Hooray!!!

It's really true!

Of course, the first time we were told that Joe Morgan would no longer be part of ESPN's Sunday Night Baseball, it was 2008 and it was reported by the New York Daily News--not exactly accuracy at it's finest. But now the Worldwide Leader has announced it, so it must be official: Joe Morgan and Jon Miller are out!

This makes me happy. It's well-documented on LomHenn and on a few other websites (like this one) that Joe Morgan is not a particularly good baseball analyst, so it's about time ESPN caught up to what a lot of hardcore baseball fans have thought for awhile now. And I'm not a big fan of Miller, either, though he hasn't been as annoying to me over the last couple of years.

There is a downside--no more Joechats on ESPN.com! As a result, everyone's baseball IQ has gone up 20 points...even those people who don't care about baseball.

You're Tuned To "The Tiger Channel": All Tiger, All the Time

So it's the week of The Masters golf tournament, and of course the major story is Tiger Woods and his return to competition after his much-publicized hiatus due to his martial issues and "sexual addiction" treatment.

One of the most anticipated events of this week is today's news conference with Tiger. This was announced a few weeks ago, and of course it has received enormous coverage. But ESPN has dedicated three of its channels to covering the press conference live! ESPN, ESPN-2, and ESPN News all have the press conference in its entirety, with ESPN and ESPN-2 preempting normal programming (i.e. opening day baseball games) to carry the press conference live.

I have no problem with ESPN News having the press conference live. However, why must all of the ESPN networks carry it? Even if you make the argument that ESPN News isn't on as many cable systems as ESPN or ESPN-2, why do both of those channels need to simulcast it? Never mind that the press conference was also on MSNBC, Fox News, CSNBC, CNN, and The Golf Channel simultaneously. Heck, I think it was also carried live on Animal Planet. Overkill, anyone???

The whole point of ESPN having multiple channels is to carry more programming. What is the fucking point of simulcasting the press conference and the mind-numbing analysis that followed by Tirico & Co.?? You have two channels so you DON'T HAVE TO DO THIS, yet you do it anyway.

Critics of media convergence and the current state of media ownership cite a complete lack of diversity as one of the problems when huge media conglomerates own multiple media outlets. Those critics are speaking more of diversity of viewpoints and ideas rather than simple sports programming when they make those arguments, but I think it applies here. ESPN is doing no one a service by carrying Tiger's press conference live on three networks--and ESPN doesn't care. Having the press conference on multiple channels makes ESPN feel like it's more credible, when the opposite is true. The funny thing is, in the next few days some people on ESPN will start complaining about the fact that people won't let the Tiger story die--when they're very network is on of the big reasons these types of stories get overhyped in the first place.

Ohhh, That Pesky Joe Morgan

Yes! THE season has started. As much as I love the NFL and the Indianapolis Colts, my heart still can't wait until baseball season starts. And it started last night!

Of course, ESPN HAS to start the season with Sunday Night Baseball. And if you have Sunday Night Baseball, then that means you get...Joe Morgan. Love him or hate him (We love Joe the baseball player. We hate Joe the baseball commentator.) he is at least good for giving us loads of sounds bytes or Joe Chat quips.

Thankfully, Joe did not waste any time in providing some quality material on opening night.

Jorge Posada hit a second-inning home run off the Pesky Pole. John Miller started to tell the story about Johnny Pesky and why the pole is named after him and his "warning track power."

Miller: Most of the time when Pesky hit the ball for a home run it went off the foul pole, hence the naming of the Pesky Pole.
Morgan: I think they used to call it the Pesky Pole didn't they?
Miller: *pause* They still do.
Morgan: Oh.

Ahhhh, thanks, Joe. It is good to see you are already in mid-season form.

COMING SOON: Once again Slut and I will don our prognostication caps and show that we know just as little as all of the pundits when it comes to picking how the teams will finish and who will win the World Series. FYI - Slut was correct in last year's pick of the Yankees and we both had the Yankees and Angels in the ALCS. We were just way off when it came to the NL. Cubs in the World Series...what the fuck was I thinking...

BracketBusters - Busting the Brackets?

The BracketBusters were created by ESPN to give mid-major conference teams some time in the spotlight to impress the NCAA Selection Committee. ESPN has done a decent job of giving some good match ups the past couple of years. This year's premier game was between Butler and Siena. Butler and Siena had the two longest winning streaks going until Siena lost the weekend before the BracketBuster game. However, are the BracketBuster games a chance to shine or are they ruining the chance for mid-major teams to earn an at-large bid?

Think about it. Butler and Northern Iowa were ranked at the time of the BracketBuster games and most likely would not have been hurt by a loss. However, the teams they beat, Siena and Old Dominion, respectively, had everything to lose. Granted those losses probably still helped their RPI rankings, but it still leaves a black-eye on the teams. Had they won, it becomes probably their best win and looks good on an at-large bid resume. So frankly, teams that lose the BracketBuster game and lose in their conference tournaments, will tend to have almost no shot at an at-large bid unless they've ran the table otherwise in their conference.

I'm not a conspiracy theorist, unless it pertains to the NBA and the Indiana Pacers in the mid-90's, but that's a different story altogether. [Say it with me now, "That's different story altogether."] Yet, it seems like the BCS schools benefit more from the top mid-major clubs beating up on each other than the mid-major clubs gain from the victories. You win, and the media look at your team like, "Yes, but you were supposed to win." You lose, and it becomes, "If you can't beat another top mid-major team, your not as worthy as the #8 team out of the Big East. "

There is already enough of a mid-major bias within the NCAA Selection Committee. I have had a hard time tolerating mid-major teams that win their conference regular season, but lose in their conference tournament finals that get passed over for the #7 team out of the Big Ten or the Pac-10. Can you really tell me that a team that went 8-8 in a BCS conference is really more worthy than a mid-major team that went 16-2 in their conference but lost in their conference finals?

Butler seems to be the poster child for the mid-majors right now. Last year they were being listed as a 6 or 7 seed, yet they lost their tournament final to Cleveland State and get dropped to a 9 seed? Get real! This week they were getting listed as a 6 seed on most sites until the media started noticing. Suddenly, they are now a 5 seed on most sites. It will be interesting to see if the Selection Committee follows suit or if they try and drop them down...again. The Bracketologist also seem to have a selective set of criteria it seems. I have heard more than once this week:

• That Butler plays in a weak conference, but the Horizon League currently ranks 14th out of 31. I don't really list that as weak.
• That Tennessee's RPI of #16 warrants a #4 seed, yet Butler's RPI of #14 does not warrant a #4 seed.

Do you want to know what I would really like to see in the BracketBuster games?

How about having mid-major teams play BCS-conference teams, some good ol' David vs. Goliath games. Let's have another Butler-Duke match up or Cleveland State-Wake Forest or Murray State-Michigan State. Actually, since most of my issues tend to revolve around mediocre BCS teams getting the nods over mid-major teams, why not have games between the top teams of the mid-major schools versus the middle echelon BCS conference teams? Obviously, the BCS schools would not want to go with that since they have everything to lose and not as much to gain. Yet, it would really give credence to a mid-major's resume if they did win.

Sorry, it's Friday and I'm rambling. Time to head by to my parent's basement for the weekend. Sunday evening will bring me another round of headaches I'm sure. Stay tuned. We'll see if we can round up the gang to publish our picks for the tournament. I'm sure it will be worth some laughs.

It Still Might As Well Be In Black And White

Let me see if I get this straight.

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

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

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

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

Fucktards.

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

Really, an actual post!!!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rivet-ing Baseball

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

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

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

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

Girl's baseball team falls in Class A title game

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

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

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

Unnamed Source Says: Ed Werder Is Still a Douchebag

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Monday Night Football: no more Kornheiser.

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

And fewer ears will bleed on Monday nights.

FotM...Better Late Than Never!

Hey, folks!

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

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

Now back to the matter at hand.

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

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




Bud Selig!



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

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


1. Bob Kravitz

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

2. Jay Cutler

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

3. ESPN (again)

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

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

Subtraction By Addition

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

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

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

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

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

--EDIT--

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

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

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

Or Maybe He Wanted To Help John Clayton Look Dumb

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

**UPDATE**

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

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

**UPDATE 2: ELECTRIC BOOGALOO**

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

Might As Well Be Black & White

ESPN, you are the deuce!

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

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

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

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

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

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

February Fucktard of the Month Nominations

Greetings from The Bahamas!

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

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

1. Bud Selig

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

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

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

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

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

2. Alex Rodriguez

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

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

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

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

3. ESPN

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

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

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

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

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

At Least It's Not In Black And White

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

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

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

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

Perhaps I should trademark those ideas.

Breaking News: Chris Mortensen Doesn't Understand Journalistic Integrity

Okay, so that's not really breaking news.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Later that night Mortensen backed off:

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

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

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

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

ESPN to '06 Colts - You Suck!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I won't hold my breath.

You Probably Know More Than An ESPN Analyst

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now the really dumb part:

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

TJ: It certainly would simplify things.

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

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

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