It Still Might As Well Be In Black And White

Let me see if I get this straight.

ESPN spends $1000000000000000000000000000 covering every sport. They send 34 air personalities to do the pregame of "Monday Night Football." They have been on the cutting edge of sports broadcasting technology for a long time.

Yet--a college basketball conference championship game involving a top-12 team is not worthy of broadcasting in HD. Not that this is a new issue, but seriously? In 2010? I mean, I'm not talking about ESPN-8, "The Ocho," but the main fucking channel. The big one.

For the love of fuck, the commercials are even in HD, just not the game. Thank you, ESPN, for confirming that you have as little respect for the mid-major conferences as the NCAA selection committee.

(Of course, ESPN touts "Championship Week" and hypes having all the conference tournament games, but only shows BCS-conference games in HD.)

Fucktards.

And yes, we will be back soon. We haven't given up on you yet.

Really, an actual post!!!

Yes, it does seem like every one except O'Hoolix had dropped off the face of the Internet. Work and life catches up with us sometimes and it is hard to find the time or the energy to do something that is more than a hobby but less than a job. We'd love to get paid to do this but we just have not been able to find any one stupid enough to sponsor us yet.

Thanks to O'Hoolix for keeping us going. I think my last post was back in what, July? Anyways, my early New Year's resolution is to devote more time to our site.

Normally I try not to pick on just a section of a story...unless it really deserves it. And this story deserves it. Overall the story is fine. I enjoy just about any story about a Colts victory. Just gets the facts straight, will ya!

"Garrard was 23 of 40 for 223 yards and three touchdowns. Maurice Jones-Drew ran 27 times for 110 yards and a score, and caught five passes for 30 yards and a touchdown. But once the Jaguars got behind and abandoned the running game, they had trouble sustaining drives."

The Jaguars scored on five of their first six drives and the one they did not score on was a missed FG (thanks again, Steve Perry). The Jags were up 31-28 when they took their final lead. From that point on they went punt-punt-punt-interception. The Colts went punt-TD-punt-kneel downs. Therefore, the Jags actually had the lead MORON. And really, they did not necessarily abandon the run.

On the possession after the Colts TD, the Jags ran the ball twice on first downs, but Maurice Jones-Drew only ran for 3 and 2 yards, respectively. David Garrard was passing the ball pretty well. The illegal formation penalty was the killer on the drive. Instead of a 19-yard gain and a first down, it became 2nd-and-13 and the Jags were forced to pass twice resulting in an incomplete pass and a sack. After the Jags forced the Colts to punt just before the two-minute warning, you have to abandon the run with only one timeout and the two-minute warning.

The Colts defense also seemed to step it up in the fourth quarter, so Jones-Drew was not as effective either after that point. In the second half, Jones-Drew had only 39 yards in 13 carries, a 3.0 YPC average. He had 71 yards in the first half.

So congrats to the Colts on going 14-0! We see about a discussion on whether the Colts should shoot for 16-0. Let's see if those of us at LomHenn.com can string together our own streak of posts.

[From somewhere across town I hear Slut yelling, "No bet!"]

Time to go digging through some old Bob Kravitz posts. I know there is at least one we need to post...

Rivet-ing Baseball

Congratulations to the Vincennes Rivet baseball (and to the girls basketball team) for a fine and exciting season that fell short in the Indiana Class A state finals. Vincennes Rivet was trying to be The Little Engine That Could in winning its first state championship in any sport. Considering Vincennes Rivet was founded in 1792, it has been a long wait for sure. The only other Rivet team to make it to a state championship final was the girls basketball team back in March.

Rivet is the smallest high school in Knox County with only 93 students and is the ninth smallest school in the state out of 400 schools. The Rivet baseball team had only eight players until the coach begged a few of the students to play in order to field enough players. This alone is a worthy story. However, it gets kicked up a notch when you learn that one of the 11 Rivet players is a girl, Emily Montgomery. Emily became the first girl to play in a state championship baseball final on Friday. Unlike one of our previous posts of the girl who wanted to play baseball and had to sue to IHSAA and the school for the right to play, Emily was asked, pleaded and begged to play for the Rivet team. Emily's brother Cory wanted a shot at a state title, but with only eight players on the team, they needed one more.

I'm saddened that the Vincennes Rivet Patriots fell in the final game. I was hoping they would win their first state title, regardless of having a girl on the team.

I was a bit infuriated when I see this headline on the Indy Star's website on Saturday morning.

Girl's baseball team falls in Class A title game

I understand the team had a girl on it and I'm sure she was a regular contributor on the team during the season. I just feel that the title is a slap in the face to the Rivet team. ESPN's story on the team focused on a team that just happen to include a the younger sister of one of the players. The Star's story is more "HEY! THERE REALLY IS A GIRL PLAYING BASEBALL HERE!" and oh, by the way, there just happens to be 10 other boys who also helped get this team to the state finals after a 10-11 regular season, but, "HEY, THERE'S A GIRL ON THE TEAM!"

I guess that is why I think the Star is such a shitty paper.

I hope the Patriots do not have to wait much longer for their first state championship. Just remember to keep on chugging along and eventually you will reach the peak!

Unnamed Source Says: Ed Werder Is Still a Douchebag

I cited a source, so it must be true, right?

We have a back log here on LomHenn.com, and I apologize. I'll save the excuses, because there really aren't any. However, I can tell you that there will definitely be more activity here over the next couple of weeks.

And with people like ESPN's Ed Werder on the loose, there should be plenty of things to discuss.

I'm sure you've heard about the latest Werder fiasco involving some obscure, Canadian Football League draftee named Brett Favre. In case you have been blissfully unaware, Favre may again come out of retirement (which he's never really entered, I suppose) to play for the Minnesota Vikings. Favre has had some arm/shoulder trouble, and really the only thing stopping him from declaring a return is that he wants to make sure he's healthy enough to play.

Of course, the sports media world has been eager to engage in FavreWatch 2009: A Sequel to FavreWatch 2008! ESPN, which has never been known to over-hype anything, has led the charge and sent Dallas Cowboys team mascot Ed Werder to cover the Favre saga.

A couple of weeks ago, Werder--using two unnamed sources--reported that the Vikings and head coach Brad Childress had given Favre a deadline of the beginning of the team's OTAs to report or the Vikings would "move on." Favre did not show up to the team's OTAs. Also, Childress said on a sports radio talk show (on KFAN-AM in Minneapolis) that the team never gave Favre a deadline. Werder's reaction to that was to call Childress a liar.

Next, Favre appeared on the first episode of HBO's Joe Buck Live last Monday night, during which Favre said that the Vikings did not give him a deadline. Werder's reaction? Favre is a lair, too!

Werder's justification is that a) Childress doesn't want to admit to imposing a deadline because it would cause divisiveness in the locker room (?) and b) Favre didn't want to say that Childress had imposed a deadline because he didn't want to call Childress a liar. In other words, whenever his story is shown to be wrong, Werder just makes excuses and rationalizations by saying that everyone is lying, with the exception of his unnamed sources.

Here's the deal: you don't get to call everyone involved with a story a liar if you have no proof of it. And, unnamed sources DO NOT count as "proof." In one of the video stories, Werder laughably says that his sources have been "very reliable about this story."

Really? Here's a list of facts Werder has gotten right about this story:

1. A trainer for the Vikings went down to Mississippi to check on Favre's arm and suggest rehabilitation exercises.
2. Favre used to play for the Jets and the Packers, which most people older than 4 already know.
3. Werder's network is indeed called "ESPN."

Here's a list of things Werder has gotten wrong:

1. Vikings Coach Brad Childress imposed a deadline on Favre making a decision (Childress, Favre, and Favre's agent deny this)
2. The Vikings arranged for Favre's surgery (according to Favre, the first time the Vikings were directly involved was when the trainer came to Mississippi to check on his progress)
3. Werder's sources actually exist
4. Favre won an Academy Award for his performance in There's Something About Mary (although Favre deserved the Oscar by many accounts, it went to James Coburn for Affliction in perhaps the tightest race in Academy Award history)
5. Minnesota Coach Brad Childress REALLY IS Gerald McRaney (I know it's been done, but I had to go with the obvious)

(Points #4 and #5 may have been made up by me)

ESPN's reporters clearly don't care if their stories are right or not--they just run the stories with absolutely no accountability from the network. Ed Werder and Chris Mortensen are openly mocked by players, coaches, and media critics (like us) for not being accurate, yet ESPN does nothing to make its reporters more accountable.

Someday--and I hope I'm around to see it--someone will call ESPN out on this horseshit and sue the network for a million-zillion-gagoogly dollars. Perhaps then, when it affects its bottom line, will ESPN care about the integrity of its reporters.

I'd Like To Think We Had Something To Do With This

Monday Night Football: no more Kornheiser.

From now on, the sun will shine a little brighter; food will taste better; people will be nicer to each other.

And fewer ears will bleed on Monday nights.

FotM...Better Late Than Never!

Hey, folks!

I apologize for not getting back to this sooner, but jobs, deadlines and late night parties have kept me away for too long. We never got back to with the February Fucktard of the Month and now it is time for March's!

Along the way this month, we have also welcomed O'Hoolix into the mix and if it wasn't for him, this would have been a shitty month. Thanks, O'Hoolix for keeping us going this month. Not only are his posts funny, you can also take his picks to the bank (most days, sorry about Saturday and last night...).

Now back to the matter at hand.

We'll start with February's Fucktard of the Month Award. Our nominees were Bud Selig - Baseball's Fucktard Extraordinaire, Alex Rodriguez - Baseball's latest steroid poster boy, and ESPN - the world leader in shitty sports programming.

I am proud to say the we had a unanimous winner in our first monthly award. And our winner is...




Bud Selig!



Congratulations, Bud! The man is an infected boil on baseball's ass. This man has almost single-handedly dragged baseball from America's pasttime and the top sport in the USA to number two behind the NFL. Granted, the NFL has worked hard to become what it has and even though it seems to be trying to screw it up, it mostly gets it right. Bud Selig ignored the steroid issue until he no longer couldn't, allowed a tie in an All-Star game, dragged his feet on instant reply, and then tried to say the he had no idea that steroids were being used and it was not his fault. And this is why you have been given the FotM Award. Bud, something tells me I will see you back here again real soon.

And now that we have ushered in the month of April, that means it is time for another FotM Award and another batch of nominees.


1. Bob Kravitz

Bob, along with many other sports columnists, cannot seem to understand the NCAA tournament selection process. OK, so neither can we it seems. (Butler a No. 9 seed?) yet, the tournament selection committee does state that they look at the season as a whole AND only for the current season, i.e. we do not care how you did last year (Davidson) or how many championships you have won in the past (IU). And yet, here is Bob blasting the committee on Purdue's No. 5 seed, even though they won the Big Ten tournament. And here is Bob not saying a thing about Butler's No. 9 seed! Bob also wrote a piece on how the Big Ten deserved seven teams in the tournament because the Big Ten has had five different teams in the Final Four this decade, while the ACC and Big East only have had four "different" teams over that same period. Whahuh? Sadly, no one was not able to get to this piece in a timely manner. None the less, Bob is still a candidate for the FotM.

2. Jay Cutler

Man what a cluster fuck. I'm still having flashbacks of Jeff George and the Colts...must be the tequila (CaboWabo rules!). Every NFL quarterback has a good-sized ego. Jay's is probably three sizes to big. Therefore, Jay's ego was bruised when he heard the Josh McDaniel offered Cutler as part of a multi-team trade for Matt Cassel. So Jay decided to throw a tantrum and the Broncos' were forced to backpedal and try to smooth Jay's ego. Unfortunately, the whole episode blew up with accusations going back and forth, calls not answered, trades demanded and a gullible team to make a trade with. In the end Cutler was traded to the Chicago Bears and the Bears' overpaying in order to get a decent QB. We'll see how it all pans out next season, but Jay's tantrum nets him a FotM nomination.

3. ESPN (again)

Like Bud Selig and Bob Kravitz, ESPN will probably be a mainstay in the FotM nominations. I could probably just cut and paste last month's nomination here as it still mostly applies. Still not showing events in HD, shitty announcers, heavy East Coast biases, Joe Morgan, etc., etc., etc... I understand that they want to broadcast as much sports as they can, but I think they have tried to gobble up to much and they do not have the staff anymore to handle it. Most of the faces we had associated with ESPN, at least the ones I liked, are gone. The replacements do not hold a candle to their former associates and the quality of the programming continues to decline. Plus Joe Morgan is just consistently bad.

So post a comment or send us an email to vote for the March Fucktard of the Month. Remember, vote early and vote often!

Subtraction By Addition

Figuring that they didn't have enough idiocy on Sunday Night Baseball, ESPN decided to add Steve Phillips to the lineup of Jon Miller and the award-winning (!) Joe Morgan. Phillips is a former baseball general manager, and let's just say that having him analyze baseball is like having someone from AIG handle your 401k account.

So, on tonight's opening night broadcast of the Braves/Phillies:

Phillips (commenting on Brian McCann hitting cleanup for the Braves): "The fact that he's hitting 4th tells you something about their lineup. The Braves don't have an aircraft carrier--that big power hitter in the middle of their lineup. They don't have that guy--they will try to beat you with length and breadth of their lineup--no big home run hitter, but a bunch of guys with moderate power."

Literally a second after Phillips finished the sentence, McCann launched an upper-deck home run. Priceless.

I have a feeling this kind of thing will happen a lot this season.

--EDIT--

2nd inning: Phillips describing how excited the Braves' Jeff Francoeur was about the start of the season:

"He was so excited, he almost swallowed his earlobes."

Yep, we've got 6 months of this to look forward to.

Or Maybe He Wanted To Help John Clayton Look Dumb

Ever noticed the question-and-answer sessions between reporters and anchors on news/sports programs? For example, when they bring in the "expert" to explain an ongoing story or to provide more information?

John Clayton is the NFL "expert" on ESPN's SportsCenter. Clayton was brought in this evening to provide insight on the latest developments in the Julius Peppers saga. To sum up, Peppers wants to be traded from the Carolina Panthers and has a four-team wish list. ESPN reported this about a month ago, and the only team identified on his wish list was Dallas.

Today, there is a story that says that the Patriots are one of the four teams on Peppers' list. This story comes a day after another story claimed the Pats were close to trading a 2nd-round draft pick for Peppers.

On tonight's 6 p.m. EDT SportsCenter, anchor Brian Kenny asked Clayton "who the four teams are" to which Peppers would accept a trade. Clayton's response: "it's irrelevant...if the Panthers don't want to trade him, it's not going to happen."

In other words, "I don't know." But Clayton couldn't just say that, could he? Never mind that every report regarding this story quotes a source "close to Peppers" who has identified the Cowboys, the Patriots, and two unidentified NFC teams as the four teams. Why doesn't Clayton say that? Perhaps because it's not a story that ESPN broke? The original story is a month old. The only thing different about the story now is that we know a second team (the Patriots) that Peppers would accept going to in a trade.

The typical rule for this type of interaction between the anchor and a reporter is for the reporter to feed the question to the anchor before they go on the air. This is so the anchor doesn't ask a question the reporter has no answer for. Did this not happen here? Kenny's focus was on the four-team list, while Clayton's focus was on saying that the deal is unlikely to happen.

It would just be nice for Clayton to admit when he doesn't know something, which would likely happen a lot.

Does It Get Any More Redundant And Repetitive And Redundant Than This?

Watching the "instant classic" Big East Tournament Quarterfinal between Syracuse and Connecticut on ESPN, which is now in its 4th overtime. Great game, except that at the end of the half and each overtime, Bill Raftery has exclaimed, "It doesn't get any better than this!!"

Which begs the question, does he mean at the end of each overtime that the "this" he was referring to previously has gotten better, so that "this" keeps elevating itself? Meaning that "this" is able to improve, so that every time Raftery exclaims "it doesn't get any better than this!!" he means that "this" can never be eclipsed, since it is self-aware and constantly evolving/improving?

Or maybe he just can't think of anything better than "this" to say, so he just repeats himself. Over and over. Repeatedly.

**UPDATE**

Now heading into the 6th overtime (!?!?), and Raftery has made the exclamation in each OT.

As a sidenote, this game is a pleasure for me, as I have a sick pleasure in seeing games go into multiple overtimes--no matter what sport. 25-inning baseball games, 4-5 OT basketball or hockey games, 2 OT sudden death NFL games--you name it. So this is fun!! I want to see 10 overtimes!

**UPDATE 2: ELECTRIC BOOGALOO**

The game has finally ended, with Syracuse winning 127-117. "This" has finished evolving...for now.

Might As Well Be Black & White

ESPN, you are the deuce!

And by "deuce" we mean a good ol' #2. You are not da' bomb, you are a giant stinking piece of shit!

I get that economy is a giant shit-burger right now, but the cable companies and subscribers are paying you to provide HD content for YOUR HD channels. So why the fuck am I watching men's and women's basketball conference championships on ESPN HD and ESPN2 HD in standard definition you cheap, ass-munching fucktards!

As Slut mentioned in a previous entry, this is not the first time ESPN has done this. I am willing to suffer through a SD broadcast for a Horizon League regular season game. I am definitely not thrilled about it and I still would like to bust your balls over it, but I will tolerate it. I am not willing to tolerate it for the conference tournaments and especially a conference championship game. Granted, I do not know what the cost is to broadcast an event in SD versus HD. I am sure that the cost for an HD broadcast is more expensive, but I do not think it is that much more to justify not broadcasting it in HD. ESPN owes the viewers (literally) an HD broadcast on THEIR HD channel.

I scanned the ESPN schedule and as much as I would like to say I am shocked, amazingly the only conference tournament games that will be in HD are from the BCS conferences. So the Big Ten, Pac-10, Big East, ACC, Big 12 and SEC tournament games are all in HD. Every other mid-major and smaller conferences are left to suffer in SD.

Not only do I think that sucks, it pisses me off. As much as I would like to grab my pitchfork and torch and march on Bristol, we all know it would not do much good. It basically sucks that millions of us get to pay for SD on HD.

Fucktards!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

February Fucktard of the Month Nominations

Greetings from The Bahamas!

We apologize for the lack of posts, but everyone has been busy with writing deadlines, baby diapers, keeping networks running and trying to mold young minds while fighting the urge to bash them with a frying pan. I thought I would take a break from writing to catch up on the site and bring you a new feature - The Fucktard of the Month. A year is just to long to wait and there are way too many fucktards in the sporting world to deal with.

February brought us the latest in the steroids issue, A-Rod's contradictory interviews, a shitty ending to the Daytona 500, Michael Phelps' dope smoking pic, the most awesomest Super Bowl ever (NOT!) and ESPN being ESPN. While there are many topics to choose from this month, the cream of the crop do rise to top or more apt, float to the bottom.

1. Bud Selig

The Major League Baseball Fucktard Extraordinaire, er, Commissioner, Bud Selig, publicly stated, "It's not my fault," regarding the steroids issue in baseball. Yes, the man who turned a blind eye to steroids in the league for so many years wants everyone to know he is not to blame.

Bud, uh, correct me if I am wrong, but are you not the head honcho of the league? Do you not have the power to put the drug testing and penalties in place? And even if the Players' Association tried to balk at the drug testing, could you not have lambasted them in the press?

Nah. You and the owners chose to ignore the issue and enjoy the renewed interest in baseball thanks to the home run chases by McGwire, Sosa and Bonds. You only implemented the drug testing and harsh penalties when Congress started taking an interest and threatening the league.

I do not expect you to come right out and say, "Yes, we tried ignoring the issue since we were making money hand over fist and we are at fault for not taking care of the issue sooner." However, we fans are not complete idiots. Mostly idiots, maybe, but not complete idiots. You cannot say you had no idea of the steroids use in the league and expect us to believe it.

Therefore, Bud, you are awarded a nomination as Fucktard of the Month.

2. Alex Rodriguez

The man, the myth, the legendary idiot. Sports Illustrated was able to determine that A-Rod was one of 104 Major League players who tested positive for steroids in 2003, prior to the League instituting the new drug policy. A-Rod did do what most other players who tested positive had not and admitted to taking steroids from 2001-2003. However, in two separate interviews with Peter Gammons and upon arrival at Spring Training, he gave conflicting answers, suddenly had a cousin who was giving him the steroids, failed at the fake cry and left everyone with more questions than answers.

Not that the steroid problem was ever out of the spotlight in baseball, as baseball's highest paid player and one of its biggest stars, he really started a fire storm around the performance enhancing drugs (PEDs). Baseball did not need another black eye on the PED problem, but in this case it got sucker punched. Bud Selig did not do himself any favors as noted above.

A-Rod has the best chance to break Barry Bonds' home run record among the active players within range. People already wanted to have an asterisk by Bonds' name in the record book, now nearly any player from the "Steroid Era" will be suspect for having taken PEDs.

Way to go, A-Hole, I mean, A-Rod!

3. ESPN

Lastly, I nominate ESPN. Why? Because I get more and more frustrated at the #1 network in sports. Not showing sporting events in HD, shitty announcers, shitty anchors, shitty radio personalities, unconfirmed breaking stories that turn out to be false, they may #1, but lately they're acting more like #2, if you know what I mean.

I do not know if they feel this is what the public wants or if they are so clueless they think they can dictate what we want. ESPN's revenues are falling due to a decline in viewership. No shit? Well, yes it is shit and that is why people are not watching. Hello?!? Until ESPN gets a clue, we will continue to be force-fed the drivel they think is sports entertainment.

I'll also toss out a nice Honorable Mention to Michael Phelps for his bong-headed display of getting his picture taken while smoking dope. Idiot...oh, yes! Fucktard...not really.

So your choices for February are Bud Selig, Alex Rodriguez and ESPN. You can vote by commenting or by sending an email to any of us listed on the right-hand side of the page. Remember, vote early and, if you are from Chicago, vote often.

Now back to some Cabo Wabo and some sunning with the ladies. Ciao!

At Least It's Not In Black And White

As a Butler alumnus, it probably comes as no surprise that I follow Bulldogs basketball. Given their recent success and the growth of the program over the last 6-7 years, Butler has gotten more national interest and more games televised this season.

That's the good news. The bad news is that every game that ESPN has televised involving Butler has been in standard definition (SD) instead of HD. I guess ESPN doesn't feel that Butler deserves to be shown in HD? I know that the Horizon League isn't a power conference, but it still seems ridiculous--especially since Butler has been ranked in the Top 25 nearly all season.

And it's not like ESPN doesn't have the resources. I mean, how many people do they have on the air during their Monday Night Football broadcasts? They commit something like 8-9 broadcasters and "analysts" for every MNF game, but can't commit to showing every college basketball game in HD? This isn't 2003, where HD was still pretty new, but 2009, right?

Why not show the game in black and white? Just think about how much cheaper it would be! Better yet, why not just show a black screen and only carry the audio? Talk about a new trend--radio on TV! And it would be appropriate given that today's game is at Butler, which plays in legendary Hinkle Fieldhouse. What better way to celebrate the tradition that Hinkle represents?

Perhaps I should trademark those ideas.

Breaking News: Chris Mortensen Doesn't Understand Journalistic Integrity

Okay, so that's not really breaking news.

As I take a break between shifts at the Oolitic kanuter valve plant, I'd like to point out a fairly old story, but one worth telling. As you probably know, Chris Mortensen is an ESPN reporter. His job is to do investigative reporting on the NFL. Many of his stories involve using unnamed sources to get "behind the scenes" stories.

Mort has many critics, who say that he is seldom right about the news he breaks, and that he basically reports rumors. One such story happened earlier this month.

Back on January 4th, Mortensen wrote a story concerning the Oakland Raiders possibly negotiating to sell off part of the team to a billionaire who has wanted to move a team to Los Angeles. The Raiders denied the story, with team chief executive Amy Trask saying, "Chris' report is not true." Trask also went on to say that Mortensen never contacted the Raiders for their response.

Denials of this type are pretty common, so no big deal, right? However, what happened next isn't so common--in standing by his report, Mortensen said:

'The Raiders have lost the privilege with me of running stories past them for comment,' he said. 'This stems from their history of denials to most stories I have reported — as well as others in the media — when those stories have eventually proven to be true.'

So we have a reporter admitting that he has stopped giving the subject of a story he is writing a chance to respond--one of the most basic tenets of journalism! Yes, many times teams will categorically deny stories, even when those stories turn out to be true. However, a journalist must always ask the subject of his or her story for comment. Period. The fact that Mortensen called it a "privilege" for him to actually do what he is supposed to do as a reporter shows exactly how arrogant Mortensen is.

Later that night Mortensen backed off:

Upon further review, I should not have qualified any potential communication with the Raiders as a 'privilege.' I'd say they have repeatedly diminished and discouraged efforts to reach out for an official comment based on the repeated denials of prior stories...

Not much of an apology. At least Mortensen admitted that using the word "privilege" was dumb, but he still made no apology or admission that he was wrong in not contacting the Raiders for their side of the story. Again, one of the most basic principles of journalism is allow subjects of a story a chance to respond.

This is yet another case of a reporter using questionable sources (or more likely, only one source) to get information and then not bothering to check the facts. The sad thing is, where was the ESPN producer who should have been checking Mortensen's work? And why didn't ESPN issue its own apology?

It's clear that Mortensen doesn't think he needs to follow journalistic principles. It's also very clear that ESPN also feels it doesn't need to hold its reporters accountable, even when those reporters repeatedly ignore the basic standards of journalism.

ESPN to '06 Colts - You Suck!

When you think of the 2006 Indianapolis Colts - do you think of them as overrated?

ESPN's Sal Paolantonio does! Good ol' Sal has labeled the Super Bowl XLI champs as the"most overrated Super Bowl winner." Really?!?

I'll give you that the game was not the most thrilling since it was the first Super Bowl played in the rain. But I think I've seen some worse Super Bowls (XX, XXIV and XXXIII come quickly to mind). Super Bowl XLI may have been the "sloppiest" and not just because of the rain.

There were plenty of mistakes made on both sides. Dungy choosing to kick-off to Devin Hester, which was run back for a touchdown. Rex Grossman doing his Chris Berman impression on a third quarter series - back, back, back. Peyton's lone TD pass to a wide-open Reggie Wayne because his defender was playing man while the rest of his team was in a zone. Rex's limp-wristed lob to Mushin Muhammad that Kevin Heyden intercepted and returned for the game-sealing TD.

I'll also give Sal that Peyton Manning did not deserve the MVP trophy. Dominic Rhodes (113 yds, 1TD) and Joseph Addai (77 yds) should have shared the MVP or if you had to pick just one, then Dom would have been my choice. The Colts put up 191 yards on the ground against the Bears who were 6th against the run, only giving up 99.4 yds/game during the season. Manning won the MVP because he finally won the "big" game. Most overrated MVP? Yes, you could probably give that to Manning.

Beyond that, I think that Sal is off his rocker. The Colts' much maligned defense allowed only one TD and one FG. Their run defense ranked the worst in the NFL giving up 173 yds/game. They held the Bears to 112 yards and no touchdowns. They harassed Rex all night and he really hasn't been the same since, really.

The Bears defense ranked fifth in the league. So that fact that Manning struggled in the rain should not have been too big of a surprise. It was a miracle that our running game worked as well as it did and that is why they should have be given the MVP.

And Sal, your title says the "most overrated winner", but you spend almost the entire article trying to prove it as the "worst" Super Bowl ever. Those are two drastically different categories. The Colts were the #3 seed in 2006, even while finishing 12-4. So they had two win three games to get to the Super Bowl. This was not the 2007 Patriots that are definitely the most overrated loser ever. The Colts had to beat their nemesis, the Patriots, in the AFC Championship. (A much better game.) The line was 6 1/2 points, which the Colts covered. Going into the playoffs, I do not remember hearing the pundits saying the Colts had the easiest road to make it to the Super Bowl or even a majority thinking the Colts would even make it to the Super Bowl. Overrated? I don't think so.

Sal never really gets into why he thinks the Colts were the most overrated team. I would have preferred to see Sal give his worst three, four or five Bowls and his reasoning why they are the worst. I would be slightly more understanding if I could see his comparisons against other "bad" winners.

Obviously, I am more than a little biased since I am a Colts fan. If this game had been between Seattle and Cleveland, then I might be inclined to agree that it was one of the worst Super Bowls. However, as I mentioned before, I can name a few other Super Bowls that were blowouts that I personally thought were worse or just plain boring. Frankly, Sal, I have to rate your article as one of the worst on Super Bowls.

This Just In: Chase Daniel's Mother Is Rooting For Him

Tonight's matchup of Missouri and Northwestern in the Valero Alamo Bowl was a very good game--a 30-23 overtime win by Mizzou. However, a few things in the ESPN telecast marred what should have been a purely entertaining contest:

First off, play-by-play man Ron Franklin was dreadful during most of the broadcast. He had countless errors identifying players, was way behind in calling the game, and said things like "it's a turnover and it'll be 4th down." Of course, you can't have a turnover AND 4th down. Franklin is normally better than this, but tonight was definitely a bad night for him.

The bigger problem was the constant fixation the director had for showing the family of Missouri QB Chase Daniel. During the final two minutes of regulation and the overtime, ESPN showed Daniel's family no fewer than a dozen times...including when Daniel wasn't on the field at all.

Not only is showing a player or coach's family repeatedly during a game become a broadcasting cliche, but it's also completely unnewsworthy. Is it remotely interesting that Daniel's family was rooting for him? Do we need to see that? Do we need to see it more than 10 times?

Here is what the audience was treated to, almost between every play in the final 2 minutes of regulation and the overtime:

When Northwestern had the ball, trying to get in position to win the game in regulation: Daniel's family cheering when the Missouri defense forced a punt.

When Missouri got the ball back and drove down the field for a potential game-winning field goal at the end of regulation: Daniel's family nervous and excited.

When Missouri's field goal kicker missed the field goal at the end of regulation: Daniel's family shocked and in anguish (what was funny is that other people near them were cheering initially, thinking the field goal was good).

When Missouri scored the go-ahead touchdown in OT on a pass from Daniel: Daniel's family celebrating (another funny thing was his mother yelling "Shit!" when Daniels got hit as he threw).

Is this getting old yet? I'm sure it did for anyone not related to Chase Daniel who happened to be watching the game.

Also, what about the other players' families? Are they not rooting for their kids? In this case, was there no one from Northwestern's team worth showing? In my opinion, it's in very poor taste for a telecast to focus on one player's family and ignore all of the others--especially in a college game. It's as if the director is saying, "fuck the other players and their families--we only care about Chase Daniel."

Perhaps it's too much to ask, but could television sports producers and directors focus more on the game on the field, and less on the stuff off of it? Please?

I won't hold my breath.

You Probably Know More Than An ESPN Analyst

The adoption and use of replay in the NFL was supposed to help end controversies by giving officials a tool by which they could correct errors. Presumably, the types of errors that instant replay was designed to correct were the ones that came on big calls that potentially change the outcome of a game.

Such a play occurred in the Steelers/Ravens game. Late in the game (final minute) and with the Steelers trailing 9-6, QB Ben Roethlisberger hit Santonio Holmes with a pass at the goal line. Holmes was falling out of the end zone as he caught the ball. The ruling on the field was that the ball did not cross the plane of the goal line, which would have made it 4th down and Goal from a couple of inches. Of course, the play was reviewed, and subsequently overturned and the Steelers were given a touchdown on the play. Pittsburgh went on to win 13-9. (You can see the play here).

Did the official make the right call in overturning the call on the field? This was an excruciatingly close play, so people will have reasonable opinions on both sides of the issue. However, you would not have found those on ESPN right after the game--you would have found people who are paid to cover and comment on NFL games who seem to be ignorant of the rules!

ESPN calls its NFL segment on SportsCenter "The Blitz," and our cast of characters includes Chris Berman, Tom Jackson, Trent Dilfer, and John Saunders. Here is a transcript of what happened on SportsCenter at approximately 7:50pm with my comments included.

Chris Berman (to Tom Jackson): The ref said "two feet were in the end zone but the ball..."

Tom Jackson: I could tell his feet were in bounds; I saw why the referee (sic) ruled that the ball might have been a couple of inches outside the end zone, because you can see right there the possibility that it never crossed the plane of the end zone, which stretches--as we all know--to infinity.

I love when analysts pull out the "plane of the end zone stretches to infinity" line without knowing what the hell they're talking about. Even if the plane of the end zone goes to "infinity and beyond," that doesn't apply here. What applies is simply this: did any part of the ball cross the goal line?

CB: The ball just has to break the plane...how close it is...

TJ: Since they called it outside the end zone initially, there is some change of call that took place. They either ruled that they made a mistake and the ball is in the end zone, or the rule is all that has to be down are your feet in the end zone. I would like to know which is the case.

I can say, with 100% certainty, that the rule does not state that all you have to do is have two feet down in the end zone. The rule for a touchdown is that a player must have possession of the ball with any part of the ball crossing the goal line. I would bet my last nine Grease Trading Cards on it. Thankfully, one person on the NFL set has a clue:

Trent Dilfer: My understanding is there has to be possession of the football and the ball has to cross the goal line. I talked to Mike Pereira, the head of officials, and that's why the ruling was overturned.

TJ: But then it's a change from what was stated on the field. (laughs)

Isn't every reversal a change from what was "stated on the field?" If Brandon Marshall makes what appears to be a diving catch and it is called that way on the field, and the play is challenged and overturned, wouldn't that be a "change from what was stated on the field?" And a correct one?

It's sad that people who are paid to watch and make meaningful comment on NFL games seem to know very little about the rules. Tom Jackson was a player for the Denver Broncos. He's been on ESPN for like 100 years. He should know better. I don't know if Jackson criticized Donovan McNabb about McNabb's famous lack of knowledge concerning ties and overtime, but if he did, Jackson should call Donovan and apologize.

Now the really dumb part:

John Saunders: Don't you feel the NFL in many ways complicates their (sic) own rules? Quite simply put, if I'm on the sidelines and my two feet are in bounds and I catch the ball, it's a catch. So if my two feet are in the end zone and I catch the ball, that should be a touchdown. It should be that simple.

TJ: It certainly would simplify things.

Simple? It already is simple! Saunders seems to have absolutely no understanding of football. Seriously. To use Saunders's shitty example, of course if you get two feet down on the sidelines it's a catch. But that's not what's in question here--it's the placement of the ball. If you make a catch on the sidelines, the ball is spotted not where your feet are, but where the ball is when either a)your knee hits, or b)you go out of bounds. The significance of having two feet down is merely to determine possession--the spot of the ball has nothing to do with your feet.

The same is true for the end zone. The receiver's feet have nothing to do with the spot. If the receiver has the ball and any part of the ball crosses the goal line--touchdown. Going back to the original play in question (do you remember that?), after consulting instant replay, the referee apparently ruled that Holmes obtained possession of the ball (i.e. controlling the ball with two feet down) with some part of the ball over the goal line. Pretty simple. Was it a good call? Based on the above, I think so.

Perhaps ESPN should make knowledge of the NFL Rulebook mandatory for pretending to be an expert.

Fox Trax Strikes Out

I'm watching Game 2 of the World Series last night and Fox Network is using something they call "Fox Trax" which is a graphic showing where the pitch was located versus the strike zone. Unfortunately, every time they show it, it was fucking wrong! I want to know where the pitch was located when it crossed home plate - NOT WHERE THE CATCHER CAUGHT IT, you fucktards!

ESPN's Gamecast and MLB.com's GameDay online modules show you where the pitch was located as it crossed home plate, i.e. in relation to the batter. Fox is showing me where is the pitch was located when the catcher catches it. Wrong! Wrong! Wrong! The world is watching the game and seeing batters getting called strike three's, but according to Fox, the pitches are no where near the strike zone.

Come on, Fox! Are you rusty since TBS carried the majority of the earlier playoff games this year? Are you just that freaking lazy? Get off your asses and do the job you're fucking supposed to do!

Sunday, Monday, Happy Days!

According to Kirk Herbstreit of ESPN, Marvin Harrison should just pack up and go home to Philly. Appearing as a guest host on the Tirico and Van Pelt Show on ESPN Radio today, Kirk had this to say during a recap of the Colts "comeback"versus the Texans yesterday:

"Marvin Harrison has jumped the shark."

I know that several people at ESPN have been quoted this year stating that Marvin is done, as noted previously in this blog, as well as a local so-called columnist for the Indianapolis Newspaper Monopoly.

I will admit that at 36 years old, Marvin is not the receiver he was in his prime. However, I am not ready to send Marvin walking either. Marvin is still a great possession receiver and can still beat defenders downfield as evidenced yesterday when he had a sure touchdown if Peyton had only thrown the ball better.

He has lost a step, no doubt, but he is also still recovering from knee surgery. Marvin still draws the top defenders many times, so getting open deep will force him to either run better routes or shorter routes.

Marvin's numbers ARE down this year, but they are on par with his numbers from last year prior to his injury.

2008 - 4 games, 17 receptions, 164 yards, 1TD, 1 fumble lost.

2007 - 4 games, 17 receptions, 231 yards, 1 TD, 0 fumbles.

The 17 receptions this year is tied for second for Colts receivers with Anthony Gonzalez.

The Colts also have Reggie Wayne, Anthony Gonzalez and Dallas Clark on the roster. Also, Peyton has not helped matters by under throwing passes, passing to Marvin while he's well-covered, or passes that will get him decapitated. I have also seen Marvin open and then Peyton throw to another receiver.

The team as a whole has been playing like crap. Peyton is still recovering from his knee surgery and the O-line is still a work in progress. When the team finally starts firing on all cylinders and Marvin is left out of the offense, then we can start debating whether he has "jumped the shark" or not.

Marvin will not go to the Pro Bowl this year, but when I need a catch on 3rd or 4th down, Marvin is still the receiver I would look to go to first.

Comeback Aftermath

If you watched the Colts' 31-27 victory over the Texans on Sunday, you witnessed a great and stunning comeback by the Colts. As wonderful as the comeback was (at least, for a Colts fan), there are some issues with how it is being described.

First off, a common way the Colts' comeback is described by sports media is to say that Houston blew a 17-point lead in the final 4:10, as if the Colts got the ball down 17 with that little time remaining. That's a bit misleading. The Texans scored their final touchdown with 8:18 left in the 4th; on the ensuing possession, the Colts took just more than 4 minutes to score a TD to make it 27-17. So the Colts had 8+ minutes to come back--still a very impressive (and unlikely) comeback, but not quite as madcap as only having 4 minutes to do it.

Secondly, some people seem to have not watched what happened in the game. For example, Tom Jackson, ESPN football analyst, said that the reason the Colts came back is "they have #18. He's the guy that sparked this comeback." Granted, Peyton Manning did his part in the victory--he led the drive to cut the lead to 27-17, and he threw the pass that put the Colts up 31-27 on Reggie Wayne's circus catch. But I didn't see Peyton on the field playing defense and forcing the Texans into 3 turnovers in the final 4 minutes. As great as this comeback was, I expect that Peyton will probably get more credit than he deserves from the media.

But this was a team win for the Colts that was helped out by dumb decisions by the Texans. The defense, which had been pretty lousy all day in giving up 27 points, made big plays to get the ball back. The Texans helped, and not just Sage Rosenfels and his spinning fumble-ruski. Houston's play selection late in the game was very suspect: after the Colts made it 27-24, the Texans still could have killed enough of the clock by running the ball and making the Colts burn their final time out. Instead, the Texans threw incomplete on 2nd down, which stopped the clock and saved the Colts time out. It also seemed to make Houston more desperate to make a first down, so instead of running on 3rd down, the Texans tried to pass, which led to the sack/fumble and the Colts taking over on the Houston 20.

As for the Colts offense, they didn't play well most of the day, but still put a drive together to make it 27-17 when all looked lost. And then they executed when the defense got the ball back with a chance to win the game. Again, this was a team win--snatched from what would have been a team loss. Many members of the media will ignore this and instead focus on Manning.

Oh, yeah: finally, this also from Tom Jackson on Sunday night's SportsCenter: "That's the third time this season that we've looked at the stat sheet and wondered how the Colts won a game."

Really? The Colts are now 2-2 after this win. Maybe Tom Jackson can see into the future.

Why Kornheiser Sucks

It's week 4 of the NFL season, yet Tony Kornheiser has somehow gone unscathed on this blog. You know Tony Kornheiser, right? He's the extra guy in the Monday Night Football booth on ESPN, joining Mike Tirico and Ron Jaworski.

It's pretty much understood that anyone who pays attention to such things thinks Kornheiser sucks (who would actually pay attention to such things?). In his two-plus seasons of being the third wheel in the MNF booth, Kornheiser has told unfunny and pointless jokes, been confused about the game he was watching, and has not understood how real play-by-play people get and use background information for the game.

Tonight's Kornheiser moment involves the third example. In the first quarter of the Ravens/Steelers game, Kornheiser tried to interject some background info about Steelers rookie running back Rashard Mendenhall by saying, "I think this is right--Mendenhall is the first running back taken in the first round by the Steelers in something like 19 years."

This statement is correct--I knew without having to look it up. Why did I know? Because as he was finishing the sentence, the ESPN on-screen graphic showed the exact same statistic.

Normally, not much of an issue, except the same thing happened last week during the Chargers/Jets game: after Favre threw his first touchdown pass, Kornheiser threw this in: "I don't want to get this wrong, but I think that was Favre's 95th touchdown pass of less than 5 yards, which is an NFL record." Again, just as he was finishing the statement, the on-screen graphic showed the same stat.

What to make of this? It seems pretty obvious to me that Kornheiser is too lazy to either a) do this research himself, like he's supposed to do, or b) write everything down in a usable form to quickly and reliably access on the air. I think Kornheiser is cherry-picking his stats from a producer or spotter; basically, that person does all the prep work and Kornheiser just picks one stat and copies it. The tip-off is Kornheiser's preface each time he uses something: if he had done the research himself and prepared relevant notes, he'd know the stat was a good one. I mean, for something like $1.8 million a year, preparation would be the least the fucktard could do, yes?

More Kornheiser fun from the same game: late in the first half, the Steelers faithful voiced their displeasure over the poor offensive showing by booing (not just a few boos--a full chorus). Kornheiser's observation: "Those are boos you're hearing, folks." Ah, great analysis there.

At least he's consistent. And by consistent, I mean a piece of poo.


P.S. And if I hear Chris Berman fucking quote "Maggie May" one more time on ESPN during NFL highlights, I will kill something.

Sometimes It's Just Too Easy

An old article from our good friend, Murray Chass (and by good friend, I mean douchebag):

Rays Feeling A Red Sox Rush

By Murray Chass

I love that on a blog entitled "Murray Chass On Baseball," Murray feels it necessary to add a byline to his posts, even though he's the only one who writes for his OWN blog.

By now, you should realize that the Red Sox are going to win the American League East title and finish in first place for a second successive season for the first time since 1916.

Yes, of course--I'm sure you're right.

Or not.

Let me be fair. The main point of this post is not to point out a prediction that Chass got wrong in an article written two weeks ago (though that is fun). There is some other garbage in the article, too. We'll get to that. I am, however, going to make fun of his prediction a little more.

The Tampa Bay Rays have waged a scrappy, valiant fight for first, occupying the top spot since June 28 except for five days around the All-Star break and only one day when they played a game. It would be nice to have them rewarded for a surprising, stupendous season, but even after beating the Red Sox twice this week they seem to be ready to have Boston overtake them.

For fuck's sake--what a shitty sentence. "...occupying the top spot since June 28 except for five days around the All-Star break and only one day when they played a game." It's like a five year-old trying to make an argument: "...mom said I could go outside and get some ice cream and climb on a ladder and go over to Harold's house and look at his dad's dirty magazines and watch reruns of Bosom Buddies and then come home and have a cookie."

Okay, maybe it's an argument for someone a little older than five. Maybe six.

And what the fuck does "they seem ready to have Boston overtake them" mean? At the time, the Rays were holding their own against the Red Sox. Perhaps this is what Chass imagined:

Rays clubhouse after a game. Manager Joe Maddon has called his team in for a meeting.

Maddon: "Guys, we've done a great job all year. Our pitching's been great, we've had enough hitting to win games, the younger players have done very well. Now I think we're ready to take that next step--to have Boston overtake us in the standings. We've been waiting for just the right moment, and since we've been in first place since June 28 except for five days around the All-Star break and only one day when we've played a game, I think now is the time. We're ready."

B.J. Upton: "But coach, shouldn't we keep trying to win?"

Maddon: "No, we're ready to have Boston overtake us. That means we have to start losing."

Carlos Pena: "We just beat Boston. We're still in first. We can actually win the division!"

Maddon: "You guys don't get it. We're not just playing for us; we're playing for Murray Chass. And he says we're ready to have Boston overtake us. He's right--we weren't ready in August when we had the big lead. NOW we're ready. So stop winning."

(Maddon leaves room, goes to his office to look at dirty magazines).

By now, you should also realize that the Yankees aren’t going to make the playoffs for the first time since 1993, their 13-year American League record run going down in flames. Unlike the Red Sox, the Yankees haven’t stayed close enough to the Rays to overtake them for the wild card.

No, because the Yankees would have had to overtake the Red Sox for the wild card, not the Rays. The Rays were ahead of the Red Sox at the time.

Chass got it right about the Yankees, but even Anne Frank could see that by the time this article was written.

As the Red Sox and the Yankees have shown, a team can make up a 5½-game deficit in the last month of the season (see 1978).

Fuck the heck? Are you kidding me? We need to go all the way back to 1978 to see an example of a team making up a 5 1/2-game deficit in the final month??? Just because it was the Yankees overtaking the Red Sox? Is that the only fucking time this has happened? Gosh, I can't think of any other time--oh, wait--last goddamn year it happened twice: the Phillies erased a 7-game deficit to overtake the Mets in the final 17 days, while the Rockies won something like 1463 games in a row at the end of the season to make the playoffs (note: I may be exaggerating the number of games the Rockies won in a row, but I'm sure I'm within 1450 of the actual number).

Again, do we really have to go back 30 years for the best example? How about 1987, when the Blue Jays lost seven in a row in the final week to lose the division to the Tigers? How about 1995, when the Angels blew a 9 game division lead and an 11 game lead in the wild card over the final five weeks of the season?

Why does Chass use 1978? Because it involved the Red Sox and Yankees, so therefore it was more meaningful than the other collapses. Presumably, every one cares about the AL East and the Red Sox/Yankees rivalry more than anything else regarding baseball.

I'm using Chass as the example, but he's hardly alone here. Most of the national media ram the Boston/New York thing down our throats all season. When the Red Sox and Yankees play, forget seeing anybody else on Sunday Night Baseball--in fact, the first series they play in a season, ESPN usually shows two out of three games, with the Saturday game being the national game on FOX (assuming it's a weekend series).

This was never more evident than last Sunday night's Yankee Stadium Lovefest on ESPN. Despite neither team being in playoff contention, ESPN chose to air the final game at Yankee Stadium (Yanks/Orioles) rather than a game with playoff implications. Obviously, the network chose to do this because it was the last regular season game at the Stadium. I suppose that makes sense. However, ESPN went way over the top with it. It's true--because of all the championships and the legendary players (Ruth, Gehrig, Mantle, DiMaggio), Yankee Stadium does have the richest history of any ballpark. It's closing is a huge story. But on a night after a full day of NFL games and some good pennant-race baseball matchups, the lead on SportsCenter was the closing of Yankee Stadium! This, right after the game had aired for 4 hours on the channel! As much as I appreciate baseball history (which is quite a bit), this was unwarranted given the other sports news that happened Sunday.

I get that the Yankees and Red Sox get higher ratings on ESPN, so we'll see them more often. I understand the business of it and the myopic view TV programmers get when making decisions. The one thing that ESPN programmers don't factor in to their decisions is that some of the higher rating for the Red Sox/Yankees is inflated because that's all ESPN ever shows. If ESPN would do a better job of exposing some of the other teams in baseball on a regular basis, that would help fans in other areas of the country get to know those teams. Of course, that doesn't mean that ESPN should show a game between two last place teams just to get them on the air. But a Tampa Bay/Minnesota matchup would have been very appropriate this year, given that they were both at or near the top of their respective divisions all year. However, ESPN is on the east coast, and they want the short term ratings boost. So no small-market teams, and more Yankees/Red Sox.

The rest of the Chass article (yes, I was critiquing an article, remember?) is just a poorly-written look at why Boston would end up in first place. For an article that mentions the Rays in the headline, he hardly talks about them at all. But he does go on to write more about the Yankees, even though the headline seems to indicate the article isn't about them.

It seems that Chass, like many others who cover baseball, just can't see past the Red Sox and Yankees--even when the story of the year is standing right in front him.

Cross the "T" in Idiotic

Last weekend's college football games brought us some dramatic upsets and the usual idiotic drivel from sports commentators of the various sporting networks. One of the hottest discussions from last weekend came from the BYU-Washington game and the controversial ending.

Jake Locker scored the winning touchdown with two seconds remaining in the game and in his excitement flipped the ball over his head and began to celebrate with his teammates. As a result of flipping the ball in the air, Locker received an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty for excessive celebration. The 15-yard penalty meant the chip shot extra point that would tie the game was now a 35-yard attempt and subsequently was blocked by BYU and BYU won the game.

Everyone from Huskies coach Tyrone Willingham to seeming evryone at ESPN (Jim Caple, Mark May, Lou Holtz, Kirk Herbstriet, etc) all feel that the refs made the wrong call in penalizing Locker. Granted, Locker did not fire the ball into air in celebration as much as just flipped it into the air. However, the NCAA Rule 9, Section 2, Article 2c states that “throwing the ball high into the air” in celebration is an act of unsportsmanlike conduct subject to a 15-yard penalty.

The ball was thrown into the air and the refs were correct in making the call. Why is it that everyone at ESPN seems to think that the refs were wrong to make a call that they were correct in making? I have seen several sports writers note that all football calls are judgement calls and the refs should have not called this penalty because it was seemingly an innocent flip of the ball. So if I "innocently" bump into a receiver while guarding him, that should not be a pass interference or illegal contact call? If I "innocently" hold a lineman, I should not be called for holding? Of course I'm going to get called, assuming they see it.

I'm curious what everyone would be saying if Locker had done this in the first or second quarter and they ended up losing by the one-point? Would everyone still be up in arms about it? If it is a penalty in the first quarter it should be a penalty on the final play.

Is it a crap rule? The way it is written, yes it is. I understand the NCAA wants decorum and integrity in their players, but flipping a ball into the air is not an excessive celebration. Don't kill the refs for making the correct call, go kill the NCAA rules committee for making a shit rule.

And while your at it, can you kill most of the ESPN college commentators while you're at it?

Dot the "I" In Idiotic

It was a busy weekend, sportswise, with the NFL opening weekend, MLB pennant races getting down to the last couple of weeks, and college football's second weekend. And with having lots of sports on TV comes lots of bad announcing on TV!

Take Ohio St. vs. Ohio U. on Saturday. Ohio State came from behind to win 26-14 in a game in which it was a 33 1/2 point favorite. ESPN sideline reporter Rob Simmelkjaer, when asked if Ohio State's lackluster performance against Ohio was a bad sign for the upcoming Ohio State/USC game next week:

"I don't want to take anything away from Ohio today, but Ohio State played down to the level of its competition. The Buckeyes were horrible today...again, I don't want to take anything away from Ohio, but Ohio State plays down to the level of its competition when it faces bad teams. Against a good team like USC next week, Ohio State always rises to the level of its competition, so I expect the Buckeyes will be ready." (emphasis mine)

You don't want to take anything away from Ohio, huh? Do you think that perhaps not giving them any credit for nearly beating a top 5 team takes anything away from their performance? Is it possible that Ohio had something to do with making it a close game?

Oh, and Ohio State always rises to the level of its competition, eh? Like this game? Or maybe this one?

Yeah, that seems about right.

This Really Happened

Fuck the heck?



This was on the website today at approximately 4pm (it has since been changed).

You think the headline may be a bit in appropriate for the Olympics in Beijing...CHINA??

Fucktards.

Baseball Tonight: Scrubs Edition

There's nothing like preseason football. Watching 4th, 5th, and 6th stringers play one another in a game that doesn't count is quite exciting--if you like meaningless games. I'd prefer the starters and backups on my favorite team not play at all during the preseason. (Actually, it would be even better if there were no such thing as preseason games, but the NFL likes the automatic revenue.)

But isn't it fun to watch scrubs for both teams play each other after the starters play the requisite quarter or two? I get that there are a lot of players fighting for jobs, but it isn't exactly the highest quality football.

So what does this have to do with ESPN's Baseball Tonight? Watching BBTN on Saturday night is like watching NFL preseason in that ESPN is down to its 4th or 5th-string hosts for the program.

Tonight's lineup: Mike Hill, Chris Singleton, and Buster Olney. Singleton and Olney appear pretty regularly on the show, but aren't used as much as John Kruk, Eduardo Perez, and Tim Kurkjian, for example. The Hill/Singleton/Olney lineup is comparable to the Colts having Jared Lorenzen playing QB with Anthony Gonzalez as the #1 WR and Dominic Rhodes as the #1 RB (important note: if the Lorenzen/Gonzalez/Rhodes scenario happens any time after August 28th, riots will ensue in Indianapolis).

Anyway, on tonight's episode of BBTN (10 p.m. EDT edition), Mike Hill was at his 4th-string best. Highlights:

1. In trying to highlight Roberto Clemente's volunteer efforts, Hill could not say the word "humanitarian." Instead of just going forward, he explained that he's "not a good orator."

There are many broadcasters who are probably not good orators. But they are broadcasters, which would indicate that they can handle the English language. At least partially, anyway.

2. In reading Clemente's bio, Hill tried to read the last line, which ended with something like, "humanitarian efforts that went along with his illustrious career." However, "illustrious" came out "ill-us-troy-us," with the accents on "ill" and "troy."

3. Little League World Series highlights: Mexico vs. Curacao. Hill couldn't pronounce Curacao. The sad part was that he tried to sound it out on the air. Chris Singleton said it for him, then preceded to do the highlights for Hill when he couldn't pronounce any of the names.

Look, foreign pronunciations are difficult. And people have off days. But you'd think the Worldwide Leader in Sports would have production meetings and pronunciation guides to help their anchors, not to mention producers whose job it is to get the information to the anchors. My guess is that the producers did their jobs, but Hill just didn't get it. And this isn't the first time Hill has butchered the English language on BBTN.

I think Hill's in trouble when the rosters get cut to 75 players.

John Saunders Has Lost His Brain

Now for the latest ESPN idiocy (seems to be a common theme):

Astros/Cubs on Monday Night Baseball. Gary Thorne, Orel Hershiser, and Steve Phillips are the announcers. Top of the 4th, Geovany Soto hits an inside-the-park home run (not an easy thing to do for a catcher). Replay clearly shows the ball hit the wall in a spot that should have been an automatic home run. Not a big deal--same result, and Thorne et al. note this.

Here's where it gets stupid: Phillips compares that ball to the ball Carlos Delgado hit on Sunday night in the Mets/Yankees game that appeared to hit the foul pole (it was originally ruled a homer, then overturned and ruled a foul ball. You can see the video here, and also see that the ump has admitted his mistake).

The announcers then throw it to John Saunders in the ESPN studio, who shows the Delgado ball and makes the argument that the ball missed the foul pole entirely. Even if this was true, the ball hit the wall first, clearly on the fair side of the line!

So, what Saunders is saying is that if a ball hits the top of the outfield wall and then bounces into foul territory, it's a foul ball. Perhaps this is a new rule! I have some other new rules: 1) If a foul ball hits the top of the wall and bounces into fair territory, it's a fair ball. 2)If a ball hits second base, it's an automatic triple. 3)If you make a shot from behind the potato salad, you get 3 bonus runs.

I Have Seen the 7th Layer of Hell...

...and it's Chris Berman interviewing Joe Morgan on Baseball Tonight.

God, stop playing skee-ball on the boardwalk and call Berman home already. Or at least call him away from the ESPN studios.