The Pro Bowl was yesterday. I completely forgot about it. Even if I'd remembered, I wouldn't have watched it. It might be the most meaningless, least entertaining thing in all of sports.
DeAngelo Hall was the game's MVP, and as a prize he won a new Cadillac. Here's what he had to say about it:
"I was just about to buy another SUV, so to come out here and grab one for free, I like that."
This sort of reminds me of when the NBA was in labor negotiations a million years ago and Latrell Sprewell, in an effort to defend the players' desire for more money, commented, "I've got kids I gotta feed."
I, for one, am thrilled that DeAngelo Hall won't have to go into debt to get another vehicle. It's obviously a big need for him. You've got to get around somehow, right? And even though he says he was going to get "another SUV," I'm sure he meant, "I really need a car, since I donated my last one to Goodwill. I think I'll go with something cheap and economical. Especially since I don't make that much money, and it's important to live within your means."
Monday, January 31, 2011
Saturday, January 8, 2011
Seahawks flyin' high
I just wanted to say a few things regarding today's playoff games:
First, let me point out an interesting tidbit. The Seahawks have now won a playoff game... and they still have a losing record (8-9).
Second, I'd like to say that I LOVE that the Seahawks won today. I had some friends over tonight to watch the later game (Jets-Colts) and I was rooting for the Colts to win. It wasn't a real big deal for me, I was just hoping. I explained to a couple of my friends that I think the reason was pulling for the Colts is because I don't think the Jets are a legitimate contender, and so I like it when super-hyped teams who I don't believe are that good get beaten. Of course, a friend of mine then pointed out that I had been cheering for the Seahawks too, and in that game, certainly they were the non-contenders. I laughed with my friend, accepting the irony of my position.
After my friends left, however, I was thinking about it, and I think my position was consistent. Certainly the Seahawks can't be considered an NFC powerhouse, and the Saints were in the hunt for the #1 playoff seed up until the final week of the season! Still, there's always been something about the Saints to me where I feel like they win a lot of games they really shouldn't. Even as they ended the season with an impressive streak, they've never seemed to me like a Super Bowl caliber team.
Truth be told, what I'd really like to see in the NFC is the Packers beat the Eagles tomorrow (I think the Packers are the better team all around), which would lead to a Packers-Falcons game next weekend (those are the two best teams in the NFC in my opinion), and a Seahawks-Bears game (no matter who wins, I believe they lose in the NFC Championship the next week).
That's all I really have to say right now. Thanks.
First, let me point out an interesting tidbit. The Seahawks have now won a playoff game... and they still have a losing record (8-9).
Second, I'd like to say that I LOVE that the Seahawks won today. I had some friends over tonight to watch the later game (Jets-Colts) and I was rooting for the Colts to win. It wasn't a real big deal for me, I was just hoping. I explained to a couple of my friends that I think the reason was pulling for the Colts is because I don't think the Jets are a legitimate contender, and so I like it when super-hyped teams who I don't believe are that good get beaten. Of course, a friend of mine then pointed out that I had been cheering for the Seahawks too, and in that game, certainly they were the non-contenders. I laughed with my friend, accepting the irony of my position.
After my friends left, however, I was thinking about it, and I think my position was consistent. Certainly the Seahawks can't be considered an NFC powerhouse, and the Saints were in the hunt for the #1 playoff seed up until the final week of the season! Still, there's always been something about the Saints to me where I feel like they win a lot of games they really shouldn't. Even as they ended the season with an impressive streak, they've never seemed to me like a Super Bowl caliber team.
Truth be told, what I'd really like to see in the NFC is the Packers beat the Eagles tomorrow (I think the Packers are the better team all around), which would lead to a Packers-Falcons game next weekend (those are the two best teams in the NFC in my opinion), and a Seahawks-Bears game (no matter who wins, I believe they lose in the NFC Championship the next week).
That's all I really have to say right now. Thanks.
Sunday, January 2, 2011
I'm a fan.
When the end of the NFL season rolls around, I often hear on sports radio or other sports outlets about the fact that many fans whose teams are out of the playoff hunt cheer for their team to lose in order to get a better draft pick in preparation for the next season. The question is often posed, "Would you root for your team to lose once they're mathematically eliminated from playoff contention so that they can get a better draft pick in the off-season?"
I feel like it's maybe been three or four years running that that question has come up, and before this season, it was always hypothetical for me. I'd usually think to myself, "I don't think I'd cheer for my team to lose, but I suppose it makes sense."
Well, today (really the last few weeks) that question was no longer hypothetical. Having faced the issue head-on, I can now answer unequivocally that I rooted for my team to win every game they played. I still understand the logic of rooting for a loss, I've just discovered that that's not the kind of fan I am. Being a fan, to me, means hoping your team wins. Always. No matter the circumstance. Period. It's okay if you disagree.
I guess this is how I see it: I get 16 games per year to cheer on my team. If they make the playoffs (which I, of course, hope for... and usually expect) I get bonus games. Nothing should be able to lower the number of games I get excited about, though. Now, if the 'Boys are completely out of the hunt, I will go to far less trouble to make sure I watch the game, but nothing will make me give up two or three (or more) games from the season and start rooting against them.
That's all I had to say tonight!
I feel like it's maybe been three or four years running that that question has come up, and before this season, it was always hypothetical for me. I'd usually think to myself, "I don't think I'd cheer for my team to lose, but I suppose it makes sense."
Well, today (really the last few weeks) that question was no longer hypothetical. Having faced the issue head-on, I can now answer unequivocally that I rooted for my team to win every game they played. I still understand the logic of rooting for a loss, I've just discovered that that's not the kind of fan I am. Being a fan, to me, means hoping your team wins. Always. No matter the circumstance. Period. It's okay if you disagree.
I guess this is how I see it: I get 16 games per year to cheer on my team. If they make the playoffs (which I, of course, hope for... and usually expect) I get bonus games. Nothing should be able to lower the number of games I get excited about, though. Now, if the 'Boys are completely out of the hunt, I will go to far less trouble to make sure I watch the game, but nothing will make me give up two or three (or more) games from the season and start rooting against them.
That's all I had to say tonight!
Sunday, December 12, 2010
Sorry. This isn't really about the game at all.
I was just thinking: I really want Tony Dungy's job. Unless I'm completely missing something. I wonder how many hours the guy puts in a week. Dungy is one of the Football Night in America crew members. Every week, the show goes on the air at 5 pm (Mountain Time) and Dungy, along with Dan Patrick, and Rodney Harrison (with a little Peter King, Mike Florio, and Bob Costas thrown in) briefly break down the week's games. The show is largely highlights from all the games throughout the day, with Dungy and Harrison making a comment or two for each game, and then they take 2 or 3 games and break them down in a little more detail, describing some of the key plays.
Then at 6:20 Cris Colinsworth and Al Michaels take over for the Sunday Night game. Dungy's back at halftime for a brief opinion on how the game's going, then he shows up again after the game for a couple of comments about it.
Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge fan of Tony Dungy. He's way smarter about football than I am, but I could make at least as many intelligent comments as him in 1.5 hours of work.
So from my vantage point, it looks like all he really has to do is make sure and scan the football headlines every day so he knows if a huge trade went down or if a key player is injured. Then, he just shows up at 30 Rockefeller Center in NYC on Sunday and watches every game (or even just the RedZone channel) with a few other football experts, then makes some on-air comments, then watches the Sunday Night game to make a few more on-air comments. It really doesn't seem like outside of Sunday he needs to work more than about an hour a week!
Am I taking too much away from Dungy? Do you think he scours film for 15 hours a day during the season? I dunno. I just think it'd be a dream job. Spend the week with family, volunteering, doing ministry and mentoring (or what have you), and then Sunday is GAME DAY and you just have to watch games and talk about them. And get paid handsomely. Nice.
Then at 6:20 Cris Colinsworth and Al Michaels take over for the Sunday Night game. Dungy's back at halftime for a brief opinion on how the game's going, then he shows up again after the game for a couple of comments about it.
Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge fan of Tony Dungy. He's way smarter about football than I am, but I could make at least as many intelligent comments as him in 1.5 hours of work.
So from my vantage point, it looks like all he really has to do is make sure and scan the football headlines every day so he knows if a huge trade went down or if a key player is injured. Then, he just shows up at 30 Rockefeller Center in NYC on Sunday and watches every game (or even just the RedZone channel) with a few other football experts, then makes some on-air comments, then watches the Sunday Night game to make a few more on-air comments. It really doesn't seem like outside of Sunday he needs to work more than about an hour a week!
Am I taking too much away from Dungy? Do you think he scours film for 15 hours a day during the season? I dunno. I just think it'd be a dream job. Spend the week with family, volunteering, doing ministry and mentoring (or what have you), and then Sunday is GAME DAY and you just have to watch games and talk about them. And get paid handsomely. Nice.
Saturday, December 4, 2010
'Boys over Colts?
Five of ESPN's eight NFL "experts" who pick the winners for every game each week have picked the Cowboys to defeat the Colts in Indianapolis tomorrow afternoon. Are they smokin' some kind of weird drug, or do the 'Boys really have a shot? Your thoughts?
My thoughts - sure, they have a shot, but wouldn't pick them if I worked for ESPN. Manning and the Colts are desperate. They NEED a win. I think they'll get it. Dallas might keep it close, though.
My thoughts - sure, they have a shot, but wouldn't pick them if I worked for ESPN. Manning and the Colts are desperate. They NEED a win. I think they'll get it. Dallas might keep it close, though.
Thursday, December 2, 2010
The Playoff Machine
Check THIS out. ESPN has come up with an NFL "Playoff Machine." You start by choosing a criteria (home team, away team, power rankings, win %, offensive rank, or defensive rank). The "machine" then automatically determines the outcomes of every NFL game for the rest of the season based on what you selected, and shows you a complete playoff picture based on what those results would produce. Of course, none of those criteria would be completely accurate, so you can view all the games week-by-week and change any individual game you think would turn out differently than the criteria you chose... and the playoff picture updates automatically! It's SUPER cool. Maybe the niftiest thing I've ever seen on the web relating to sports.
Monday, November 29, 2010
Playoffs and Seeds
This post has pretty much nothing to do with the Cowboys in particular. It's about the NFL playoffs as a whole.
Right now the co-leaders of the NFC West (Seattle and St. Louis) are 5-6. The two teams playing right now (in the century's WORST EVER prime-time NFL game), San Francisco and Arizona, are both 3-7, and as ESPN's website puts it, the winner of this game is "very much alive" in the division's race. It's entirely conceivable that the winner of the NFC West could end the regular season with losing record (7-9), or (at best?) .500 (8-8).
If you didn't know, the NFL takes 6 playoff teams from each conference: The winner of each of the four divisions, plus two wildcards. That means that if St. Louis wins the West with a 7-9 record, they would make the playoffs -- possibly over a 10- or even 11-win team.
Furthermore, the NFL's seeding rules automatically make the four division winners the top four seeds (regardless of record). Division winners, therefore, automatically get at least their first playoff game at home.
Every couple of years an 8-8 team will make the playoffs and people start to wonder whether the NFL's playoff rules make the most sense. Some say that the top 6 teams in a conference should make the playoffs, even if that means not every division is represented. I don't think I would have a problem with such a rule, because I hate to see 11-5 teams miss the playoffs. Perhaps before this measure is taken, however, the NFL should just try to alter how they set playoff seeds. I see no reason why a division winner should automatically get to host a playoff game. Let's say the Saints win out (not an unbelievable notion), and the Falcons lose only to the Saints in Week 16. Both those teams finish 13-3. One wins the division (based on tiebreakers) and the NFC's #1 seed (which means a playoff bye, and home field throughout). The other 13-3 team has to play AT St. Louis, who is 5 or 6 games WORSE! Does that at all seem right?
In other words, you could be the fourth-worst team in the league and still get to host a playoff game. You could also be the second-best team in the league and still have to play a road playoff game as a wildcard. I guess in my opinion, if you want the regular season to really mean something, you should be rewarding teams who perform better during the regular season. It also seems like this would all but ensure that the best teams remain in the playoffs longer, which should be the goal of any sport's post-season (it's why the #1 seed plays the #16 seed in round 1 of March Madness).
Anybody object? Or have a better solution? Do you favor the "change the seeding" idea, or would you go for the "top 6 teams regardless of division" idea instead?
Right now the co-leaders of the NFC West (Seattle and St. Louis) are 5-6. The two teams playing right now (in the century's WORST EVER prime-time NFL game), San Francisco and Arizona, are both 3-7, and as ESPN's website puts it, the winner of this game is "very much alive" in the division's race. It's entirely conceivable that the winner of the NFC West could end the regular season with losing record (7-9), or (at best?) .500 (8-8).
If you didn't know, the NFL takes 6 playoff teams from each conference: The winner of each of the four divisions, plus two wildcards. That means that if St. Louis wins the West with a 7-9 record, they would make the playoffs -- possibly over a 10- or even 11-win team.
Furthermore, the NFL's seeding rules automatically make the four division winners the top four seeds (regardless of record). Division winners, therefore, automatically get at least their first playoff game at home.
Every couple of years an 8-8 team will make the playoffs and people start to wonder whether the NFL's playoff rules make the most sense. Some say that the top 6 teams in a conference should make the playoffs, even if that means not every division is represented. I don't think I would have a problem with such a rule, because I hate to see 11-5 teams miss the playoffs. Perhaps before this measure is taken, however, the NFL should just try to alter how they set playoff seeds. I see no reason why a division winner should automatically get to host a playoff game. Let's say the Saints win out (not an unbelievable notion), and the Falcons lose only to the Saints in Week 16. Both those teams finish 13-3. One wins the division (based on tiebreakers) and the NFC's #1 seed (which means a playoff bye, and home field throughout). The other 13-3 team has to play AT St. Louis, who is 5 or 6 games WORSE! Does that at all seem right?
In other words, you could be the fourth-worst team in the league and still get to host a playoff game. You could also be the second-best team in the league and still have to play a road playoff game as a wildcard. I guess in my opinion, if you want the regular season to really mean something, you should be rewarding teams who perform better during the regular season. It also seems like this would all but ensure that the best teams remain in the playoffs longer, which should be the goal of any sport's post-season (it's why the #1 seed plays the #16 seed in round 1 of March Madness).
Anybody object? Or have a better solution? Do you favor the "change the seeding" idea, or would you go for the "top 6 teams regardless of division" idea instead?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)