So Bob Griese got suspended from ESPN for a week for joking on-air that driver Juan Pablo Montoya was having a taco. (Or something like that - I don't care enough to actually find out and retell the whole story. If you're really interested, I guess you could Google "Bob Griese + taco" and read for yourself.)
Everyone is so sensitive these days! Actually, I doubt that anyone at ESPN really cares that much what was said, but it's all about the almighty dollar and they don't want to lose any over a stupid ethnic food joke.
You go, Bob Griese! During your week off, why don't you go eat some (insert appropriate ethnic food for the Griese surname)!
But now to the main point of the article. I was listening to the radio on the way home and they were talking about the old days when kids would get their butts paddled at school. And these were guys 35-40 years old, reminiscing like it was their fondest memory.
"Yeah, and then they made me sign the paddle afterwards!"
"Yeah, one teacher knocked me out by hitting me on the side of the head with a book!"
It sure didn't seem like they were very scarred. I remember those days - not that I ever got paddled, because I was a good kid. But I believe there was some paddling going on - and I know teachers would always threaten such punishment. I remember an elementary school teacher throwing erasers at kids with big mouths. And it was okay - no one really gave it a second thought.
So when did things change? I'm seriously not that old. I was in junior high 20 years ago. But if any of this butt-paddling and eraser-throwing happened today, here is what would likely happen:
1) Teacher arrested
2) Teacher fired
3) A series of front-page newspaper articles about the teacher's criminal heart
4) Teacher is executed by gunfire at sundown
I'm sort of joking. And I'm not saying that teachers should be going around opening up a can of butt-whoop on every kid that steps out of line. I'm just wondering. . . what happened?
And more importantly, when did it happen? When did it become not okay? I'd like a specific year, please.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
TuLong!
Clap clap, clap clap clap, clap clap clap clap, clap, clap. . . Tulo!
After Troy Tulowitzki struck out in the bottom of the ninth with men on base to end the Rockies' 2009 season, I was disappointed. I was disappointed that the season was over. But I was also relieved that I no longer had to invest my time in watching these marathon playoff baseball games. And trust me, I will waste little to no time watching the Yankees, Angels, Dodgers, and Phillies figure out who will win the 2009 World Series.
Sunday night's game in Denver started at 8:00. I quit watching shortly after 11:00 when the game was in the eighth inning. Although it was a tight game and I wanted to see who won, I had to go to class the next day and knew it would be a bad choice. And then last night's game - it started at 4:00 and ended around 7:45. So both games stretched well past the appropriate time limit for a sporting event - 3 hours.
Playoff baseball is completely ridiculous time-wise. If a runner gets on base, you are set for a 45-minute inning with the pitcher constantly stepping off the rubber, making throws over, the batter stepping out of the box, the catcher making a trip to the mound every other pitch. And then every batter works the count to 3 and 2 and fouls off 2 or 3 pitches. And then there are pitching changes, pinch hitters, and pitching changes in response to pinch hitters. And then to think, baseball is moving towards instant replay challenges! NOOOOOOO!
It's great theater, I suppose, IF YOU HAVE TIME TO WATCH ALL THAT CRAP! Which I don't know who does, unless you do sports for a living or are unemployed and single with no ambition.
This will never, ever, ever, in a million bajillion years happen, but I think baseball would benefit from some rule changes or else there might be no one left who wants to watch four-hour playoff baseball games in 20 years.
1) No batter gets to see more than eight pitches in an at bat. After eight pitches, if you haven't walked or struck out, YOU ARE OUT. No more of this endlessly fouling off pitches until you get one you like.
2) No more unlimited time-outs for hitters. Each batter can ask for time once per at-bat, or else he is charged with a strike. And that might be too generous.
3) No more unlimited mound visits for catchers. Currently, a manger/coach can only visit the mound once per pitcher per inning, or else the pitcher comes out, so there is some precedence for this. I was going to say one visit per hitter, but that's probably too generous. Three per inning might be more appropriate. The penalty would be that the pitcher would be charged with a ball.
4) I would also institute a "pitch clock" similar to a play clock or shot clock in football and basketball. They sort of have this in the rules, but I don't think it is too strictly enforced. I think they need an actual physical clock, which resets after the umpire's ball/strike count. I would think 15 seconds would be about right.
5) In conjunction with the previous suggestion, I think that the pitcher should only be allowed three pickoff moves per batter. The "pitch clock" would be reset after each pickoff throw. And after the three throws over, the advantage goes to the base stealer, who can no longer be held on base with endless throws over.
Again, none of this will ever happen, at least I don't forsee it. So why did I waste my time writing it? I guess to express my frustration with the length of these games.
After Troy Tulowitzki struck out in the bottom of the ninth with men on base to end the Rockies' 2009 season, I was disappointed. I was disappointed that the season was over. But I was also relieved that I no longer had to invest my time in watching these marathon playoff baseball games. And trust me, I will waste little to no time watching the Yankees, Angels, Dodgers, and Phillies figure out who will win the 2009 World Series.
Sunday night's game in Denver started at 8:00. I quit watching shortly after 11:00 when the game was in the eighth inning. Although it was a tight game and I wanted to see who won, I had to go to class the next day and knew it would be a bad choice. And then last night's game - it started at 4:00 and ended around 7:45. So both games stretched well past the appropriate time limit for a sporting event - 3 hours.
Playoff baseball is completely ridiculous time-wise. If a runner gets on base, you are set for a 45-minute inning with the pitcher constantly stepping off the rubber, making throws over, the batter stepping out of the box, the catcher making a trip to the mound every other pitch. And then every batter works the count to 3 and 2 and fouls off 2 or 3 pitches. And then there are pitching changes, pinch hitters, and pitching changes in response to pinch hitters. And then to think, baseball is moving towards instant replay challenges! NOOOOOOO!
It's great theater, I suppose, IF YOU HAVE TIME TO WATCH ALL THAT CRAP! Which I don't know who does, unless you do sports for a living or are unemployed and single with no ambition.
This will never, ever, ever, in a million bajillion years happen, but I think baseball would benefit from some rule changes or else there might be no one left who wants to watch four-hour playoff baseball games in 20 years.
1) No batter gets to see more than eight pitches in an at bat. After eight pitches, if you haven't walked or struck out, YOU ARE OUT. No more of this endlessly fouling off pitches until you get one you like.
2) No more unlimited time-outs for hitters. Each batter can ask for time once per at-bat, or else he is charged with a strike. And that might be too generous.
3) No more unlimited mound visits for catchers. Currently, a manger/coach can only visit the mound once per pitcher per inning, or else the pitcher comes out, so there is some precedence for this. I was going to say one visit per hitter, but that's probably too generous. Three per inning might be more appropriate. The penalty would be that the pitcher would be charged with a ball.
4) I would also institute a "pitch clock" similar to a play clock or shot clock in football and basketball. They sort of have this in the rules, but I don't think it is too strictly enforced. I think they need an actual physical clock, which resets after the umpire's ball/strike count. I would think 15 seconds would be about right.
5) In conjunction with the previous suggestion, I think that the pitcher should only be allowed three pickoff moves per batter. The "pitch clock" would be reset after each pickoff throw. And after the three throws over, the advantage goes to the base stealer, who can no longer be held on base with endless throws over.
Again, none of this will ever happen, at least I don't forsee it. So why did I waste my time writing it? I guess to express my frustration with the length of these games.
Saturday, October 3, 2009
Undefeated NFL Teams
So one of the national sports talk shows did a poll last week, and the question was, "Which is the best undefeated NFL team?"
And your Denver Broncos were not even offered as one of the choices!
There are currently seven undefeated teams in the NFL - six of them have been getting a lot of buzz in the media about how flippin' great they are - the Jets, the Ravens, the Colts, the Giants, the Vikings, and the Saints. And no one really even acknowledges that the Broncos are also undefeated.
I guess that's sort of understandable, what with the Jay Cutler saga. I mean, why didn't we just set Denver afire once he left town?
I think another reason is the perception that the Broncos haven't really played anybody yet. And when two of your wins are against the Raiders and the Browns, that is also understandable.
But check out the records of each undefeated team's opponents in 2009:
Baltimore Ravens 2-7
Indianapolis Colts 2-7
Denver Broncos 3-6
New York Jets 3-6
New York Giants 3-6
Minnesota Vikings 3-6
New Orleans Saints 4-5
So none of these teams have exactly played a rigorous early-season schedule.
And your Denver Broncos were not even offered as one of the choices!
There are currently seven undefeated teams in the NFL - six of them have been getting a lot of buzz in the media about how flippin' great they are - the Jets, the Ravens, the Colts, the Giants, the Vikings, and the Saints. And no one really even acknowledges that the Broncos are also undefeated.
I guess that's sort of understandable, what with the Jay Cutler saga. I mean, why didn't we just set Denver afire once he left town?
I think another reason is the perception that the Broncos haven't really played anybody yet. And when two of your wins are against the Raiders and the Browns, that is also understandable.
But check out the records of each undefeated team's opponents in 2009:
Baltimore Ravens 2-7
Indianapolis Colts 2-7
Denver Broncos 3-6
New York Jets 3-6
New York Giants 3-6
Minnesota Vikings 3-6
New Orleans Saints 4-5
So none of these teams have exactly played a rigorous early-season schedule.
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Broncos - Road Ahead
Okay, never mind my post about the Rockies yesterday. Apparently the Braves just aren't up to it. The Rockies don't have it in the bag just yet, but it looks like we won't need a white-knuckle finish to the regular season this time around.
Let's talk about the Broncos. So I had no idea what to think of them going into this season. My range of expectation for this year was between 4 and 9 wins. Realistically, I thought they would probably finish 7-9 or 8-8. But there were definitely folks out there who thought the Broncos were headed straight for 1-15 or 3-13, who are probaly the same folks still wearing their Jay Cutler jerseys and refusing to use their season tickets until Josh McDaniels gets fired.
And yet, after three weeks of play, the Broncos are 3-0. The defense has only allowed 16 points and Kyle Orton has yet to throw an interception. Clearly, things will not be as bad as some had thought. But now we have the reverse problem of people getting too excited and talking about playoff runs.
The problem with getting too excited about the Broncos right now is the fact that they haven't exactly faced the stiffest competition. If the Raiders and Browns aren't the two worst teams in the NFL, then they are two of the worst. And as many have pointed out, they would have lost to the Bengals in the opener if not for the "Immaculate Deflection".
As any Bronco fan knows, we will find out over the next 11 weeks exactly how good the 2009 Broncos are. Here's what they are up against:
Dallas Cowboys - who have a lot of talent
New England Patriots - who worked the Broncos over in a Monday night game in 2008
San Diego Chargers (2 games) - who the Broncos have had little success in the recent past
Baltimore Ravens - who look like the early-season favorite in the AFC
Pittsburgh Steelers - who are the defending Super Bowl champs
Washington Redskins - who have nothing, but this will be a road game for the Broncos
New York Giants - who were the Super Bowl champs two years ago
Kansas City Chiefs - who play in Arrowhead Stadium, where the Broncos often struggle
Indianapolis Colts - who have a quarterback that the Broncos can't beat
So, yeah. Other than the Redskins, there probably isn't a game where you would think that the Broncos should win.
But will they go 1-9? I don't think so. In fact, I think it would be very reasonable to see the Broncos split these 10 games - 5 wins, 5 losses.
Five of these games are at home, and I think it is not out of the question that the Broncos could win three. Dallas is erratic - the Broncos could win this Sunday. The Broncos have always played well against the Patriots, except for last year's debacle, so it wouldn't be surprising if they won that one either. The Steelers aren't looking quite as strong this year, so there is a possibility for an upset there. And they'll get the Giants at home Thanksgiving night, so the home field/holiday advantage might help them there. They won't win all those games, but they could win three.
As for the road games, I think the Broncos could win two: against the Redskins and Chiefs. They usually don't play well in Kansas City, but the Chiefs look to be pretty atrocious this year (they even lost to the Raiders).
So if the Broncos do indeed go 5-5 over that stretch, their record would then be 8-5, and two of their final three games would be home dates against the Raiders and Chiefs. So then they would be looking at potentially a 10-6 record and possibly a wildcard spot.
Before this season, my position was that the Broncos would not make the playoffs this year. And I'm not really changing that now. I'm just saying, if they only win half of the games over this rough stretch, they will be in a fabulous position.
Let's talk about the Broncos. So I had no idea what to think of them going into this season. My range of expectation for this year was between 4 and 9 wins. Realistically, I thought they would probably finish 7-9 or 8-8. But there were definitely folks out there who thought the Broncos were headed straight for 1-15 or 3-13, who are probaly the same folks still wearing their Jay Cutler jerseys and refusing to use their season tickets until Josh McDaniels gets fired.
And yet, after three weeks of play, the Broncos are 3-0. The defense has only allowed 16 points and Kyle Orton has yet to throw an interception. Clearly, things will not be as bad as some had thought. But now we have the reverse problem of people getting too excited and talking about playoff runs.
The problem with getting too excited about the Broncos right now is the fact that they haven't exactly faced the stiffest competition. If the Raiders and Browns aren't the two worst teams in the NFL, then they are two of the worst. And as many have pointed out, they would have lost to the Bengals in the opener if not for the "Immaculate Deflection".
As any Bronco fan knows, we will find out over the next 11 weeks exactly how good the 2009 Broncos are. Here's what they are up against:
Dallas Cowboys - who have a lot of talent
New England Patriots - who worked the Broncos over in a Monday night game in 2008
San Diego Chargers (2 games) - who the Broncos have had little success in the recent past
Baltimore Ravens - who look like the early-season favorite in the AFC
Pittsburgh Steelers - who are the defending Super Bowl champs
Washington Redskins - who have nothing, but this will be a road game for the Broncos
New York Giants - who were the Super Bowl champs two years ago
Kansas City Chiefs - who play in Arrowhead Stadium, where the Broncos often struggle
Indianapolis Colts - who have a quarterback that the Broncos can't beat
So, yeah. Other than the Redskins, there probably isn't a game where you would think that the Broncos should win.
But will they go 1-9? I don't think so. In fact, I think it would be very reasonable to see the Broncos split these 10 games - 5 wins, 5 losses.
Five of these games are at home, and I think it is not out of the question that the Broncos could win three. Dallas is erratic - the Broncos could win this Sunday. The Broncos have always played well against the Patriots, except for last year's debacle, so it wouldn't be surprising if they won that one either. The Steelers aren't looking quite as strong this year, so there is a possibility for an upset there. And they'll get the Giants at home Thanksgiving night, so the home field/holiday advantage might help them there. They won't win all those games, but they could win three.
As for the road games, I think the Broncos could win two: against the Redskins and Chiefs. They usually don't play well in Kansas City, but the Chiefs look to be pretty atrocious this year (they even lost to the Raiders).
So if the Broncos do indeed go 5-5 over that stretch, their record would then be 8-5, and two of their final three games would be home dates against the Raiders and Chiefs. So then they would be looking at potentially a 10-6 record and possibly a wildcard spot.
Before this season, my position was that the Broncos would not make the playoffs this year. And I'm not really changing that now. I'm just saying, if they only win half of the games over this rough stretch, they will be in a fabulous position.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)