What a Hoot

Those crazy mascot hi-jinks:



You have to wonder: did Sammy the Owl break the mascot code of conduct by talking to the official, or did Sammy get tossed just because he kept making gestures? Pretty funny either way, though you could make the case it wasn't a wise move.

Yeah, I know. It's been a long couple of weeks in Oolitic at the kanuter valve plant.

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.

Hang in there!

Some wise-ass decided to set the bar a little higher for us here at LomHenn.com by having us average five posts per week (Thanks, Lom!). Of course, once he puts that bar in place, Slut starts putting in extra overtime thanks to the million part order at the kanuter valve plant in Oolitic, the football season is ending and any hope of Kringlebert ("The Football Guy") posting is rapidly dwindling and Oswald is still doing God knows what. And now, Lom is off somewhere working on his latest book on gynecological plastic surgery of the rich and famous. So, that seems to leave me to carry the torch for our little site.

So prepare for a hodge-podge potpourri assortment of random thoughts from yours truly until one of other brethren can spare some time to assist in our task. Hopefully, my writing will not drive our faithful readers away and/or drive one of the others to start writing.

Since I will see Slut and Kringlebert on Sunday, maybe we'll strap Kringlebert to a chair in front of the computer and make him actually post something since it IS the Super Bowl. Or perhaps we can have dueling posts on the Super Bowl and Super Bowl commercials going on via wireless networking.

So for now, please bear with us and know that it is almost baseball season...when the fun REALLY begins.

Prime Time for Lists

I am normally not a huge fan of all-time sports lists. I might find them interesting, but they seem to come from someone who is very short-sighted and the lists always seem to be extremely top heavy with recent stars or events. I know it can be hard to quantify how good a player was back in the early 20th century from just their stats alone or old stories when you can "see" how good someone current is.

That said, I have been impressed with the new series on the MLB Network, Prime 9. Prime 9 is a half-hour show counting down the top 9 players or events on that night's topic. Last Monday, I watched the show on shortstops. Below is the ranking of the top 9 shortshops from #9 to #1.

Prime 9 Shortstops
#9 - Luke Appling
#8 - Barry Larkin
#7 - Derek Jeter
#6 - Arky Vaughn
#5 - Ozzie Smith
#4 - Ernie Banks
#3 - Cal Ripken, Jr.
#2 - Alex Rodriguez
#1 - Honus Wagner

I was impressed that the MLB Network actually seemed to look at the entire picture and not just the past 40 years and a couple of superstars from prior years. Obviously since this was done by MLB, they seem to have people that have a genuine interest in baseball on their staff. Yes, you could probably argue a couple of people that may of been left off or that Larkin was better than Jeter or that Ozzie Smith was overrated. Although, if you try and debate that Ozzie was overrated, you are liable to clubbed like a baby seal by Lom.

I have seen several lists that try and list A-Rod as the #1 shortstop. I even saw a list that put A-Rod first because he had gone to more World Series than Wagner. That ranks as one of the stupidest reasons I have heard for ranking a player. Just because your "team" won more, doesn't mean you were a better player. Now, if A-Rod can continue being very good for another 6-7 years, then might have an argument who is #1. However, Wagner is still my #1 pick.

The Prime 9 shows are decently written and right now they are just filler until the MLB spring training starts. They are definitely better than the nine hours of Hot Stove reruns they current offer. The next two episodes will rank the top gaffes and comebacks and will air on Feb. 9th at 8:00 and 8:30 PM. Enjoy.

We Won Because We Played

Blowout. Shellacked. Obliterate. Demolish. Annihilate. Smash. Trounce. Spank. All of these are terms used to help describe a game with a large margin of victory.

Is it wrong to win a basketball game 100-0? Obviously there is more to consider than just the score alone. Did the winning team press the entire game? Were they still chucking up three pointers in the 4th quarter? Were the starters still in the game in the 4th quarter? Winning 100-0 is not necessarily bad, but it is not good for either team it seems.

Well, this score did happen earlier this month. The Covenant School crushed Dallas Academy 100-0 on January 13th. I have read several articles, but I am not sure if I still have the entire picture of what happened. I have seen several comments from Dallas Academy parents regarding some poor sportsmanship by Covenant (continuing to press in the second half and shooting three-pointers in the 4th quarter). However, I really have not seen anything, other than the Covenant administrator's apology and forfeit of the game, from Covenant parents or staff to prove or disprove those comments. The Covenant coach, Mich Grimes, refused to apologize for his team's play as was subsequently terminated. We can probably all argue until we are blue about the game and its resulting consequences - the overall score, sportsmanship, mercy rules, the forfeit, the termination, etc.

My question is would this have been such a huge controversy if the score had be 100-2 or even 98-0? I personally feel that the whole stink about this story is due to the fact that Covenant scored 100 points and Dallas Academy scored zip, nada, nil, zilch, zero, nothing. Honestly, doesn't the fact Covenant scored in triple digits and Dallas Academy scored zero seem to magnify the shellacking here? If the scored HAD been 98-0 or 100-2, would the Dallas Morning News had picked up on the story? And if so, would this story have been run worldwide? I really think that the story would have been buried if that had happened.

There have been worse blowouts in high school basketball. Chicago (Young) defeated Chicago (Orr) 177-16 in girls basketball back in 1990. The worst blowout in boys basketball that I could find was a game 215-28 from 1992 between Jackson City, KY and Lexington Woodbridge Academy, KY. I was not able to find any stories on those games, so I don't know how much of a backlash came about from those blowouts. Hell, Cheryl Miller and Lisa Leslie both scored over 100 points in a single game! (Leslie scored hers in one half, the opponent refused to take the court in the second half.) Stories on both of those games focused on the fact the players hit the century mark, not that the teams obliterated their opponents or that the losing teams whined about the loss.

So to teams in the future, if you are going to obliterate your opponent, just make sure that you allow them to score at least one point.

Kravitz's This Old Stat

Listening to the Kravitz and Eddie Show on WFNI 1070 AM [A painful duty, but I was unable to listen to my usual The Zone on XL-950 at the time, but it gives me stuff I can put on here!] I had tuned in as they were discussing the NFL overtime rules and the coin toss. Bob Kravitz feels that since the winner of the coin toss in overtime has only won 52% of the time, that is not a significant enough difference to require any changes.

Well, Bobbo, you are correct (amazingly) that the coin toss winner has only won 52% of the time. However, that covers the time period from the inception of overtime in 1974 through 2003. Since the NFL moved the kickoff back to the 30-yard line in 1994, things have changed, more than just a little.

Looking at the NFL overtime games from 2000 to 2007, the winner of the coin toss has won 60% of the games. In addition to that, out of the 124 overtime games in that time frame, 37 were won on the opening drive in overtime without the opponent touching the ball. That's 30% of the games. So nearly 1 in 3 overtime games end up like the Colts-Chargers playoff game where once you lost the coin toss, you were essentially hosed.

Bob, I think you need to update yourself on some stats...in addition to a few other things. I imagine you are a batting average and wins kind of baseball idiot person and statistics like VORP, OBP and BABIP are just made up stats by geeks like us, huh?

It is definitely time the NFL do something about overtimes. What that should be is a matter of debate. One I'm sure will be represented on this site. Yet, something does need to be done.

Now if we could only do something about Kravitz...

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.

Mike Wells Wrote a Crappy Article, Bad Writing Blamed

In another year of the Indiana Pacers continuing struggle to win a game, let alone close games, I can understand that the Pacers' beat writer at the Indianapolis Star, Mike Wells, might have a difficult time coming up with new article titles to say how the Pacers lost. However, this one takes the cake.

Pacers lose to Spurs 99-81, lack of offense blamed

(NOTE - This is the headline for the article online last night. The headline was evidently changed overnight for the print edition and now reads, "Offense leaves Pacers." Someone must be reading this site!)

Lack of offense blamed? No shit, Sherlock! That is similar to saying the Pacers lost because they didn't score as much as their opponent. Or, Bob Kravitz is a hack. Or even, Tony Kornheiser is a fucktard. What a shocking revelation!!!!!

What little momentum the Indiana Pacers had going into their trip came to halt the past couple of nights.

The Pacers, who have a lot of ground to make up to make the playoffs, started the second half of the season the same way they finished the first half, with a loss.

The Pacers are the second-worst team in the Eastern Conference at 15-27. Amazingly, they are only 4 1/2 games out of the 8th playoff spot. I don't see 4 1/2 games are a lot of ground with 40 games remaining. Do you?

The San Antonio Spurs outplayed the Pacers in every facet in their 99-81 victory at the AT&T Center on Tuesday night.

So it was more than just lack of offense then, huh?

The 81 points were the Pacers' lowest total in more than two months. They've lost seven straight to the Spurs in San Antonio.

OK, so it was just shitty offense?

Couldn't you also blame the defense for letting their opponent score 99 points?

The Pacers had no answer for Tim Duncan and guard Manu Ginobili.

Duncan scored 27 points and grabbed 10 rebounds in just 27 minutes. Ginobili made the Pacers pay for slow defensive rotations by making all four of his 3-point attempts. He finished with 26 points on 8-of-10 shooting.

Yep!

I think Mike would have been better off to say, "poor offense blamed." The only real "lack of" in this article is good writing.

I know this is a Pacers article and a Pacers beat writer, but I am offended that Mike couldn't spare a sentence to mention that the Spurs' George Hill, formerly of Broad Ripple High School and IUPUI star, scored seven points in 22 minutes or even get a quote from the Indianapolis-native? Come on, Mike! I know you have a tougher job dealing with the losing Pacers than some of your colleagues who cover the Colts, but quit being a fucktard and do your job right.

Are We Experts? No, But We Play Them On TV...and Radio, Too!

I know that the rules for football and baseball are lengthy and generally a dull read, unless you are really into dull reads. Yet, I fail to understand how the "experts" on TV and radio can continually fail to understand the rules of the sport they are supposed to be analyzing or broadcasting. There are obviously obscure rules that someone like Slut would know and could probably quote verbatim, but the rules regarding catches, time outs, etc. should be understood by all "experts". Right?

Listening to the Westwood One broadcast of the NFC Championship Game between the Cardinals and Eagles yesterday, I hear Mark Malone berating the Cardinals for calling a timeout with about one minute remaining in the first half. The Cardinals were driving after an ill-advised late hit by the Eagles and Anquan Boldin seemed to catch a deflected pass of an Eagles' defender. Arizona called a timeout to stop the clock. Mark Malone proceeds to berate the Cardinals for calling the timeout because the catch was near the ground and he felt they should have tried to run a quick play before the officials chose to review the play instead of giving the officials more time to consider it.

I can understand if Malone wants to rip them for taking the timeout without at least trying to do a quick snap before the officials decide to review the play. However, the Arizona player or coach may not have realized that the catch might have touched the ground and since it was a 31-yard completion, needed to stop the clock so too much time did not run off. I can't blame them for that, but if Malone wants to that is fine. What I did take offense too was Malone's understanding of timeouts and official's reviews.

The officials did review the play and ruled that the ball did touch the ground before the player had control and was ruled incomplete. As Malone delivers a scathing diatribe on the Cardinals for calling the timeout and wasting a timeout due to the officials' review, the official is heard stating that since the play was reviewed and the pass was ruled incomplete, the Cardinals would not be charged a timeout. Meanwhile, Malone is still ranting, then pauses as he either finally understands the officials ruling, or the producer tells him how much of an idiot he is, then backpedals on his rant now that Arizona did not lose a timeout. The funny part is his partners in the booth either let him ramble on and hang himself or were just as ignorant of the rule as he was. I had to laugh hard at that one.

I am definitely not an expert, but I knew this rule from a previous game, so I understood that if the officials decided to review the play, the Cardinals would not be charged for their timeout since the officials would have had to stop the clock for the review. So how come Malone and other experts do not know these rules? I would wonder why the NFL does not have some sort of seminar for broadcasters to go over the rules and other topics, but most of them would probably just sleep through the seminars or skip it because they are already experts on the sport. Yeah, right.

We've seen way too many instances of the people who should know better, actually don't. Unfortunately, there's not a whole lot we can do about it other than write about it here and hope that the powers that be realize the fucktards they have on their staffs and do something about it.

Anyways, congratulations to the Arizona Cardinals to finally making it to a Super Bowl! The Cardinals were my favorite team growing up before the Colts came to town in '84. I am happy to see them finally do something other than suck. Good luck to them in Super Bowl XLIII!

Mr. Grit Heading for the Coast?

Our favorite gritty player is back in the news!

Padres target IF Eckstein

The Padres have shown an interest in free agent SS Mr. McGritty, David Eckstein. I guess they are floored by his .351 OBP. Or maybe it is his .349 slugging. Or the fact they are hoping to get him dirt cheap and he wants to stay in the Majors.

Is it a requirement of every article on David Eckstein to reference the fact he was on two World Series winning teams and/or the fact he was the World Series MVP in 2006? I'm not sure if I have ever seen an article on him in the past couple of years that does not mention at one of those points. Have you?

I am shocked that I did not see any mention of some kind of intangible that David possesses. David is not known for his power, speed or even height, yet, most writers seem to fixate on his intangibles - hustle, grit, sweat, amount of dirt on uniform, etc. He is obviously a good enough player to have made it to the big leagues. However, I wonder why some many team execs are so enamoured by a short, slow, white dude that plays average baseball at best?

I hope that David sticks around for a while longer, otherwise we will have to anoint a new Grit King of Baseball.

Hey, Murray, Puck You!

Murray Chass is getting an early start for a run at the 2009 FotY. Murray is appalled that they played a sport other than baseball at the "Friendly Confines" of Wrigley Field. No way! How could they do something like that to a sporting venue?

(NOTE: this segment is at the end of the full article. While I have issues with most of the entire article, this part was the most offensive to me.)

NHL Ices Cubs for 100 More Years

Nice, a shitty title for a shitty article.

The National Hockey League has desecrated one of America’s great cathedrals. It installed an ice rink at Wrigley Field and played a hockey game there last week. Just the thought of it is painful.

Umm, Murray, you do realize that they have played other sports at Wrigley Field, right? I know you are a Red Sox fanatic and a baseball writer and might not be versed on topics outside of those two areas. Really, Murray, they played professional football AND soccer there. And is it so much of a shock to have a facility host an event other than for its primary function?

Can you believe it? A hockey game in the friendly confines? Ice within the ivy-covered walls? Violating the home of the lovable losers?

Well, it is not like it was 70 degrees outside and you were trying to play hockey? (Although, it would have been interesting if Chicago had had a winter "heat" wave and been in the 50's or 60's.) I think it was a smart move to be able to host something in the off-season. The game was the most watched NHL game in 34 years! And I read next year's game will be at the new Yankee Stadium. So are you going to bitch about that as well or is that OK since it is a brand new stadium?

Personally, I would have loved to have gone to that game. I like hockey (Go Blues!) and I think the atmosphere would have made for one hell of a game. The fact it WAS one hell of a game between two of the "Original Six" teams on the ice would have been the icing on the frozen cake.

They laid the rink right where Ernie Banks always wanted to play two, where in 1930 Hack Wilson produced 116 (according to Elias Sports Bureau) of the 191 runs he drove in, where Ryne Sandberg played virtually his entire Hall of Fame career, where Leo Durocher blew a division championship in 1969, the first year of division play, and in the process tossed me out of his clubhouse.

Let's not also forget:

• Where the Chicago Bears played for 50 years and won eight of its nine championships.
• Where George Halas coached and Bears' greats such as Dick Butkus, Gale Sayers and Brian Piccolo played most or all of their careers.
• And where the Chicago Sting played the other kind of football in the 80's - that 's soccer for you illiterates.

Based on available information, the N.H.L, didn’t even pay for the use of the field and thereby lighten the financial load of Wrigley’s bankrupt owners.

Generally, a league does not pay for the use of a venue. I'm not sure if the NHL "paid" for the use of the field, but I imagine Wrigley Field got to keep most or all of the concession revenue and that is likely to be pretty good sum of money for a sold-out event. I'm betting that either the Blackhawks had to give a portion of the ticket sales as a use fee or Wrigley Field got to keep a larger portion of the concession revenue. I don't think Wrigley hosted the event for free. The owners may be bankrupt, but they are not fucking idiots. But without seeing more details, that is just speculation on my part.

If the Cubs think they have been cursed in their inability to win the World Series for 100 years, wait ‘till they see what happens the next hundred years.

Murray, I don't think that hosting a non-baseball event is going to "curse" the Cubs anymore than they are already "cursed". Their inability to win a World Series is do to the fact they have not played well enough in the playoffs to go to the World Series. For all we know, the Cubs might turn out winning the most World Series in the 21st century...or they may have a 192 year drought streak by then. Either one is just as likely at this point.

Murray, you are such a fucktard on this one. I imagine you will have a brain aneurysm when they try and have this event at Fenway Park in the future.

Just When You Thought It Was Safe to Turn Back On the TV

Just when we thought we had heard the last out of Billy Packer, some shit-for-brains executive goes and does this...

Packer, Knight to analyze NCAA games from Vegas

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! Say it ain't so! Please?

Bob Knight, the winningest coach in Division I history, and former CBS sportscaster Billy Packer plan to analyze the NCAA men's basketball tournament in a series of one-hour television programs taped at a race and sports book on the Las Vegas Strip.

The fact the Billy Packer will be allowed to do analysis on basketball is a travesty to sports networks. Why CBS waited so fucking long to can his ass in the first place is beyond me. My only hope for redemption is to have Knight go postal all over Packer and deliver another classic screaming rant and then throw a chair across the set.

I have not been a big fan of Fox Sports Network because they have some convoluted territories on their regional networks and basically I think their programming sucks. Now I really don't care for them.

At least they did get one thing right and that is to have the show in Vegas. A Vegas sportsbook is definitely the place to be during the first rounds of the NCAA Men's Tournament. Watching all of the games at the same time on large screen TVs and betting. Hard to beat!

What sucks the most is I may be forced to watch because it will be so bad that I will have to write about it! Unless I can talk Slut into that despicable duty. Hmmm...

MLB Network Is On the Air

"Booger!"

Yes, for those of us who cannot get enough baseball, Major League Baseball has it's own network now! The MLB Network was launched on January 1st and while baseball season is still a couple of months away, we can at least have a few tidbits to tide us over until then.

At this point, the programming is still in it's infant stage. The first week we were presented with mostly the 2008 playoffs and World Series. However, last week they started expanding the programming and offering the types of programs I can get into, or at least Tivo.

MLB Network has been showing recaps of old World Series, seasons in review and even Ken Burns' Baseball anthology. Being a St. Louis Cardinals fan, I definitely enjoyed watching the 1946 World Series against the Boston Red Sox.

I am still holding some reservations to see their offerings during spring training and the regular season and how their analysts are, but I am stoked about having a network dedicated to my favorite sport. Mrs. Bembledack, however, is not so thrilled and is still perplexed as to why teams have to play each other so much and why they play some teams more than others.

Why?

Because they must!

Are We Experts? No, But We Play Them on TV

Watching the NFL Network on Saturday night after the Cardinals had just beaten the Panthers. Within 30 seconds there were two sad errors that I saw and now we know why the NFL Network is still a fledgling network not ready to take on the Big Three or ESPN.

The NFL GameDay Final show was hosted by Rich Eisen, Deion Sanders and Steve Mariucci. The three of them were discussing the possibility that the Chargers could actually host the NFL Championship game against the Ravens if they beat the Steelers on Sunday. Deion, doing his Donovan McNabb "I don't know the NFL overtime rules impersonation, blurts out, "how can San Diego host the game? I don't think they can, can they?" Rich and Steve then had to explain (slowly) that Whales Vagina won the AFC West and was the #4 seed as the worst AFC division winner while Baltimore was a wild card and #6 seed. Since the #4 seed is higher than the #6 seed, the #4 seed (Whales Vagina) would host the game.

Deion still looked perplexed about the whole issue. Yes, Baltimore at 11-5 had a much better record than the 8-8 Chargers, but the Chargers won their division and gets the higher seed. I'm still not sure what I think of the fact that a just because a team won their division with a .500 record automatically awards them a higher seed than 12-4 and 11-5 teams. But that is for another day.

While this is occurring, on the right side of the screen where they are showing game stats of Saturday's games and preview stats for Sunday's games. Not 30 seconds after I hear Deion waxing poetic that he is a moron, I see the following regarding the last meeting between Philadelphia and New York Giants:

Last Meeting: Dec 7, 2008
Philadelphia 20
Eagles 14

Fuck the heck? So Philadelphia played the Eagles, huh? So is that group masturbation if they are playing themselves?

Sadly, these three are better to watch than ESPN's Berman, Saunders and Jackson. I still have a hard time watch them though.

And the Winner Is...

Cue the music...cue the lights...cue the dog and pony show!

Welcome everyone to the Inaugural 2008 LomHenn.com Fucktard of the Year Awards! Our first year (OK, seven months) have hopefully brought you some laughs, some deep cognitive thoughts and some fuck the hecks(?). I know that we have enjoyed the experience and look forward to entertaining you during 2009 and hopefully beyond. What's even more exciting is this is our 100th post on LomHenn.com!

So before we try and get all emotional, let's get down to business and announce the winners of the 2008 Fucktard of the Year Awards.

We thank everyone who cast their votes for the FotY. As we mentioned previously, there were many worthy fucktardy candidates for this prestigious award, but in the end, it was just a two horse, or more accurately, a two horse's ass race between Indy's local hack Bob Kravitz and national suck-ass extraordinaire Tony Kornheiser.

After the votes were tabulated, reviewed for any dangling chads and we scrubbed the data, we honestly had a tie...at least before my vote.

So, without further ado, our 2008 LomHenn.com Fucktard of the Year winner is...











Tony Kornheiser!





Yes, congratulations to Tony K, you suck ass more than any other sports entity in the entire known universe! Anything the you write or that comes out of your mouth just further solidifies you as a Fucktard Extraordinaire. You status as a fucktard will be forever ingrained as the inaugural winner of this just award. Without fucktards like you, this site would not be here.

I'm sure that Bob Kravitz will be heartbroken that he did not win this award. My initial instinct was to vote for Bobbo because of his numerous infractions and postings here. I understand he is here to spark controversies and conversations and to sell newspapers. Many of his opinions are valid and have merit. But that is where reality seems to stop for him. I have never seen a lazier journalist in my life. He rarely seems to lift a phone to get additional details for a column or even spend two minutes to do a couple of Internet searches to provide a shread of valid evidence to back up his reasoning. One time he nearly plagiarized one of his fellow columnists by pulling only the information he wanted from another story, nearly word for word!

But then there was Tony Kornheiser. Tony, Tony, Tony...I can't even begin to list or describe how much suckage there is to you. We are stuck dealing with you for 16 weeks of Monday Night Football and on ESPN's PTI. The man is forever behind on his commentary and his "observations" are inaccurate, incorrect and/or absurd. Again, I'm not sure if this is part of a grand scheme to get people interested in the broadcast, but the man just does not belong in the booth. I wish I had recorded the MNF last year in which Slut and Zinglebert were shouting, "Kornheiser sucks!" below the MNF booth. I would have loved to here if any of that made it over the airwaves. Tony may not have been posted on as much as Bob Kravitz, but you have to agree that Kornheiser does suck more.

So in the end, I had to cast my vote for Tony Kornheiser. His SCuZ numbers were much higher than Kravitz's and his high school pic was just downright scary! Congratulations you assbag fucktard!

Bob Kravitz, however, does not go home empty-handed. Bob may have come in second place for the coveted FotY, but we have a few more awards to dish out from LomHenn.com.

Most Posted Fucktard - Bob Kravitz - Yes, Bob led the way with 19 posts on LomHenn, far out distancing the runner-ups Murray Chass and Tony Kornheiser with four each.

Most Used Label - Bob Kravitz - Once again Bob was a popular candidate on our site. Why? Honestly, since he is our local sports columnist we see his stuff more often than some of the national or other city's columnists. But his stuff is typical atrocious and ends up as one of our posts. 'Really long post' was runner up with 16 posts. (Slut and Zinglebert do like their long posts.)

We may have few more awards to pass out later and I'll let the rest of the gang dish out those awards as they see fit.

Thanks, gang, for helping to keep the site going. I may not contribute much, but I do enjoy the reading while jetting around.

Thanks to those of you who voted, your votes were greatly appreciated.

Thank you to our readers, however few or many of you there are. We hope that you have enjoyed reading our site as much as we do. We welcome any emails telling us if you enjoy or hate the site or if you run across an article or post that we should take an interest in.

Wow, 100 posts! I wasn't sure if we would really post ten times in the beginning, but here we are at 100. Our 2009 goal is to post at least five times a week, so this is a challenge to everyone to see if we can actually maintain that.

Once again, congrats to our 2008 Fucktard of the Year winner, Tony Kornheiser! Something tells me you may be an annual front-runner for this award for many years to come.

Bob Kravitz And Tony Kornheiser Want You To Vote For the 2008 FotY

They really, really do. After all, it's the 2008 Fucktard of the Year!

To see the nominations, go here.

Send your votes in by email: Lom_Henn@lomhenn.com. The winner will be announced Wednesday, so vote now!

Time for an Overtime Change

The current overtime rules for the NFL suck ass!

Let me begin by saying I have felt this way for quite a while and this is not a result of the Indianapolis Colts loss to the San Diego Charges in overtime on Saturday night. This is just the exclamation point on my rant.

Why do teams get to go for 60 minutes battling each other to a tie just to have only one team get the opportunity to possess the ball in overtime? How is that fair to the team that loses the coin toss? Yes, their defense should have done their job and stopped them, but to not allow the offense to have one chance to even the game is just plain stupid.

I do not want the NFL to implement the NCAA football overtime rules. For NFL teams, that would results in games going into 8 or 9 overtimes unless you disallowed field goals after the third or fourth overtime.

I know the Arena Football League will never compare to the NFL, but I do feel they get it right when it comes to overtimes. Each team gets at least one possession and if the game is still tied after each team has had a possession, then it becomes sudden death. Now the coin toss becomes more strategic because you have to decide whether you want the ball first or wait to see if you might need to score only a field goal to tie or win the game or if you must score a TD to tie the game up.

I'm not asking for an extreme modification of the rules, just to make the rules fair. Of course I would not be as adamant if the Colts had a fucking running game or if they had a defense that can actually tackle someone or quit with the stupid tacky penalties. Let's just do what is right and let each team have a possession before it becomes sudden death.

One Turd Deserves Another

This is a painful post to write, as it's only a day after the Indianapolis Colts lost yet again in the first round of the playoffs (if you don't already know, this time the culprit was San Diego, beating the Colts 23-17 in overtime). Last night's loss was the third first round playoff exit for the Colts in four years, with the only exception being the Super Bowl title after the 2006 season. Most of us at Lom Henn.com are Colts fans. Obviously, it goes without saying that we are disappointed.

Perhaps worse than the playoff loss will be the incessant talk and fall-out that will come in the next few weeks (okay, not worse. Nothing could be worse than that turd of a game). And who has already started the talk, even while the Colts' playoff corpse is still warm? You guessed it--Bob Kravitz.

Colts are underachievers

Another 12-victory season . . . and nothing.

Another Peyton Manning MVP season . . . and nothing.

Another Tony Dungy playoff appearance, his record 10th straight . . . and nothing.

Another glorious chance to advance to a Super Bowl, their second in three years, with the New England Patriots out of the way and the AFC unfettered by the existence of a dominant team . . . and nothing.

Yeah, we get it--the Colts have nothing despite all of the things they accomplished this season. No Super Bowl. But let me let you in on a little secret, Bob--30 teams will also have "nothing" this season, since only two teams play in the Super Bowl.

I understand the Colts had greater expectations then other teams entering the season. But I don't agree with Kravitz that the only measuring stick of a successful season is reaching the Super Bowl.

Let's just say it how it is: The Colts are the ultimate paper tigers. And if you don't like the Atlanta Braves comparison -- multiple postseason appearances, one championship -- feel free to come up with your own.

As a fan of both the Atlanta Braves and of the Colts, I knew this comparison was coming, and I'm sure that Kravitz won't be the only one making it. But it still bothers me--for reasons I'll get to later. For now, though, let's see about this "Colts are the Braves of the NFL" thing:

The Colts have made the playoffs for 7 straight years--six division titles and one wild card berth. The Braves made the playoffs 14 straight years from 1991-2005 (there were no playoffs in 1994), winning 14 straight division titles. So right there, not quite the same thing.

The Colts have made it to the Super Bowl one time in that span, and won it. The Braves also have "only" one World Series championship during their run: 1995. That's probably the focus most people will take, including Kravitz.

But the Braves made it to the World Series both in 1991 and 1992, right at the beginning of their playoff run. They also made it back in 1996 and 1999, for a total of 5 World Series appearances and 1 title. Plus, the Braves lost in the National League Championship Series four times--in 1993, 1997, 1998, and 2001. That would be like the Colts making it to the AFC Championship Game six times in their seven-year playoff run, and going to three Super Bowls. So, if anything, the Colts don't measure up to that comparison.

But my point in analyzing the Colts/Braves comparison is not to verify its accuracy. My point is that it's a stupid comparison! For one, they're playing different sports with different playoff structures. There is no way to compare success in one sport vs. success in the other.

The other reason it's a stupid comparison is that again, it defines success as winning a championship, and nothing else. The Braves made 14 straight post-season appearances. I can think of plenty of baseball clubs who would kill for that level of success (for example, this team, this one, and this one, too). The same goes for the Colts--do you think the Oakland Raiders would take seven straight playoff appearances and "only" one Super Bowl win? How about the Cincinnati Bengals? Or the Detroit Lions? Perhaps we should look at a relatively long streak of getting to the playoffs as a meaningful accomplishment, instead of just having the only measure of success be a league championship.

In fairness, I know that Kravitz isn't the only one guilty of this line of thinking. But he is guilty of it, nonetheless.

But how can a franchise be so routinely dominant year after year, and yet be found so routinely lacking when the brightest lights are shining?

Who knows? Could it be that Peyton Manning really is worse in the playoffs? That he chokes? That he gets too nervous? That he catches a case of happy feet? Maybe--he seems to not play as well in the playoffs.

But I think the better answer to Kravitz's question as to why the Colts can be "dominant year after year" and still lose in the playoffs is that in the playoffs, the best team doesn't always win.

You think the best team always wins in the playoffs? The last #1 seed to win the Super Bowl was New England after the 2003 season. In the four years since, there have been two wild cards (Pittsburgh and the New York Giants), a #3 seed (the Colts) and a #2 seed (New England again). The last #1 seed prior to 2003 New England to win the Super Bowl was St. Louis in 1999. So in the past nine years, a #1 seed has won the Super Bowl twice.

Clearly, the best regular season teams don't always win championships. Why? Because the playoffs are the ultimate small-sample size test: one game. You've heard the cliche: on any given Sunday, any team can win. Even in the playoffs, anything can happen: A 10-6 team can beat a 16-0 juggernaut; The #6 seed who had to win its last 3 games to even get in the playoffs can beat the best team from the other conference; Even a quarterback from an upstart league can guarantee a Super Bowl victory and have his team follow through. None of these things was predicted, yet they happened.

Last year's Super Bowl was a classic, and a great win for the Giants over the Patriots. But does that mean the Giants were a better team than the Patriots last year? The Patriots were six games better than the Giants in the 2007 regular season, and even beat the Giants in the final game. So the Patriots had already proven they were better than the Giants, both head-to-head and over the long haul. Yet, when they met in the Super Bowl, for whatever reason, the Giants were better that day.

I think it's pretty clear that the regular season means nothing when it comes to the playoffs. Of course, a team has to do well enough in the regular season to qualify for the playoffs, but otherwise, the regular season means nothing.

Back to the Colts. Yes, the Colts have seven straight playoff appearances and six straight 12-win seasons. And that guarantees absolutely nothing in the playoffs--case in point, the Colts' loss to an 8-8 team last night. Does it mean the Chargers are a better team than the Colts? Absolutely not--the 16-game regular season proved that.

However, that's not to say that I think the Colts deserved to beat San Diego Saturday night. The Chargers were clearly the better team in that game. They deserved to win.

Saturday night's 23-17 overtime loss to the short-handed San Diego Chargers was all too typical of the Colts' recent postseason history.

It happens year after year after frustrating and infuriating year. And it's always something. The weather in New England. The officiating in New England. The long layoff before Pittsburgh. The Dwight Freeney injury against San Diego.

It's always something.

Or, it's just a case of another team playing better that day.

(By the way, one legitimate factor in the Colts' playoff loss to Pittsburgh in 2005 was the suicide of Tony Dungy's son. I think Dungy and the team handled it as well as could be expected, but that had to be a distraction then. Interestingly, Kravitz omitted that.)

And yet teams like last year's Giants march on despite losing Jeremy Shockey, or the Chargers win this game without their top running back.

Fuck the heck? Is Kravitz comparing the Colts losing Dwight Freeney to an injury last year to the Giants losing Jeremy Shockey? Are you kidding me? Dwight Freeney, one of the best pass rushers in the game? That Dwight Freeney? Losing Jeremy Shockey is supposed to have the same impact? Shockey can play well at times, but he is, by almost all accounts, completely overrated as a tight end. Losing Freeney last year was a significant loss for the Colts, and it showed in the playoff loss to San Diego, as the Colts had absolutely no pass rush.

The fact that Kravitz compares the two injuries as if they have remotely the same impact is laughable.

If it happens once, it's an anomaly. But this happens time and time again. It's a trend, and it's something Jim Irsay and Bill Polian have got to address.

The only way to address this is by having the team play better. There is no magical formula or potion that can make it happen. I mean, how does one work on being better in the playoffs? What else can you do besides play better?

The nagging problem this year was that running game, the one Polian kept insisting was just fine, despite ample statistical evidence to the contrary.

It wasn't fine.

It was never fine.

Gotta give it to Kravitz here: he's right. The running game sucked all year. Can't argue with that.

However, this illustrates my biggest problem with this article, and with Kravitz. Where is the analysis of last night's game? There were plenty of things to examine about from the loss, including the fact that the Colts inability to run the ball almost directly cost them the game. Two series stand out: the first drive of the second half, when the Colts failed to convert on 4th down, and the 3rd and 2 play late in the game, when it was obvious the Colts believed so little in their ability to run the ball they tried a pass play that resulted in a sack.

Of course, nothing from Kravitz, because he a) can't do meaningful analysis and b) wants to be the first to declare the season a failure. Why couldn't this article wait until Monday morning's paper?

These were not just the 8-8 San Diego Chargers. These were the 8-8 Chargers without a reasonable facsimile of LaDainian Tomlinson, who didn't even play in the second half because of a serious groin injury. These were the 8-8 Chargers with Antonio Gates struggling with a high ankle sprain. And yet, there was Gates, maybe the toughest guy on the field, riding Antoine Bethea downfield for a monster first down on San Diego's game-winning drive in overtime.

Honestly, I wish Tomlinson had been healthy enough to play, because as good as he is, I think he was a better match up for the Colts than Darren Sproles. So I'm not sure that was as big of a setback for the Chargers as Kravitz does. And is it possible that the Antonio Gates ankle injury may have been a bit overstated? I'm not saying Gates didn't play with pain, but sometimes these reports get a little exaggerated. Gates certainly didn't look like he was hurting all that much, but that may just be a testament to the Chargers training staff and to Gates' toughness.

And the Chargers' 8-8 record may be a bit misleading. The Chargers were a last-second pass (vs. Carolina) and an Ed Hochuli blown call (could that be talked about any more than it has been, by the way?) away from being 10-6. This is not a typical 8-8 team.

Last year, the Chargers beat the Colts with backup quarterback Billy Volek, or as we came to call him, Billy Freaking Volek. This year, the Chargers beat the Colts with Mike Scifres, a punter, and a magical elf named Darren Sproles, who merely filled in for Tomlinson and produced 328 all-purpose yards.

No, it's Billy Fucking Volek. Don't refer to it if you're not going to do it correctly.

Kravitz acts like Sproles is someone the Chargers signed off the practice squad the day before the game, as opposed to the very capable backup that he is. As I mentioned earlier, Sproles was a match up problem for the Colts. But the 328 all-purpose yards stat is a bit misleading. Not to take away from what Sproles did, but even if LT had been completely healthy, Sproles still would have had 176 all-purpose yards, since he returned all of the punts and kickoffs.

And, oh yes, there was the San Diego defense, which held the Colts' underperforming offense in check, as is often the case in the playoffs. For all of Manning's greatness, for all the weapons the Colts have on that side of the football, the fact is, Manning is sub-.500 in the playoffs, along with his head coach. The running game was a cipher.

Kravitz is right about the offense. I don't think anyone would make the case that Manning & Co. played well. And yes, this has been a recurring theme for the Colts--the offense has rarely played a great game in the playoffs.

Marvin Harrison was invisible, as he usually is during the playoffs. Still think Harrison is coming back next season?

For fuck's sake, is now really the time for this speculation? Can it wait a few weeks, or at least a day or two? Marvin very well may not be back due to his salary cap impact, but can't this discussion wait?

And Marvin wasn't the only "invisible" receiver the Colts had Saturday night. Marvin had 3 catches for 20 yards--obviously not a great night (he did draw a pass interference call in the first half on a deep throw). Reggie Wayne only had 4 catches, though his totaled 129 yards. However, if you take away the 72-yard touchdown catch (which came when San Diego's defense wasn't ready), Reggie had 3 catches for 57 yards. Again, not a lot of production. Also, Kravitz-favorite Anthony Gonzalez had 6 catches, but none in the second half. Why doesn't Kravitz mention how Gonzalez was invisible after halftime?

Predictably, the Colts defense will get pounded this morning and for the rest of the week, and those three defensive penalties on the game-winning drive don't speak well of their discipline down the stretch, but they did force two San Diego turnovers in the end zone on potential game-tying or go-ahead drives.

They played well enough to win.

I agree. That's been the story here in Indy for awhile now--someone else usually gets blamed after a playoff loss despite the shortcomings of the offense. Message to Kravitz: you do know that the paper for which you work helps perpetuate that trend, right?

Bottom line is, when the Colts needed a third-and-short conversion, they couldn't get it. You can't win in the playoffs if you can't run the football.

It's pretty elemental stuff. The Colts couldn't run it. Couldn't run it all season, couldn't run it all night, couldn't run it when one conversion on third-and-2 with 2:30 left in regulation and San Diego out of timeouts could have put this game away.

See above on Kravitz's inability to provide meaningful analysis.

One and done.

Or, should we say, one and Dungy.

Yes, it's clearly all his fault. Not the players' fault at all.

If (when) Tony Dungy decides to retire sometime next week, will there be a great hue and cry for him to come back and give it another shot? As much as this town loves and reveres him and appreciates him for everything he's done on and off the field, isn't it time for a new face, a new voice, something different?

I don't know--maybe? I really don't know how coaching style plays into this. I suppose that you could make the case that Dungy's even-keeled style is better suited for the "long haul" (i.e. regular season) and less suited for the challenges and intensity of the playoffs. But I don't know--the Colts have won a Super Bowl under Dungy, right?

Again I ask, is the article that's supposed to reflect on the game that was just played the best time to ask these questions?

At this point, it's going to be tough selling fans on Jim Caldwell who, at least from a distance, promises to bring more of the same.

Ditto.

Overtime?

Where the fuck did that come from? Now all of a sudden Kravitz is talking about the game?

Of course it went overtime.

Because they're the Colts and the Chargers. Because they don't know how to play football games that don't end on the final drive, the final play, the final gasp. Because they've developed as good of a rivalry as you will ever see between two teams who aren't in the same division.

More meaningless, nothing analysis. Why didn't the last 3 Colts/Chargers games go to overtime then?

It took more than 60 minutes to decide, but the deserving team won.

True, sadly.

There's no nice way of saying what has to be said:

Paper tigers.

Folding again.

There's no nice way of saying what has to be said:

You suck.

At writing.

How Does This Happen?

Here is a screen grab from Thursday night's Orange Bowl telecast on Fox. This comes from early in the game, during introductions of the University of Cincinnati's starting offense:


Notice the picture of Khalil El-Amin on the bottom-right (RT #79). Does he look familiar? If you follow college football, he might--or at least the picture does, since it's really a picture of Florida quarterback Tim Tebow!


And here is what Khalil El-Amin really looks like:

Fuck the heck??? I can see how a producer, graphics operator, or production assistant would get the two of them confused: Tim Tebow plays QB for the #2 team in college football and won the Heisman Trophy last year; Khalil El-Amin plays offensive tackle for the Cincinnati Bearcats. And they look a lot alike, too!

There aren't really a lot of good explanations for this one, other than some fucktard did it on purpose. I mean, if you're Fox, would you want to admit that your crew is that bad at game preparation and proofreading?

Of course, by now it's probably common knowledge, so admitting it would just be redundant.

2008 Fucktard of the Year Nominations

Welcome everyone to the inaugural Fucktard of the Year nominations for 2008. We here at Lom Henn have blasted and lambasted several worthy candidates this year and now it is time for us to pick that person, group, team, etc. who most deserves the distinction of becoming the first Fucktard of the Year.

All of us at Lom Henn will have a say in the voting and I will make the final call on the ultimate winner. For this year, we will just have a straight vote for the most worthy nominee. Perhaps next year we might try a bracket system to add a bit of flavor. So on to our nominees...

1. Bob Kravitz

Our first nominee and front-runner is our favorite hack, Bob Kravitz of the Indianapolis Star. Bob was the object of our first post and leads with the most entries for 2008. Bob has an atrocious writing style and has a flair for stating the obvious, backing up his opinion with hot air and writing as many words as possible without actually doing any research on a topic.

I could go on hours about how I feel about Bob, but that is not why we are here. Suffice it to say that we do not think much of his writing or now, thanks to WFNI, co-hosting a sports talk show. Now he gets to annoy us even more!

2008 LomHenn.com Highlights

Bob Kravitz is supposedly a journalist

Bob Kravitz Is Wrong Even When He's Right

Remain Calm. All is Well!
This Explains Everything

2. Tony Kornheiser

I don't think any of us can write exactly how much we think Tony Kornheiser sucks. Slut and Zinglebert even went to the upper deck below the announcing booth during a MNF game last year and shouted, "Kornheiser sucks!" repeatedly. Security was not called because everyone agreed that the statement was true. Pretty much anything out of this man's mouth is worthless crap and the NFL nation is unfortunately forced to put up with it. At this point, a blind, deaf mute would be more knowledgable and literate commentator than Kornheiser.

2008 LomHenn.com Highlights

Why Kornheiser Sucks

This Explains Everything

3. ESPN NFL Analysts

Chris Berman, Tom Jackson, Trent Dilfer and John Saunders have been NFL football players and/or analysts for many, many years. So why is it that the do not seem to have a clue about the sport? They either do not know what they are talking about or they are spouting off some drivel that the other talking heads follow along. Berman has gone from likable to 'I will turn you off automatically' status. The only reason many of us can put up with him and the others is so that they can end up here.

2008 LomHenn.com Highlights

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

You Probably Know More Than An ESPN Analyst

4. Bowl Championship Series (BCS)

There is a split at Lom Henn between those who want a college playoff and those who do not. However, we all agree that the BCS does not work as it is currently structured. There is too much emphasis on the "human" polls and teams that lose early in the season have too big of an advantage versus teams that lose late. It also penalizes teams like Ball State (before they lost to Buffalo in the MAC Championship) if another non-BCS team (Utah) goes undefeated. Meanwhile, slightly above average teams like Cincinnati and Boston College get to go to a BCS Bowl game because they were able to "win" their conference championships. Then you have the issues of which two teams get selected for the championship game. The list of problems can go on and on and on and on and...

Yes, we know that there will probably never be a perfect solution for college football and, yes, we know that the BCS is better than the before the BCS started. Yet, it is still a piece of shit and smells worse than one of Hildegard Bembledack's diapers.

2008 LomHenn.com Highlights

Playoffs...we don't need no stinking playoffs!

Let's All Pile On Bob Kravitz And the BCS

College Football Potpourri

And lastly we have...

5. Murray Chass

There is debate as to whether Murray Chass' website is actually written by Murray Chass or by someone else. Regardless, it is a testament to why there are editors at newspapers and what happens at newspapers when the editors are either asleep or drunk in their offices. We have not picked on Murray lately, but I think that will change after talking to Slut and Zinglebert this week. Murray is obviously a Red Sox fan and will go to almost any extreme to make sure that he can fit "Boston Red Sox" into every post, regardless if the article has even a remote connection with them. Not to mention that he has great difficulty in getting to the point and getting that point across. It sometimes barely passes for English...kind of like this site sometimes.

2008 LomHenn.com Highlights

Murray Chass...(an idiot)...On Baseball

Trading for Dummies

Sometimes It's Just Too Easy

There you go, folks, the 2008 LomHenn.com Fucktard of the Year Nominees. I will also allow write-in candidates for this year in case I missed someone I should not have. You can either email me your selection(s) and why or you can post them on the site. The winner will be announced on Wednesday, January 7th.

Bob Kravitz is probably the Vegas odds favorite at the moment, but there are some definite dark horses in the mix. Good luck, I think, to all of our nominees and our voters here at Lom Henn. I look forward to seeing all of the responses.

Happy New Year!

From everyone at LomHenn.com, Happy New Year!



May you have a prosperous and safe 2009--free of Tony Kornheiser and Bob Kravitz.

Yeah, I had to say it.