you have to fix everything that's broke
because it'll never leave you alone-"Money Made You Mean"
Indigo Girls
Wednesday, September 02, 2009
Thursday, August 06, 2009
2007 State Quarters: Montana to Utah
So once again I've let over a year go by between my reviews. In fact, the 2006 review was a year and a half ago. Anyways, invigorated with the birth of my first child, I'm back!
I read through a few of the other review to make try and keep the grading equal. That is, I want to make sure a D last year is equal to a D this year... does that make sense? Anyways on to the quarters:
Montana - When I first started grading/reviewing the state quarters I realized that I needed to be fair when it came to states like Kansas and Nebraska, which didn't have easily notable features in their state. I gave Kansas a C because, although they had an okay design, they went entirely generic. The Kansas quarter could have easily passed for the Nebraska or South Dakota quarter. On the other hand the Nebraska quarter took a lesser known feature in the state and made a nice quarter out of it. Well, Montana was one of those states I felt I needed to be extra "fair" with (Although they do have the Roosevelt Arch and, in fact, I'm a little surprise it's not included in the alternates). But I guess they did well going with a bison skull, a landscape and the nickname "Big Sky Country." I like the design and particularly the off-center placement of the nickname. However, like the Kansas quarter, it just isn't unique. But, I still like it and for some reason I like it better than the Kansas quarter. Grade: B
Washington - Back when I graded Oregon I gave them an A because they used their most prominent natural feature and did it beautifully and simplistically. Well their neighbors to the north have followed suit with their own prominent natural feature, Mount Rainier (which also appears on their license plates). However they decided to add the king salmon jumping out of the water and the state nickname "The Evergreen State." While I don't particularly dislike the addition of the salmon or the nickname, I think the salmon is a little distracting. Overall though a good design.
I would like to point out one of the other finalists for the Washington quarter: A stylized Native America orca. I've got to admit, that design intrigues me. It would certainly been top 10, and I may have even given it the top spot in my upcoming 1-53 countdown (53 now that DC, Guam and Puerto Rico are getting quarters). Alas, Washington went with Rainier and the salmon which will get them the high grade, but because of my previous points will probably rank low among the other states with that grade. Grade: A
Idaho - The bird you see on the Idaho state quarter is the Peregrine Falcon. Now guess what the state bird of Idaho is? If you said the Peregrine Falcon you would be incorrect! It's actually the Mountain Bluebird. But the Mountain Bluebird seems to be pretty darn boring so Idaho went with its "state raptor", the Peregrine Falcon. Trust me, it doesn't get much better.
Not only is it not their state bird, they picked something that is not unique to Idaho. And while I would love to give Idaho a pass on the "no well-identified feature" point, they actually have a pretty good feature in the Snake River (and the Perrine Bridge). Sure those are not particularly well known features, but neither is the New River Gorge and the New River Bridge and West Virginia pulled it off exceptionally well. (Besides they had a better alternative in the Farmland Tapestry alternative.) Instead they went with the Peregrine Falcon and then made it worse by adding a small outline of the state with a star for the state capital, Boise. Oddly, the only thing I didn't dislike was the motto: "Esto Perpetua". Sadly that wasn't enough to save them from a big fat... Grade: F
Wyoming - This was probably the hardest quarter to grade because every time I think about the Wyoming quarter I feel differently about it. The biggest problem is that Wyoming just has no excuses. They've got three famous National Park sites in Yellowstone (Old Faithful was one of the alternates), the Grand Tetons and Devil's Tower. But they decided to stay true to their cowboy roots and went with the cowboy on a bucking horse which has appeared on practically every license plates they've released (although their latest license plate also has Devil's Tower on it). So while I commend them for going with their tried and true "logo", unfortunately the featureless logo looks bad as a plain outline on a coin. Finally, I'm not sure if the state nickname, "The Equality State", helps (by adding features) or detracts (by distracting from the lone featureless cowboy). I guess it comes down to me being that bad teacher in school: had Wyoming not had other choices I would have given them a B, however since their bar was set higher, the get a Grade: C
Utah - Oh Utah! Ye of many national parks! Why would you go with Golden Spike? Or maybe the better question is: why would you go with such a bland depiction of the 1869 meeting at Promontory Summit. The actual meeting seemed much more exciting. So not only is the image boring (and cut off at the bottom!), they forsook a state motto or nickname for the nickname of Salt Lake City, "Crossroads of the West".
You've lost me, Utah. I don't like it. What makes it all worse is that Utah could have gone with the theme of one of their license plate (Arches National Park or their snow/winter sports) or their seal/state logo (beehive) and easily gotten a B. Oh well, at least the mixed themes (Golden Spike and Salt Lake City) isn't THAT obvious and thus it isn't the worst quarter out there. However, I definitely am feeling generous with the grade. Grade: D
I read through a few of the other review to make try and keep the grading equal. That is, I want to make sure a D last year is equal to a D this year... does that make sense? Anyways on to the quarters:
Montana - When I first started grading/reviewing the state quarters I realized that I needed to be fair when it came to states like Kansas and Nebraska, which didn't have easily notable features in their state. I gave Kansas a C because, although they had an okay design, they went entirely generic. The Kansas quarter could have easily passed for the Nebraska or South Dakota quarter. On the other hand the Nebraska quarter took a lesser known feature in the state and made a nice quarter out of it. Well, Montana was one of those states I felt I needed to be extra "fair" with (Although they do have the Roosevelt Arch and, in fact, I'm a little surprise it's not included in the alternates). But I guess they did well going with a bison skull, a landscape and the nickname "Big Sky Country." I like the design and particularly the off-center placement of the nickname. However, like the Kansas quarter, it just isn't unique. But, I still like it and for some reason I like it better than the Kansas quarter. Grade: B 
Washington - Back when I graded Oregon I gave them an A because they used their most prominent natural feature and did it beautifully and simplistically. Well their neighbors to the north have followed suit with their own prominent natural feature, Mount Rainier (which also appears on their license plates). However they decided to add the king salmon jumping out of the water and the state nickname "The Evergreen State." While I don't particularly dislike the addition of the salmon or the nickname, I think the salmon is a little distracting. Overall though a good design.I would like to point out one of the other finalists for the Washington quarter: A stylized Native America orca. I've got to admit, that design intrigues me. It would certainly been top 10, and I may have even given it the top spot in my upcoming 1-53 countdown (53 now that DC, Guam and Puerto Rico are getting quarters). Alas, Washington went with Rainier and the salmon which will get them the high grade, but because of my previous points will probably rank low among the other states with that grade. Grade: A
Idaho - The bird you see on the Idaho state quarter is the Peregrine Falcon. Now guess what the state bird of Idaho is? If you said the Peregrine Falcon you would be incorrect! It's actually the Mountain Bluebird. But the Mountain Bluebird seems to be pretty darn boring so Idaho went with its "state raptor", the Peregrine Falcon. Trust me, it doesn't get much better.Not only is it not their state bird, they picked something that is not unique to Idaho. And while I would love to give Idaho a pass on the "no well-identified feature" point, they actually have a pretty good feature in the Snake River (and the Perrine Bridge). Sure those are not particularly well known features, but neither is the New River Gorge and the New River Bridge and West Virginia pulled it off exceptionally well. (Besides they had a better alternative in the Farmland Tapestry alternative.) Instead they went with the Peregrine Falcon and then made it worse by adding a small outline of the state with a star for the state capital, Boise. Oddly, the only thing I didn't dislike was the motto: "Esto Perpetua". Sadly that wasn't enough to save them from a big fat... Grade: F
Wyoming - This was probably the hardest quarter to grade because every time I think about the Wyoming quarter I feel differently about it. The biggest problem is that Wyoming just has no excuses. They've got three famous National Park sites in Yellowstone (Old Faithful was one of the alternates), the Grand Tetons and Devil's Tower. But they decided to stay true to their cowboy roots and went with the cowboy on a bucking horse which has appeared on practically every license plates they've released (although their latest license plate also has Devil's Tower on it). So while I commend them for going with their tried and true "logo", unfortunately the featureless logo looks bad as a plain outline on a coin. Finally, I'm not sure if the state nickname, "The Equality State", helps (by adding features) or detracts (by distracting from the lone featureless cowboy). I guess it comes down to me being that bad teacher in school: had Wyoming not had other choices I would have given them a B, however since their bar was set higher, the get a Grade: C
Utah - Oh Utah! Ye of many national parks! Why would you go with Golden Spike? Or maybe the better question is: why would you go with such a bland depiction of the 1869 meeting at Promontory Summit. The actual meeting seemed much more exciting. So not only is the image boring (and cut off at the bottom!), they forsook a state motto or nickname for the nickname of Salt Lake City, "Crossroads of the West".You've lost me, Utah. I don't like it. What makes it all worse is that Utah could have gone with the theme of one of their license plate (Arches National Park or their snow/winter sports) or their seal/state logo (beehive) and easily gotten a B. Oh well, at least the mixed themes (Golden Spike and Salt Lake City) isn't THAT obvious and thus it isn't the worst quarter out there. However, I definitely am feeling generous with the grade. Grade: D
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Monday, June 29, 2009
Saturday, June 20, 2009
Tuesday, June 09, 2009
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Friday, March 13, 2009
How does your favorite team losing make you feel?
Well, it's been a month so it's time to write about nothing again.
ESPN had a very interesting poll on their website today asking the question "How do you feel when your favorite team loses a close game in multiple overtimes?" And the two options were: "Proud of the team" and "Devastated."
Overall, and at the time I'm writing this, it was 26% proud and 74% devastated. Most of the country falls fairly close to these numbers but interestingly some areas stand out.
Every state, except for Alaska, has devastated winning with at least a 2 to 1 margin. Alaska, while overwhelmingly "devastated" had the lowest level of devastated answers at 62%. West Virginia and North Dakota tied for second place at 67%. The trend forming here is that each of those states don't have top level professional sports teams. In fact every state who has devastated at 70% or lower doesn't have a top level professional team. (Kansas, at 69%, is the "nearest" with the Kansas City Chiefs and Royals who play across the river in Missouri.)
I guess it makes sense, since in most of those "under 70% devastated" states, college sports is the main draw. So it is understandable that for a young college team the feeling is pride instead if disappointment.
Interestingly, on the other side are those states that come in high on the devastated level. New Jersey and Massachusetts came in at the highest levels of devastation with 78%. In fact, in New England it spread out of Massachusetts into Vermont and New Hampshire which both came in at 77% devastated levels. Now it's a litter harder to explain these but for I'll give it a try.
For one, I'll use my "warm weather sports theory" which essentially states that the warmer the weather is in a state, the less the state tends to care about team sports and, to a greater extent, professional sports (this is evident in my award winning "ESPN's Sports Guy is retarded - Part 2" article where each of the top "Lousy" and "Indefensible" sports cities is in warm weather climates). Additionally, these areas tend to have rabid professional fans (South Jersey is a Philly sports area and New England is Celtics and Red Sox land) while not having any particularly outstanding college sports teams.
Finally, it is interesting to note that the international poll (76%) came in slightly above the overall poll (74%) which makes sense since the overwhelming emphasis in international sports is on professional sports and not collegiate sports.
ESPN had a very interesting poll on their website today asking the question "How do you feel when your favorite team loses a close game in multiple overtimes?" And the two options were: "Proud of the team" and "Devastated."
Overall, and at the time I'm writing this, it was 26% proud and 74% devastated. Most of the country falls fairly close to these numbers but interestingly some areas stand out.
Every state, except for Alaska, has devastated winning with at least a 2 to 1 margin. Alaska, while overwhelmingly "devastated" had the lowest level of devastated answers at 62%. West Virginia and North Dakota tied for second place at 67%. The trend forming here is that each of those states don't have top level professional sports teams. In fact every state who has devastated at 70% or lower doesn't have a top level professional team. (Kansas, at 69%, is the "nearest" with the Kansas City Chiefs and Royals who play across the river in Missouri.)
I guess it makes sense, since in most of those "under 70% devastated" states, college sports is the main draw. So it is understandable that for a young college team the feeling is pride instead if disappointment.
Interestingly, on the other side are those states that come in high on the devastated level. New Jersey and Massachusetts came in at the highest levels of devastation with 78%. In fact, in New England it spread out of Massachusetts into Vermont and New Hampshire which both came in at 77% devastated levels. Now it's a litter harder to explain these but for I'll give it a try.
For one, I'll use my "warm weather sports theory" which essentially states that the warmer the weather is in a state, the less the state tends to care about team sports and, to a greater extent, professional sports (this is evident in my award winning "ESPN's Sports Guy is retarded - Part 2" article where each of the top "Lousy" and "Indefensible" sports cities is in warm weather climates). Additionally, these areas tend to have rabid professional fans (South Jersey is a Philly sports area and New England is Celtics and Red Sox land) while not having any particularly outstanding college sports teams.
Finally, it is interesting to note that the international poll (76%) came in slightly above the overall poll (74%) which makes sense since the overwhelming emphasis in international sports is on professional sports and not collegiate sports.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Stump wins and Beagle comes up
Last night a new king of dog shows was crowned. Stump a Sussex Spaniel won Best In Show at the Westminster Dog Show. Of course, this decrowns, or retires, or whatever you want to call it, Uno the Beagle as the king of dogs. Graciously Uno did a final tour, he even went to the top of the Empire State Building, before making an appearance at Westminster on Monday night. I guess he wanted to make sure the transition went smoothly.
Oh well, all good things must come to an end and this is no exception. I will borrow an idea from the Vatican, which when the pope died referred to John Paul II as John Paul the Great. Uno the Great it is!
Also, tonight we got to see the debut of Jay Beagle for the Caps. (Yes the Caps lost, but it was in a shootout... against a team that is seemingly built for the shootout... and who has a ridiculous number of wins from the shootout.) Anyways, I'm hoping Beagle does well if only so that I can get Gilligan a jersey.
Oh well, all good things must come to an end and this is no exception. I will borrow an idea from the Vatican, which when the pope died referred to John Paul II as John Paul the Great. Uno the Great it is!
Also, tonight we got to see the debut of Jay Beagle for the Caps. (Yes the Caps lost, but it was in a shootout... against a team that is seemingly built for the shootout... and who has a ridiculous number of wins from the shootout.) Anyways, I'm hoping Beagle does well if only so that I can get Gilligan a jersey.
Monday, February 09, 2009
ESPN's Sports Guy is off his rocker - Part 2
I wrote up the first part of this rant soon after the ESPN's Sports Guy (Bill Simmons) absurdly called DC a "top-3 lousy/indefensible major sports city" but I didn't post it immediately. I rediscovered it this past weekend cleaned it up and posted it today... but I felt like it wasn't complete. I needed to rank, in my opinion, who should be in the "top-3 lousy/indefensible major sports city". (BTW, this may make more sense if you read the first post before reading this one.
So here we go: My thoughts as to who should be considered the "top-3 lousy/indefensible major sports city". First though, we need to establish a few terms and such:
What is a "Major Sports City?"
It seems a bit obvious that we should stick to the traditional "Major Sports" of NFL, MLB, NBA and NHL. (Sorry, MLS I'ld include you but until us soccer fans become more of a force I'm keeping MLS off the list. Take it as incentive to build.) But then how do we define the cities?
Do We Include Cities With Only One Sports Team?
There are various teams that only have one sports team: San Antonio (NBA), Salt Lake City (NBA), Portland (NBA), Jacksonville (NFL), various Canadian NHL cities, etc. Since these cities only have one sports team, competition is less and the following is usually pretty good. And when the following isn't all that good, it's usually a result of suckage on the part of the team and consequently it's too easy to pick on the city. For those reasons I probably won't make much mention of them.
There are, however, cities that only have one team but could be joined with neighboring cities (Orlando to Tampa, San Jose to San Francisco, Green Bay to Milwaukee, Columbus to Cleveland and/or Cincinnati, Raleigh to Charlotte, Memphis to Nashville, etc.)? This is tough because I'm going to have to make a rather arbitrary line. We'll go ahead and put the line at being within approximately a one hour drive. So for the purpose of this evaluation, Orlando is now part of Tampa and San Jose is part of San Francisco. The rest remain by themselves. So cities such as Green Bay, Raleigh, and Memphis won't figure much in this discussion for the reasons listed earlier.
Roughly put, if a city only has one major sport AND we can't combine it with another city... you don't really count as a "Major Sports City".
What about "Major Sports Cities" with two sports?
The way I figure there are 11 cities in this category: Baltimore, Buffalo, Charlotte, Cincinnati, Indianapolis, Kansas City, Milwaukee, Nashville, New Orleans, San Diego and Seattle. First, and to drive home the point from the previous post: When it comes to NFL fans, none of these cities' fans can match Redskins fans (the Chiefs probably come closest). Of course, Milwaukee doesn't have an NFL team, but no one would believe you if you tried to say that Brewer or Buck fans are as fervent as Skins fans. The only city whose combined sports fans come close to Washington's fans may be Buffalo... but that is only because DC would be pulled down by the lack of Nats fans (like I said, they're still new). And in "defensibility" Buffalo has the upper hand, since they have no Stanley Cup wins and no Super Bowl wins (their last championship win was an AFL Championship in 1965).
To make things interesting, I'm not going to include these cities. That way, it will be even more obvious that Simmons doesn't know what he's talking about.
What about "Major Sports Cities" with three sports?
This is where things get interesting. By my count there are 5 cities which definitely fit this category: Cleveland, Houston, Pittsburgh, St. Louis, and Toronto. Now if we we're to include these towns, Houston would probably be the only one in consideration for the top side of lousy/indefensible sports cities. Not to say they're definite but Cleveland and Pittsburgh have great football fans, St. Louis has great baseball fans and Toronto has great hockey fans. Houston's best fans are probably their football fans, but they gave up on the Oilers and were given a team most because of the efforts of the city of Cleveland to get their football team back.
The interesting part is how to include San Francisco and Oakland. Each has a NFL and a MLB team but do we put the Warriors under Oakland or San Francisco? Or both? Hard to say, but I won't worry about it since they not making the Top 3.
Dealing with how "Lousy" and "Indefensible" a fan base is.
The tough part of this is to gauge how defensible the lousiness is. (Did that make any sense?) For instance, Nats fans "lousiness" is defensible in that, aside from an interesting overachieving first season which still ended with a .500 record, the team has sucked since it's been here AND they've only been here for 4 years. On the other hand, the Marlin's fans "lousiness" isn't defensible because they have two World Series trophies in the past 11 years AND are last in MLB attendance by a huge margin. Their only defensible point is that they're relatively young at 15 years of existence.
Finally: The Top 3...
Did I say Top 3? Heck, I'll do a Top 5! Here is my list, in no particular order:
So of the 14 cities (that doesn't include San Fransisco or Oakland) that have four or more professional teams, those are the top lousy/indefensible 5 cities. And if we include San Fransisco, Oakland, and the 5 "three team cities", we would definitely need to give San Fransisco and Houston a good look before even considering putting DC on that list.
So here we go: My thoughts as to who should be considered the "top-3 lousy/indefensible major sports city". First though, we need to establish a few terms and such:
What is a "Major Sports City?"
It seems a bit obvious that we should stick to the traditional "Major Sports" of NFL, MLB, NBA and NHL. (Sorry, MLS I'ld include you but until us soccer fans become more of a force I'm keeping MLS off the list. Take it as incentive to build.) But then how do we define the cities?
Do We Include Cities With Only One Sports Team?
There are various teams that only have one sports team: San Antonio (NBA), Salt Lake City (NBA), Portland (NBA), Jacksonville (NFL), various Canadian NHL cities, etc. Since these cities only have one sports team, competition is less and the following is usually pretty good. And when the following isn't all that good, it's usually a result of suckage on the part of the team and consequently it's too easy to pick on the city. For those reasons I probably won't make much mention of them.
There are, however, cities that only have one team but could be joined with neighboring cities (Orlando to Tampa, San Jose to San Francisco, Green Bay to Milwaukee, Columbus to Cleveland and/or Cincinnati, Raleigh to Charlotte, Memphis to Nashville, etc.)? This is tough because I'm going to have to make a rather arbitrary line. We'll go ahead and put the line at being within approximately a one hour drive. So for the purpose of this evaluation, Orlando is now part of Tampa and San Jose is part of San Francisco. The rest remain by themselves. So cities such as Green Bay, Raleigh, and Memphis won't figure much in this discussion for the reasons listed earlier.
Roughly put, if a city only has one major sport AND we can't combine it with another city... you don't really count as a "Major Sports City".
What about "Major Sports Cities" with two sports?
The way I figure there are 11 cities in this category: Baltimore, Buffalo, Charlotte, Cincinnati, Indianapolis, Kansas City, Milwaukee, Nashville, New Orleans, San Diego and Seattle. First, and to drive home the point from the previous post: When it comes to NFL fans, none of these cities' fans can match Redskins fans (the Chiefs probably come closest). Of course, Milwaukee doesn't have an NFL team, but no one would believe you if you tried to say that Brewer or Buck fans are as fervent as Skins fans. The only city whose combined sports fans come close to Washington's fans may be Buffalo... but that is only because DC would be pulled down by the lack of Nats fans (like I said, they're still new). And in "defensibility" Buffalo has the upper hand, since they have no Stanley Cup wins and no Super Bowl wins (their last championship win was an AFL Championship in 1965).
To make things interesting, I'm not going to include these cities. That way, it will be even more obvious that Simmons doesn't know what he's talking about.
What about "Major Sports Cities" with three sports?
This is where things get interesting. By my count there are 5 cities which definitely fit this category: Cleveland, Houston, Pittsburgh, St. Louis, and Toronto. Now if we we're to include these towns, Houston would probably be the only one in consideration for the top side of lousy/indefensible sports cities. Not to say they're definite but Cleveland and Pittsburgh have great football fans, St. Louis has great baseball fans and Toronto has great hockey fans. Houston's best fans are probably their football fans, but they gave up on the Oilers and were given a team most because of the efforts of the city of Cleveland to get their football team back.
The interesting part is how to include San Francisco and Oakland. Each has a NFL and a MLB team but do we put the Warriors under Oakland or San Francisco? Or both? Hard to say, but I won't worry about it since they not making the Top 3.
Dealing with how "Lousy" and "Indefensible" a fan base is.
The tough part of this is to gauge how defensible the lousiness is. (Did that make any sense?) For instance, Nats fans "lousiness" is defensible in that, aside from an interesting overachieving first season which still ended with a .500 record, the team has sucked since it's been here AND they've only been here for 4 years. On the other hand, the Marlin's fans "lousiness" isn't defensible because they have two World Series trophies in the past 11 years AND are last in MLB attendance by a huge margin. Their only defensible point is that they're relatively young at 15 years of existence.
Finally: The Top 3...
Did I say Top 3? Heck, I'll do a Top 5! Here is my list, in no particular order:
- I definitely agree that Phoenix deserves to be on the list if only because they had problems selling out the D-Back's (who won a World Series 7 years ago!) playoff games last year. Who knows, maybe they're just more into the ASU Sun Devils than anything else?
- Considering Los Angeles has 2 NHL teams, 2 NBA teams and 2 MLB teams, they deserve to be on this list because they don't seem to care about the NFL. Yes, the Lakers and Dodgers have a good fan base, but 2 out of 6 is not good enough for a place with so many professional teams. (BTW, they even have 2 MLS Teams!)
- Miami. If I were ranking them, I would almost put Miami above Atlanta. Despite 2 World Series titles in the past 12 years and 1 NBA title (three years ago), the Marlins are last in attendance and the Heat aren't in the top half of attendance percentage.
- Tampa Bay/Orlando. They've got a Stanley Cup and Super Bowl trophy in the 2000s and neither fan base is "hefty". I guess it makes sense, since the oldest of their teams is from the 70s, and pretty much sucked until their Super Bowl win. Oh well, I guess if I lived in Florida I wouldn't care as much about sports, aside from football, either.
- Atlanta was mentioned by Simmons, but I'm not too sure about their inclusion in the top 3. Their lack of overall support is "defensible" in that, aside from the Braves, they've got no championships. I would put them in the top 5 though, because considering how good the Braves were in the 90s they're barely in the top half in home attendance last year (they're in the bottom half in attendance percentage, i.e. how full their stadium gets).
So of the 14 cities (that doesn't include San Fransisco or Oakland) that have four or more professional teams, those are the top lousy/indefensible 5 cities. And if we include San Fransisco, Oakland, and the 5 "three team cities", we would definitely need to give San Fransisco and Houston a good look before even considering putting DC on that list.
ESPN's "Sports Guy" is official off his rocker
Back in the early 2000s I used to read ESPN.com and CNNSI.com all the time, since they were the big time online sources for sports. Particularly, I liked reading Page 2's "The Sports Guy" (formerly "The Boston Sports Guy") because he melded pop culture references, stretching back to the 80s, with sports. And of course it helped that, growing up in a town without a baseball team, I was a Red Sox fan.
His view of things was helped by the fact that, besides the success of the Celtics in the early 80s, Boston was woeful in terms of sports. The Patriots were the laughing stock of the league. Maybe the Pats weren't the Saints or Lions but they were the Buffalo Bills or Minnesota Vikings. The Bruins, aside from getting pummeled twice in the late 80s by the Edmonton Oilers in the Stanley Cup finals, had done nothing since the times of the Original Six. And the Red Sox were... well the pre-2004 Red Sox.
Additionally, it didn't matter that aside from the NBA and to a lesser extent MLB, he was full of it (for example, listen to his recent thoughts about MLB pitcher Troy Percival). He didn't care about soccer and he didn't talk about the NHL, claiming that he "divorced" the Bruins. He spent a lot of time writing about the NFL, but it was pretty obvious that although he knew a lot about the game, he was terrifically wrong with his predictions and saw the league through his newly Patriot colored glasses. You see right as he got big, so did the Patriots and he conveniently avoided the fact that although technically a dynasty (in terms or Super Bowls won over time), the Patriots were anything but dominating. He also ignored the fact that the AFC consisted of only one true threat to the Patriot's dominance (The Colts) and that their Super Bowl wins were a result of last minute field goals and playing against Andy Reid and Donovan McNabb. By the way, do I need to mention the fact that cheating could very easily account for how slightly better the Patriot's coaching seemed to be?
Anyways, I stopped reading mostly because many of his ideas proved to be wrong and his writing became cocky and annoying. I particularly remember his whiny self-pitying article about how he got beat at the WSOP in the first 3 hours. That article was the point when I stopped consistently reading him. He became like a dumbed-down version of Dennis Miller with too many sarcastic analogies and too little actual information.
I would still read his weekly NFL picks, mostly wanting to get to the part where he would pick against the Redskins and all but assure a Skins win that week. Of course, he would finish right around 50% with his picks (in other words no better than a coin flip) and to make matters worse he would lose to his wife (who apparently knew zippy about football). But recently, I starting reading him consistently again... I think the Tom Brady injury brought me back. I guess I felt bad but I also (to be honest with some schadenfreude) wanted to see his reactions.
Unsurprisingly, he was just as lost with his predictions (see how he thought Red Sox were still alive and how he blows off his incorrect NFL rankings by calling it the "goofiest NFL season in six years"). But it all culminated in a "chat" he had a while back where he lumped Washington with Phoenix and LA in something he called the "top-3 lousy/indefensible major sports city."
Once again his lack of NFL knowledge is blatantly obvious since he apparently has no idea of the love this town has for the Redskins. That alone would eliminate DC from this list. Not to mention the fact that the Capitals have a DEVOTED following (just do a search for the various Caps blogs on the internet) in spite of their lack of championships, that the Nats just finished their 4th season here, and that DC United has essentially the biggest and most devoted following in MLS (but like I said he doesn't care about soccer). Now, I'll admit that the Wizards following isn't great considering they've got a championship 30 years ago, but then again it was 30 years ago. So I'll agree that the Wizards following MAY be "lousy/indefensible" but he's insane for suggesting that DC is in general a lousy/indefensible major sports city.
His view of things was helped by the fact that, besides the success of the Celtics in the early 80s, Boston was woeful in terms of sports. The Patriots were the laughing stock of the league. Maybe the Pats weren't the Saints or Lions but they were the Buffalo Bills or Minnesota Vikings. The Bruins, aside from getting pummeled twice in the late 80s by the Edmonton Oilers in the Stanley Cup finals, had done nothing since the times of the Original Six. And the Red Sox were... well the pre-2004 Red Sox.
Additionally, it didn't matter that aside from the NBA and to a lesser extent MLB, he was full of it (for example, listen to his recent thoughts about MLB pitcher Troy Percival). He didn't care about soccer and he didn't talk about the NHL, claiming that he "divorced" the Bruins. He spent a lot of time writing about the NFL, but it was pretty obvious that although he knew a lot about the game, he was terrifically wrong with his predictions and saw the league through his newly Patriot colored glasses. You see right as he got big, so did the Patriots and he conveniently avoided the fact that although technically a dynasty (in terms or Super Bowls won over time), the Patriots were anything but dominating. He also ignored the fact that the AFC consisted of only one true threat to the Patriot's dominance (The Colts) and that their Super Bowl wins were a result of last minute field goals and playing against Andy Reid and Donovan McNabb. By the way, do I need to mention the fact that cheating could very easily account for how slightly better the Patriot's coaching seemed to be?
Anyways, I stopped reading mostly because many of his ideas proved to be wrong and his writing became cocky and annoying. I particularly remember his whiny self-pitying article about how he got beat at the WSOP in the first 3 hours. That article was the point when I stopped consistently reading him. He became like a dumbed-down version of Dennis Miller with too many sarcastic analogies and too little actual information.
I would still read his weekly NFL picks, mostly wanting to get to the part where he would pick against the Redskins and all but assure a Skins win that week. Of course, he would finish right around 50% with his picks (in other words no better than a coin flip) and to make matters worse he would lose to his wife (who apparently knew zippy about football). But recently, I starting reading him consistently again... I think the Tom Brady injury brought me back. I guess I felt bad but I also (to be honest with some schadenfreude) wanted to see his reactions.
Unsurprisingly, he was just as lost with his predictions (see how he thought Red Sox were still alive and how he blows off his incorrect NFL rankings by calling it the "goofiest NFL season in six years"). But it all culminated in a "chat" he had a while back where he lumped Washington with Phoenix and LA in something he called the "top-3 lousy/indefensible major sports city."
Once again his lack of NFL knowledge is blatantly obvious since he apparently has no idea of the love this town has for the Redskins. That alone would eliminate DC from this list. Not to mention the fact that the Capitals have a DEVOTED following (just do a search for the various Caps blogs on the internet) in spite of their lack of championships, that the Nats just finished their 4th season here, and that DC United has essentially the biggest and most devoted following in MLS (but like I said he doesn't care about soccer). Now, I'll admit that the Wizards following isn't great considering they've got a championship 30 years ago, but then again it was 30 years ago. So I'll agree that the Wizards following MAY be "lousy/indefensible" but he's insane for suggesting that DC is in general a lousy/indefensible major sports city.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
TV: American Idol and Important Things
This evening marks the return of American Idol for its eighth season. The good news is that I'm taking the adding of Kara DioGuardi as a fourth judge as a step away from the "kinder, gentler" Idol we saw last season. Not only is DioGuardi supposedly a tough judge, I'm hoping they show more of the "not so good" folk... but only the next few days will tell.
Hope is most certainly alive though with what I'm calling the best new show I haven't seen: Important Things with Demetri Martin. Like I said, I've yet to see it (it debuts in February) but it's Demetri Martin's show and that is good enough. The guy is seriously hilarious, kind of like a sober Mitch Hedberg. Anyways, I'm looking forward to it and so should you... if you want a taste go ahead and do a quick youtube for his comedy.
Hope is most certainly alive though with what I'm calling the best new show I haven't seen: Important Things with Demetri Martin. Like I said, I've yet to see it (it debuts in February) but it's Demetri Martin's show and that is good enough. The guy is seriously hilarious, kind of like a sober Mitch Hedberg. Anyways, I'm looking forward to it and so should you... if you want a taste go ahead and do a quick youtube for his comedy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)