this is older news, but i really haven’t kept up on sports lately. besides watching the occasional college football upset, updating my fantasy football roster and tuning in to single at bats of baseball games for the purpose of betting on homeruns, i have no idea what’s going on in the wide world of sports. but here’s the news: the warriors named stephen jackson captain of the team (actually he’s co-captain with baron davis and my fifth favorite player in the nba, matt barnes). i guess people are all upset because jackson is spending the first seven games suspended not to mention all those other suspension he’s received in his career. and there was that brawl he was involved in. here’s how espn.com covered the story:
Webster’s Dictionary defines a captain as “a person of importance or influence in a field.”
Stephen Jackson‘s past might not have put him in that category, but his future certainly will.
who thinks that starting a piece with the webster’s definition of the word you’re talking about is a good idea? it’s been used as a joke so much (at least five time on the simpsons alone), that if this is supposed to be a joke, it isn’t a very funny one. i beginning to think that the biggest problem with espn is laziness. they already dominate sports, so they don’t even try. if you’re doubting me, try watching the monday night football post-game report. they just make it up.
anyway, i think jackson is a good captain choice. i’m going to make him the captian of my fantasy basketball team. jackson just got a new tattoo. it’s two praying hands holding a gun in front of a church. here’s how jackson describes it: “i pray i never have to use it again.”
i can’t find anything online to back me up which means i may have dreamed this, but i swear this happned when i turned sportscenter on the other night:
that one sportscaster — the giant with glasses who looks normal because he’s sitting next to an alien — started talking about federer’s latest win. federer now has 50 wins and he’s only 26. to put this in perspective, glassy told me that at age 26 mozart had written 30 or so symphonies, edison had like 40 pattents, and john wayne and/or john ford had made 30 movies but none of them in color and stagecoach was still to come. and, of course, he mentioned how many wins roger’s best-friend tiger woods had at age 26.
so what was glassy saying about federer? that he’s going to die in a couple years playing the best tennis match in the history of the world? that he’s going to start patening his backhand slice? that he’ll become a nostalgic pop icon so loaded with possible meanings that no one will know what you’re talking about when you name-check federer?
here’s the funny part, roger federer is the fifth youngest tennis layer to record 50 wins. bjorn borg did it when he was 23. so who do you compare him to?
dear skip bayless,
i watched you on cold pizza today. you probably thought you were being witty and clever when stated your amazement at allen iverson’s play during the denver nuggets winning streak. i think you were like, “i’m truly amazed that allen iverson is actually deferring. deferring.” that might not be totally accurate but that’s ok since i’m only holding myself to the analytic standard you seem to hold for yourself. i am pretty sure that you repeated deferring twice. that makes sense. it’s a underused word and you want people to know that you know how to use it.
here’s my question: which of your jokes did you laugh harder at when you came up with them? your iverson actually deferring joke or your me, myself and iverson nickname joke?
love, brian form this person knows what i’m talking about
i was watching some of the college basketball tournament and somebody (i don’t know names) blocked some shot and the announcer was like, “he’s only 6’6″ but he has a 6’8″ wingspan.” so i was like, “i wonder if i think and act like a primate because i might have the wingspan of a primate?” three weeks later i was at dusty’s house measuring everybody’s wingspans and that was that. here are the results:
dusty says i drag my knuckles, but at least i can reach my computer keyboard.
the 177th semi annual general conference for the LDS chuch is happening this weekend. at first glance one would incorrectly infer that there is nothing sports related to this event. wrong.
what’s more sporty than old men (average 60-167 years old [i just made that up, but it's surprisingly accurate]) dueling in a verbal battle? so, it may seem a little dry, but one has to take into account that as age ravishes our mortal frames the last tools of battle that we’re left with are our words. I mean, obviously we won’t see any UFC fighting during those 2 hour blocks. But the battle will be with nouns and pronouns.
this is the real deal. it’s all played off very nonchalantly because of legality issues. the bets on this sports event bring in a high percentage of annual gambling stats. if you decide to participate in watching this event you might see the scorekeepers/statkeepers. They wear headsets, and are called “interpreters”.
what can you bet on? lots of things. the number of times each individual will use key words like “spirit” “love” “charity”. The odds aren’t high with those bets, but if you’re looking for the really high stakes you can predict the exact time an individual speaker will consume with their words. Fun family pots about who will conduct which session are also common.
if you’re too busy to participate in this riveting action, you can always see the results a few weeks after conference in the conference reports. there is a section that shows the play by play action and gives a final breakdown of all the stats.
i’m no basketball historian, but there seems to be a kind of mantra about the differences between the two conferences in the nba spoken by so-called professional nba writers/commentators since the beginning of the century: the west is the best; the east is the least. giving these so-called professionals some group-think credit, the western conference is the better conference in certain contexts. the west boasts the four teams with the best overall record (dallas, phoenix, san antonio and utah) as well as dominating head-to-head match-ups (detroit and cleveland are the only teams in the east with a winning record against teams from the west). so, whatever.
but this simplification of the differences between the conferences leads to a simplification in coverage. the implied message is that the west is the only conference worth covering. but the simplification continues. it’s not just the western conference as a whole, but the few teams at the top of the west that’s worth covering. so it’s all dallas, phoenix, san antonio and the lakers; in the east it’s either dwade or lebron. and everybody buys it. i guess it’s like that since we’re all so busy and we’re all about maximizing our time (that’s why people get blackberry’s, right?), if we watch sports we better be watching sports efficiently. in other words, we want to watch the best players on the best teams playing the other best players on the best teams and we don’t want to waste our time watching the eastern conference because espn tells us that they all suck (except for lebron since wade is probably done for the season). but how is espn defining the best teams and the best players? certaintly not by our criteria.
so what’s our criteria? wasn’t someone here developing a framework for picking favorite teams and/or players? nothing about winning more games or championships or scoring the most points or any other measure used by espn to determine quality were ever listed as reasons to like anything about sports on this blog. if you buy into this western conference bias then you’re missing most of the best players in the game. sure the suns are the best team to watch and iverson–the best basketball player ever–is now on the nuggets, but the east still has the washington wizards.
dusty had a get-together around christmas. in attendance were many of our friends, some i haven’t seen in months and/or years. on the tv, the suns/wizard’s game was playing where gilbert arenas scored a million points including that bank-three from like thirty feet out. and the wizards were wearing their alternate jerseys. everyone at the party except for aaron and i hated the wizards jerseys. but you all are totally wrong. those jersey’s are brilliant. well maybe not brilliant but definitely important. for some reason, there’s this (un)written rule in basketball that your shorts and shirts need to be the same color. the wizards’ alternate jersey openly challenges this rule. you could say that the wizards’ jersey is like the jackie robinson of basketball jerseys — the first nba basketball jersey to break an antiquated and illogical color rule. but the analogy doesn’t hold up.
ok, i’ll follow the trend and talk about that game last sunday. I haven’t watched it (yet). I had to work that evening so i didn’t get to watch the video feed. i did have my cell phone programmed so that it would tell me the play by play breakdown of the sporting action, but missed all (most) of the hype. it appeared to be a pretty boring game from that vantage, so my question is: is it worth (re)watching with the video feed? I’ve gathered some info from the other faithful bloggers, and i am still in a quandry. I have the whole game recorded and waiting on my tivo, but it’s hogging some precious memory space. I’m running the risk of missing out on some sweet Iron Chef action, or even…. vishnu forbid… prisonbreak. it’s a possibility that I might not be able to get around to watching it until the weekend. So I seek your advice. Also a few more questions from a non viewer:
1- It was rainy right? so why wasn’t there mud? I heard that there wasn’t any mud at all. was it satan’s influence on the game? it just seems so unnatural.
2- who (if anyone) wanted to do prince? I hear that he was having a sexy fun time.
3- did the commentators even tell any remotely funny jokes during the game?
and 4- why hasn’t any of the writers commented on the “beard comb-over” commercial? it’s been all the rave on the radio here lately.
This is a pretty good string of football game posts. I also watched the game, and I barely cared about it. Okay, I actually enjoyed the game, despite that weird pixie rite at halftime. But I really didn’t care who won. You probably didn’t either, but this was a bit strange to me because… I’ve been a Bears “fan” since I was like 8 years old. I had a shiny Bears jacket that I wore to bed until I was 10. I have pictures of my brother and I on the first day of school wearing the jackets. I don’t think I ever actually watched a football game, but I loved the Bears. So, when fantasy football forced me to start watching the nfl again, I reclaimed the Bears as my favorite team. I’d tell people they were my favorite, I’d watch em when I could, and I tried to really care. The game on Sunday forced me to acknowledge that I don’t have a favorite team. I like watching football games, but I rarely give a damn who wins.
Well, that’s not entirely true. I like certain characters within the game, and these characters dictate which teams I care about. I like Ladainian Tomlinson, so I like the Chargers. I liked them more with Drew Brees, and more before they were the best team in the league.
I also like teams that are fun to watch. The Phoenix Suns, for instance, are the most interesting sports team on the planet, because they’re playing such a unique game. So, they’re my favorite team. They won’t play that way forever, and they won’t have the same players next year, so they won’t be my favorite for long. I’m a fickle fan, I guess, but I don’t really get having a long term favorite TEAM.
Are other FESPNers like me? Do you genuinely care about one team more than any other? Do you feel sad when that team loses? I watch the Utah Jazz pretty much all season long, and I get emotionally involved in their games, so I understand rooting for a home team. But rooting for a home team just isn’t as random. If you do have a favorite team, and you plan on sticking with ‘em, why? I’m not calling you on or anything, I’m just genuinely curious.
revisiting my predictions:
all the americans made early exits except for serena. but i wanted her to win. and the saints did lose, but it’s because i forgot what channeling zidane’s headbutting spirit would lead to. zidane headbutted that guy in the world cup because he didn’t know what was going on. he was on a billion painkillers (from his injury earlier in the game) and suffered from heat exhaustion. he headbutted on pure adrenalin, much the way the saints tried to play the nfc championship. zidane lost the world cup and the saints lost to the bears. it wasn’t that my prediction was wrong, it was just that i didn’t follow my own logic far enough. maybe i’m not a sports-predicting savant. that’s fine with me.
here’s what i don’t get, the football season is over and everyone at espn can’t stop talking about how much they hate t.o. what’s the deal? nearly all the personalities over at espn are acting more like estranged lovers than football analysts when it comes to t.o. related stories. i understand that t.o. is a total hunk. just look at him when he’s doing sit-ups shirtless in his driveway. i also understand that having a lasting, meaningful relationship with t.o. must be difficult with his fragile self-esteem and depression problems. at least that’s what i’ve been told about myself since i also have depression problems which negatively impacts my self-esteem. so i think i get: those espn personalities want so badly to be with t.o. but it just too difficult with t.o.’s emotional problems. plus those espn personalities have t.o.-like egos. so the whole thing end in a messy break-up and bitterness. but come on, can you really hate on a guy this much simply because he stopped returning your text messages? let me give you a hint sean s, jaws, stuart scott, skip bayless and the rest of you, if you want to have t.o. return your text messages try seeming less desperate in your texts. and don’t text him sideways smiley faces. try this: “hey bro. congrats on a stellar season. next year you’ll win mvp and mvp of the super bowl. sorry about all those things i said about you on the air. i was pressured by the higher ups to really be ruthless. and i was hurt. if i’ve been unkind, i hope you can let it slide. much love.”
when you go to watch sportscenter (i don’t know why i ever do, but i do) the description given (if you hit the info button) is that sportscenter is a “hip, emmy-winning daily scrapbook of homers, touchdowns, and slam-dunks, the perfect clips-and-controversies fix for sports junkies.” if you don’t believe me, go to the tv-guide webpage (i don’t know why you’d want to, i didn’t want to go there even to get the link). i want to talk about their tagline. it might be better than our tagline (that isn’t even visible unless you’re a contributor and you click on “options”) — “this is for sports fans, but only for sports fans who hate the way professional sports are packaged” — except that brian isn’t claiming that we’re hip at all. or a scrapbook. i thought brian stole the tagline from dave zirin’s myspace page, but he didn’t. i looked and it’s not even close to anything dave zirin says. anyways, back to their tagline. i think part of it is pretty accurate. they do show more dunks, homers, and touchdowns than any other highlights. their top ten is mostly dunks during basketball season and mostly homers during baseball season. so i am glad that they’re being honest about how they “report” their sports. don’t look for deep analysis, but if you want to see the best dunk of the day, tune in. they like clips and they love controversy. i think they should have ordered that differently. they love controversy way more than clips. when something controversial is happening they forego all coverage of any sporting event to give you updates on the gossip. oh yeah, and they’re hip. obviously. just look at stuart scott and his hip glasses. remember when he’s wearing his $5,000 suit and running “routes” on their fake football field to illustrate how tony romo (i call him tony roma’s) can dissect a defense? that’s hip. seriously. i didn’t know what hip was for a long time, but it’s stuart scott. speaking of tony roma’s, i wish i could’ve seen sean salisbury break down his botched hold on that field goal. unfortunately, there was probably some controversy that kept them from showing it. like mike vick’s water bottle that didn’t have anything in it after all.
but that’s not what this article is about. this article is about how sportscenter won an emmy. not for being hip. if that were the case, it would be a redundant tagline. they won for something else.
big deal. VCR quarterback, the board game, won 33 emmys. i was trying to figure out what it won for. i thought maybe best video to accompany a board game. but i couldn’t think of 33 different ways of saying that. then i thought maybe it won 33 years in a row. but then i got on wikipedia to find out that the sports emmys have been around for 27 years. plus VCR quarterback came out in like 1986 or something, so 21 of those happened after it won all the emmys. plus i don’t think you can win the same award without re-releasing the game. so it had to have won all the awards in the same year. but there’s only 29 categories in the sports emmys. and 1 of those was just barely conceived this year. i guess that means that VCR quarterback is pretty sweet. to be able to win 33 out of 28 emmys is impressive. way more impressive that 1 out of 33. so VCR quarterback is better than sportscenter. not hipper, but more emmy-winning. which isn’t surprising. check out some pictures of this game: