell's work has had on coaching football in England. Even if you aren't a footie fan this is a great read (plus it stars Watford's coach, Aidy Boothroyd and his trials and tribulations this year with Watford). Great read and very interesting. [I should know that I'm reading Blink right now and like the Tipping Point, it is very good.]
- I was thinking in the shower about how short the NFL season is... a scant 16 games plus a four round postseason. No team can play more than 20 games or less than 16. This is sort of amazing when you think about it... why so short? Obviously the NFL would be better served to play a few more games, gain a few more bucks from TV deals and home games. And the other thing that bugs me is that the regular season is only 16 games... this is clearly too small of a sample size to determine much of anything. The NFL sport is the only sport where the schedule has a greater impact than the team itself (every year at least three or four teams that are not that talented seem to 'come out of no where' and even make the playoffs. These teams almost always play a weak schedule which is based on the previous seasons record; so the bad teams play the bad teams, the good teams play the good teams. Obviously, since someone has to win, a bad team that's marginally better than the other bad teams is going to win those games... while the good teams beat the crap out of each other). Expanding the NFL schedule would make the NFL more money... but it also would take away the equality that the league loves to promote, that your team has a chance to win the Super Bowl (unless you root for the Cardinals, Browns, or Lions; and probably Texans too). If the NFL were to play a 20 game schedule (thus expanding the season a month) the bad teams would be more likely to play the good teams. Chances are they would lose those games. In losing those games we would see the true colors of these teams. And instead of getting crap teams like the Jets in the playoffs, we'd get to see the better teams who had to play better teams in the playoffs. This would be good for some fans, but bad for the league. What I'm trying to say is that the NFL is some what able to rig their league to help the bad teams appear to be better than they are because of the way the schedule is made. I don't have an statical information to back me up... but I'm sure it wouldn't take me too long to prove this. Something to do maybe?
- I should also say, that the way the NFL treats former players is borderline inhumane. The pensions these guys have received (especially players who played before 1977) are a disgrace and has been well reported. But they haven't been reported upon enough. For reasons I'll never understand, the NFL gets a pass from the media. There is nothing that the NFL can do wrong. Players doing 'roids? That's okay, we'll make him a star and put him in the Pro Bowl. Put our season ticket package games only on DirectTV? That's cool, it's the best for business. Of course if a baseball player juices he's the one of the worst humans alive and if MLB puts it's games only on DirectTV, it gets ripped by the media and has Congress thinking about making laws restricting it (which by the way is a farce itself, Kerry doing this makes ZERO sense on so many levels and is a complete waste of time; thousands of Americans are dying in Iraq and John Kerry thinks it's important to restrict MLBs TV deal; get real John). The double standard that the NFL has in the media and with the public continues to not only bug me, but really turn me off from the game. And finally, Greg Gumbel's comment a few months ago about Gene Upshaw is 100% correct. The man is a lap dog for the NFL. And I'm 92% sure Vegas controls the NFL as it is. That's a different day. I watched less football than I have in years... aside from Bears game, I don't think I sat though more than three or four regular season games this year (and those were because I was with a buddy most likely watching the Eagles). In other words, the continues NFL to lose me. And I don't think I'm alone. I remember saying to people a few years ago that the NFL had reached it's pinnacle. Since Americans are the only people who actually give a rats ass about football, the NFL could not get any bigger... and that's starting to happen. The Super Bowl will probably always be the biggest sporting even in the US during my life time, but ten years from now the league will not be as strong as it is today.
- Of course go Bears... I'll be watching. The Super Bowl really is a fantastic event even if about 150 million people watch it in the entire world, most of them living in the US.
- Oh, and if you have not seen this it might be the greatest thing ever on YouTube. Bubb Rubb is awesome and that 1:45 mark when he pulls away is really just amazing.
3.2.07
Bear Down, Chicago Bears
I'm sure it will be a surprise to no one, but I'm taking the Bears. I had them in the Super Bowl way back when and I'm going to stick to 'em now. Plus, I root forda Bears.
We can analysis this game all we want but it comes down to one and only one factor:
Rex Grossman
If Good Sexy Rexy comes out to play, the Bears win. And they probably win big. Just look at the final scores of the Bears game when Gorssman has a QB rating over 98:
26-0 (over Green Bay)
34-7 (over the Lions)
37-6 (over Seattle)
40-7 (over the Bills)
41-10 (over San Fran)
38-20 (@ the Giants)
42-27 (@ St. Louis)
34-31 (over Tampa)
The point is, Gorssman isn't that bad of a quarterback. Sure he's as inconsistent as hell, but if he has a good game, the Bears will put up points somewhere in the 30s. And if the Bears do that, they're going to win. There defense is that good. The only really close game on that list is the Tampa game, and the Bears were up big in that one before they took their foot of the peddle and allowed theBucs back in the game.
Even last week, when the Bears were dominating the Saints, it wasn't until late in the 3rd when BadRex turned into GoodRed that the rout was on. The Bears went nuts in the 4th quarter with GoodRex and they destroyed the Saints.
So that's the key to the game, Rex Grossman. If GoodRex comes out, the Bears win. If BadRex comes out, the Bears will probably lose (I say probably because the Bears have and can win with BadRex, it's just a lot harder). And remember, Rex Grossman isn't that bad of a QB. He threw for 23 touchdowns and over 3,000 yards. He isn't a bum - well at least not all the time.
There are some other 'factors' in this game, so might as well run them down:
1) Since when did Peyton Manning become a lock to throw for 275 yards and three touchdowns? What am I missing here? Has the media totally forgotten about how bad he's looked in the postseason (like every postseason)? Ifany onenulls going to choke in this game, it's going to be Manning, and I wouldn't put it past him. And if he does, I can't wait for the media to defend him.
2) Devin Hester has a really good chance of taking a kick or punt to the house. The Colts special teams is not that good. In fact, I think Hester is going to take one to thehouse tomorrow.
3) As for the improved Colts defense... HELLO! Did anyone see the stink bomb they put up two weeks ago against the Patriots? And did you all miss the regular season when they weren't that good? If we're going to talk about recentperformances and the Colts D's improvement, when not talk about the eggs Peyton's been laying? Why the double standard?
4) This is the worst Colts team in the last five years, yet here they are in the Super Bowl. Normally this wouldn't bother me but... the worst St. Louis Cardinals team of the last four or five years made the World Series and won this year. TheSteelers finally made the Super Bowl and won last year after years of having teams that were probably better. Now the same thing has happened with the Colts. I think it's worth mentioning.
5) The Colts are not a very good road (and thus outdoor) team. I know this not a road game, but the Colts record on grass is nothing to write home about (2-3; 5-4 on the road and outside this year). They were 10-0 inside the RCA Dome.
Anyway, I don't see this going well for the Colts. I think they're a good team with a good to great offense. But their defense is average at best and their special teams is pretty poor. Meanwhile the Bears have a good to great D, a great special teams unit, and anoffense that, depending on what quarterback shows up, is okay to great. I'm not sold on the Colts D all of a sudden becoming a top unit that can stop the run. And I don't think Manning is going to come out and play the game of his life. If history has taught us anything,Grossman will have a better game than Manning (he's been better in the playoffs so far). As always turnovers will play their part in this game. And I just think the Bears have moreplay markers than the Colts. I know that sounds crazy since the Colts have Manning and Harrison and Wayne, but two of those three guys have ahistory of disappearing when the going gets tough. I'll take Hester, Thomas Jones, Ced Benson, and Barrian. Along with that Bears D which has a nasty habit of making big plays.
Final Score:
Bears -31; Colts - 20
Let the Cedric Benson Era begin!
Okay a few other random thoughts on the week that was...
- I am the biggest Bill Simmons appolgist ever. I have enjoyed 99% of all his articles and can only think of two or three that I did not like at all. So it pains me to say this, but he has been brutal this week. This isn't about him losing his fastball or anything like that... it's him completely missing the boat on these Super Bowl articles. Maybe he has nothing to say because the Patriots aren't in the Super Bowl, and sure if it was the Bears and the Pats in this game tomorrow, I'm sure I would want to kill Simmons (like everyone from Philly did two years ago). But at least he'd be a little more enjoyable. But his radio row idea fell flat on it's face, the running 'gags' were not funny. The ride with Damon Jones was lame, uninteresting, and brought nothing to the table either in terms of Super Bowl week or the game or sports in general, as someone said on Deadspin or some where, "Hey Bill, there is a reason why there's a travel section in the newspaper." And then the DAY BEFORE THE SUPER BOWL HE'S WRITING ABOUT ANNA KOURNIKOVA ?!?!?!! In the WTFs of WTFs this made no sense. None. I'm not saying the article itself was bad, because it wasn't, but the timing couldn't have been worse. You're in Miami for the Super Bowl and the day before the big game you're writing about a washed up tennis star that, imo, wasn't nearly as attractive as everyone made her out. Plus she wasn't even good at tennis. Writing about this before the Super Bowl is inexcausable. It's like writing about seeing Morihiro Hosokawa the day before the US Presidental Election in 2008. It's kind of related in that it's not related at all besides that 'Hosokawa was Prime Minister of Japan in the 90s and talked to Bill Clinton' kind of way. I only single out Simmons because well, he was the worst writer I read this week. And usually he's the best or one of the best. Fluff pieces about an Indy fan eatting bufflo wings next to a Bears fan would have been more interesting.
- Remember, Stand by Your Man, Chicago.
- If you didn't know, it's really, really cold here in Chicago. Like five degrees cold. Wind chills of the negative teens. This isn't important but whatever.
- I'm ready and pumped for the game. It's exciting. But it's funny, I can see Comskey Park from my apartment. Every once in a while, I'll catch the yard from the corner of my eye and realize... geeze, I'd rather them win the World Series next year than the Bears win the Super Bowl.
I think that's the great sports questions, where does your alliegence fall? We all root for teams, but how do you rank those teams. I think the only way to do it is by ranking what team would would most like to see win a championship. Mine would look something like this:
1) White Sox
2) US wins the World Cup
3) Bears
4) Wisconsin Football
5) Blackhawks (seriously, if the Hawks were ever good, I'd go nuts)
6) Bulls
Even though the Sox won a short 16 months ago, I'd love to see them win it again. I can't help it, I'm attacted to them like junkie is to heroine.
But none the less, GO BEARS!
We can analysis this game all we want but it comes down to one and only one factor:
Rex Grossman
If Good Sexy Rexy comes out to play, the Bears win. And they probably win big. Just look at the final scores of the Bears game when Gorssman has a QB rating over 98:
26-0 (over Green Bay)
34-7 (over the Lions)
37-6 (over Seattle)
40-7 (over the Bills)
41-10 (over San Fran)
38-20 (@ the Giants)
42-27 (@ St. Louis)
34-31 (over Tampa)
The point is, Gorssman isn't that bad of a quarterback. Sure he's as inconsistent as hell, but if he has a good game, the Bears will put up points somewhere in the 30s. And if the Bears do that, they're going to win. There defense is that good. The only really close game on that list is the Tampa game, and the Bears were up big in that one before they took their foot of the peddle and allowed theBucs back in the game.
Even last week, when the Bears were dominating the Saints, it wasn't until late in the 3rd when BadRex turned into GoodRed that the rout was on. The Bears went nuts in the 4th quarter with GoodRex and they destroyed the Saints.
So that's the key to the game, Rex Grossman. If GoodRex comes out, the Bears win. If BadRex comes out, the Bears will probably lose (I say probably because the Bears have and can win with BadRex, it's just a lot harder). And remember, Rex Grossman isn't that bad of a QB. He threw for 23 touchdowns and over 3,000 yards. He isn't a bum - well at least not all the time.
There are some other 'factors' in this game, so might as well run them down:
1) Since when did Peyton Manning become a lock to throw for 275 yards and three touchdowns? What am I missing here? Has the media totally forgotten about how bad he's looked in the postseason (like every postseason)? Ifany onenulls going to choke in this game, it's going to be Manning, and I wouldn't put it past him. And if he does, I can't wait for the media to defend him.
2) Devin Hester has a really good chance of taking a kick or punt to the house. The Colts special teams is not that good. In fact, I think Hester is going to take one to thehouse tomorrow.
3) As for the improved Colts defense... HELLO! Did anyone see the stink bomb they put up two weeks ago against the Patriots? And did you all miss the regular season when they weren't that good? If we're going to talk about recentperformances and the Colts D's improvement, when not talk about the eggs Peyton's been laying? Why the double standard?
4) This is the worst Colts team in the last five years, yet here they are in the Super Bowl. Normally this wouldn't bother me but... the worst St. Louis Cardinals team of the last four or five years made the World Series and won this year. TheSteelers finally made the Super Bowl and won last year after years of having teams that were probably better. Now the same thing has happened with the Colts. I think it's worth mentioning.
5) The Colts are not a very good road (and thus outdoor) team. I know this not a road game, but the Colts record on grass is nothing to write home about (2-3; 5-4 on the road and outside this year). They were 10-0 inside the RCA Dome.
Anyway, I don't see this going well for the Colts. I think they're a good team with a good to great offense. But their defense is average at best and their special teams is pretty poor. Meanwhile the Bears have a good to great D, a great special teams unit, and anoffense that, depending on what quarterback shows up, is okay to great. I'm not sold on the Colts D all of a sudden becoming a top unit that can stop the run. And I don't think Manning is going to come out and play the game of his life. If history has taught us anything,Grossman will have a better game than Manning (he's been better in the playoffs so far). As always turnovers will play their part in this game. And I just think the Bears have moreplay markers than the Colts. I know that sounds crazy since the Colts have Manning and Harrison and Wayne, but two of those three guys have ahistory of disappearing when the going gets tough. I'll take Hester, Thomas Jones, Ced Benson, and Barrian. Along with that Bears D which has a nasty habit of making big plays.
Final Score:
Bears -31; Colts - 20
Let the Cedric Benson Era begin!
Okay a few other random thoughts on the week that was...
- I am the biggest Bill Simmons appolgist ever. I have enjoyed 99% of all his articles and can only think of two or three that I did not like at all. So it pains me to say this, but he has been brutal this week. This isn't about him losing his fastball or anything like that... it's him completely missing the boat on these Super Bowl articles. Maybe he has nothing to say because the Patriots aren't in the Super Bowl, and sure if it was the Bears and the Pats in this game tomorrow, I'm sure I would want to kill Simmons (like everyone from Philly did two years ago). But at least he'd be a little more enjoyable. But his radio row idea fell flat on it's face, the running 'gags' were not funny. The ride with Damon Jones was lame, uninteresting, and brought nothing to the table either in terms of Super Bowl week or the game or sports in general, as someone said on Deadspin or some where, "Hey Bill, there is a reason why there's a travel section in the newspaper." And then the DAY BEFORE THE SUPER BOWL HE'S WRITING ABOUT ANNA KOURNIKOVA ?!?!?!! In the WTFs of WTFs this made no sense. None. I'm not saying the article itself was bad, because it wasn't, but the timing couldn't have been worse. You're in Miami for the Super Bowl and the day before the big game you're writing about a washed up tennis star that, imo, wasn't nearly as attractive as everyone made her out. Plus she wasn't even good at tennis. Writing about this before the Super Bowl is inexcausable. It's like writing about seeing Morihiro Hosokawa the day before the US Presidental Election in 2008. It's kind of related in that it's not related at all besides that 'Hosokawa was Prime Minister of Japan in the 90s and talked to Bill Clinton' kind of way. I only single out Simmons because well, he was the worst writer I read this week. And usually he's the best or one of the best. Fluff pieces about an Indy fan eatting bufflo wings next to a Bears fan would have been more interesting.
- Remember, Stand by Your Man, Chicago.
- If you didn't know, it's really, really cold here in Chicago. Like five degrees cold. Wind chills of the negative teens. This isn't important but whatever.
- I'm ready and pumped for the game. It's exciting. But it's funny, I can see Comskey Park from my apartment. Every once in a while, I'll catch the yard from the corner of my eye and realize... geeze, I'd rather them win the World Series next year than the Bears win the Super Bowl.
I think that's the great sports questions, where does your alliegence fall? We all root for teams, but how do you rank those teams. I think the only way to do it is by ranking what team would would most like to see win a championship. Mine would look something like this:
1) White Sox
2) US wins the World Cup
3) Bears
4) Wisconsin Football
5) Blackhawks (seriously, if the Hawks were ever good, I'd go nuts)
6) Bulls
Even though the Sox won a short 16 months ago, I'd love to see them win it again. I can't help it, I'm attacted to them like junkie is to heroine.
But none the less, GO BEARS!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)