Tuesday, January 30, 2007
Barbaro: Come on people, it's a freakin' horse! Enough already. If I hear or read the bottom ticker one more time giving me a Barbaro update, well, I don't know what I'll do. A freaking horse? I want you to know, I was thinking this before yesterday's tragic events took place.
Serena Williams: I have no idea if I spelled her name right, which leads me to this statement. I could care less about tennis, let alone any women's sport for that matter. However, I was tired of hearing people like Dick Vitale on Mike and Mike explain how incredible it was for the 935rd ranked player in tennis to win the Austrailian Open. Okay, she was ranked 82nd. Anyway, she's still Serena Freakin' Williams in case you forgot. She dominated before her injury and now has come back to dominate again. I don't know how much more I can empathsize she is still Serena Williams. Maria Sharapova only became Maria Sharapova because she didn't have to play Serena, oh and she's kinda attractive. I guess that gets extra attention by the media. It would be like Tiger Woods taking off a year, coming back, and then winning the Masters and "shocking" everyone. He's Tiger Woods!
Ok, now that I have all that off my chest, let's open up the discussion of what happened this weekend: Roger Federer and Tiger Woods continuing their streaks. I'm not going into what those streaks are, because if you don't know, grow a pair. Again, I don't care about Tennis, but 36 consecutive sets won is dang impressive. That would be like winning 24 straight quarters in Football. Not just winning 6 NFL games in a row, but every quarter for all 6 games. So, what Dominance is more impressive, Tiger's streak or Federer's? Is it possible to look at two individual sports that are differents types of competition?
And this Domination topic can go way outside the box if you want. We can break down Harry Potter's Domination in books. We can compare the hotdog eating guy Kobyashi's food comsumption domination. We can analyze all the great sports of badminton, frisby golf, Red Neck Racing...the list goes on and on.
We can even look at the overall dominators of their sport. For instance:
Car Racing: Michael Shumacher
Boxing: Mike Tyson, Ali
Hockey: Wayne Gretzky
Basketball Teams: Celtics, Bulls
Football Teams: Bills for 4 SB's in a row, 49ers
Football: Joe Montana
Baseball Teams: Braves - 14 straight Division Titles
Billiards: Janet Lee
Bowling: That Weber guy
We can even look at individual time periods and look at who dominated their sport in that era:
2000's: Tiger, Shaq, Tom Brady, LaDainian Tomlinson,
1990's: Jordan, Gretzky, Sampras, Barry Sanders,
1980's: Bird, Montana, Rice, Gretzky, Marino,
Let's pay respect to what is happening in our lifetime in these sports. Have fun and enjoy. Let the discussion begin.
Monday, January 29, 2007
Me: Did you know that the little Brandel boy going to be Haag's Pallbearer?
Wife: What are talking about
Me: Little Brandel boy is going to be Haag's Pallbearer
Me: (Realizing my error?) I'm mean Ringbearer.
Wife: (Laughing at me) Oh
Then it hits me - was it an mistake?
Marriage greater than or equal to Death?
Pu##y greater than or equal to death of a Single man's soul ?????
PMS greater than or equal to a Techmo Tourney?
Saturday, January 27, 2007
Friday, January 26, 2007
Instructor: So, what are you going to do if you see a question like this on the test?
Nathan: (Applying the 3 second rule before answering) Close the book.
(Class laughing...after realizing what has just been said)
Instructor: (Acting as if no one could make fun of calculus) Well, this would be a test so you wouldn't actually have a book open to close.
I realize I could not have done that phrase without Adam's spirit living through me. And yes, I understand the phrase doesn't quite make sense if you aren't allowed to use a book on the test, but it still did the trick and the class loved it.
Thursday, January 25, 2007
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
So I thought I would dig up my senior pictures of everyone and her and scan it. After looking at all those senior pics, we all looked like we had a tapeworm. We were all sooooo skinny. I couldn't help but sit back and say "Ah, the memories."
So here she is.
She looks about the same I guess. I had no problem knowing it was her. She still had that same voice Hobbs and Downing loved to make fun of. However, she appeared to be quite thin in the face. You can make your own assumptions. If I remember, I believe she got married within the last two years to a Walther. So maybe she lives in the Thumb and yet I haven't bumped into her.
P.S. If you would like me to do a "Way Back" column or just want to request certain scans of senior pics, let me know. I can even do a special female show...just for Adam. Sorry Adam, I somehow don't have a Senior pic of Katie. And no, B. Doerr will not be part of the show.
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
One of the excerpts you guys just posted:
"Our job is to make life better for our fellow Americans, and help them to build a future of hope and opportunity – and this is the business before us tonight."
Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, WRONG! It is not President Bush's job to make my life better. He has never met me or anyone I know and hasn't the faintest f***ing idea what my hopes, dreams and aspirations are. It MY job to make my life better, assisted by my family and friends. It is his job to make sure the likes of al Qaeda leave me alone so I can do that.
Hat tip: Jonah Goldberg at The Corner.
Monday, January 22, 2007
I would like to show everyone exactly what I mean, and with your help bestow upon homeliest vehicle our very own Cass City Monkies "Ugliest in Show" 2007.
Here are the contestants:
Notable primarily for its mediocrity. Its a hatchback with a hoodscoop and a roof rack. Really not sure what they were going for.
Probably not a serious contender however.
Honestly, I'm torn on this one. It wants to be cool, but I feel like I would have to pull it backwards to wind it up. Or insert a 9V battery.
Now our leading contender, and my personal selection, The Rhombus, by the dirty ChiComs.
It may be hard to tell in the picture, but it does have four wheels, in a diamond arraignment. I have nothing to add.
Finally, a special entry, a dishonorable mention, the entire Scion product line.
That's all folks, cast your vote in the comments and watch democracy in action.
Peyton Manning is viewed as the "greatest QB to never win the big one." Well, he's still just like Marino, in the SB but no ring yet. I realize if he wins the SB, he'll definitely be considered one of the best ever just because of a championship. Fine. I get that, no problem here. But, I want to look at the inverse (yeah, since I'm in Calc class, it's just so much fun to use math words.)
How many of us look at Trent Dilfer or Shawn King as great, heck, even GOOD quarterbacks just because they have a SB ring? It doesn't even matter how well they played in that game, they are sucky QBs. Is Big Ben a great QB? He won a SB. What about Mark Rypien? So, should one game really make all the difference?
Here is where my stance might not get many votes: What if Peyton Manning has a terrible SB game. And I mean terrible. Like, oh, hypothetically speaking, a QB rating of 1.3. BUT, the Colts still WIN the game. Based on the type of game Manning had and his rating in this scenario, should he really be considered to have had any part of them winning that SB game? With that performance and rating, ANYONE would have won the game. However, because the Colts won the SB and Manning was the QB, he will now be considered as one of the greatest ever, just because he won a title, even though his performance in that ONE game had nothing to do with his team winning. Yet, Dilfer, King, Rypien, etc. could have incredible games, but not much is going to change about how good of an NFL quarterback they were. We will still forget about them and our opinions will be that they stunk as QB's.
Rule 1: Number of players allowed to break the huddle/be in the huddle. As I understand it, having 12 players in the huddle is a no-no. Why? Isn't there already a rule in place for "too many players on the field" when the ball is snapped? Isn't that redundancy? Who cares how many players are in the huddle? I thought all that mattered was how many you had when the ball was snapped. Is it supposed to make the referee's life easier at counting players? I.e, if 3 players run on the field, then all you have to watch for is 3 to come off. Instead of always counting 11. But, I'm sure they still always count for 11 because many times after a running back gets a big play or wide receiver makes a good catch, they run out of bounds and many times take the next play off. Probably because it's a new down, and new formation package...and they weren't needed. Anyway, back to the original question. Is the rule for the defense so they know what players have entered the game so they know what kind of defense to set up or be prepared for? Are they watching if 4 players come into the huddle and 3 of them are WR's and then notice that all 3 left and so now they have to think it's going to be a run play? I don't get it.
Rule 2: Face guarding. Last night there was a pass interference penalty against the Pats for "face guarding" the WR because the defensive player didn't make a play on the ball. Keep in mind, he never touched the WR! Instead, he watched the eyes and body language of the WR and knew the ball was probably coming his direction, so he better put his arms up to knock it away. In my opinion, I would think you should be allowed to do whatever you need to do possible to not let the WR catch the ball, as long as you don't touch him. Think of it this way, if the Defense would rather play defense in the NFL by just watching the eyes of the WR without looking for the ball, then I'd say that is to the Offense's ADVANTAGE. You'll give up a lot of touchdowns if you want to rely on hoping the ball runs into your ape-like waving arms or your huge dome of a helmet.
Try to picture this: What if the defensive player was making a play on the ball and turned around to deflect it. However, what if he missed the ball completely but the action of his arms attempting to deflect the ball temporarily shielded the WR's eyes and he lost concentration on the ball and failed to catch it. What is the difference? Because the defensive player temporarily blocked the WR's vision, that is a slight form of face guarding. I just think the defense should be allowed to do whatever it takes. If he wants to stand on his hands and use his feet, that's his prerogative. It's called LUCK.
Sunday, January 21, 2007
I've often asked myself why I dislike the Patriots so much. As Simmons points out, they don't buy wins like the Yankees have been known to, they're free of T.O.-type players, and they do the little things right to win. I ought to love the team. But I really, really don't. Like many things in football, it's starts with the QB. Brady went to Michigan, which I can (mostly) forgive, but it's still a strike. There's probably a bit of jealousy involved as well since there have been QBs at MSU that I've rooted for that were better college QBs but haven't had anywhere near the amazing success Brady has enjoyed. Plus, he's a pretty boy who dates movie stars. I'd rather hang with Peyton Manning any day. That said, I like Brady more than I used to. I mean, he did have his O-line in a commercial with him.
I don't think you can discount the effect of all the media attention either. Simmons says you can shut it off and just watch the game on Sunday, but it's not quite that easy. If you're going to follow football you have to see some of it, and you can't escape it during the telecast either. You can only hear so many superlatives about Belichick, Brady, and the rest before your ears start to bleed. And I'm sorry, but no one who dresses in a hobo-style hoodie can actually be a genius.
There's other things, but I'll make one final comment. Simmons says that because Patriots fans endured four decades of "futility and embarassment" that "we earned this." Pffft. Unless you've followed the Lions your entire life, don't you dare try and play the "futility and embarassment" card because you don't really know what those words mean.
UPDATE: As I'm watching the game I'm reminded of another annoying thing about the Patriots: they always get lucky. Going into the endzone the RB fumbles the ball and a Colts player looks like he has it, but it squirts out and is recovered for a Patriots TD. So often, they don't look like the better team, or even a great team, just a team that enjoys everything going their way. That's frustrating.
Saturday, January 20, 2007
Lethal Weapon 27 was on last night. Well, part 2. I've been thinking about this for awhile now and last night just reminded me. I'm going to take two blockbuster movies and show how much they parallel. Maybe you've noticed the same things. The movies are "Lethal Weapon" and "Die Hard."
1) The movies were released in the US somewhat close to each other as blockbuster action movies. LW in March of '87. DH in July of '88.
2) Both had major action roles played by white guys fairly new on the Hollywood scene. Gibson was known for "Mad Max" but Willis was "famous" for "Blind Date."
3) Both white characters had African-American sidekicks. Gibson/Glover. Willis/Sgt. Al Powell (Carl Winslow as most of you know him). Side note: His real name is Reginald VelJohnson and is the textbook definition of "type cast." I think more often than not his character is a police officer.
4) Both main characters in both movies are police officers.
5) Both have a Christmas time theme.
6) Both give Joel Silver a credit as one of the Producers.
7) Both give Original Music credit to Michael Kamen. LW also added Eric Clapton.
8) Both "tough guys" playing "bad guy" roles were blond. Busey in LW and "Karl" in DH.
9) Both have the classic fight scene near the end of the movie between the hero and tough guy. Gibson v Busey in LW and Willis v "Karl" in DH.
10) Both have the stereotypical Hollywood ending where the "tough guy" is still alive at the end of the movie after everyone thought they were dead. Busy in LW and "Karl" in DH.
I think that's all I could remember. There may be more.
Stayed tuned for my next movie parallelism between "Escape from Alcatraz" and "The Shawshank Redemption."
Which guys who are stars in their own sport, could be stars in just about anything they would try. Or, if you had to create an ultimate decathlon sports team, which athletes would you want? Obviously you want athleticism, but the reoccuring theme is probably going to be brains. Guys that would be mentally tough and possibly bad mothers no one wants to mess with.
For example, Derek Jeter would probably be a stud at underwater basketweaving.
So, here are the guys I'd want on my team (of course I can't remember EVERY athlete to pick from) if I had to go to war with them on the field, diamond, course, court, euchre, RISK, spelling bees, ice, water, etc.
1) Roger Clemens
2) Derek Jeter
3) Tom Brady
4) Michael Jordan
5) Tiger Woods
So, I've got a question. How many athletes who are considered serious prospects at both football and baseball choose the right sport? If you're considering money it would seem football is the way to go, but baseball is probably safer, unless you get hit in the face with a 90+ mph fastball. Henson managed to wash out of both sports. Kirk Gibson was an All-American WR at MSU, but it's hard to imagine that he would have had a better career in football, or an achievement like his homerun in the '88 World Series. Deion Sanders played both sports well but didn't make a real impact in baseball. Any others?
UPDATE: Ump's comment is too good and long to leave in the comments section, so I'm reproducing it here:
Jordan had mental issues with his mid-life crisis. His father was murdered and that screwed him up a little, but I can't blame him for that. So, we can't really talk about him, also because I think I could have suited up in the Minors and struck out less times than him. I could at least have bunted one of those three strikes.
Bo: He, like Deion, didn't make as much of an impact in baseball. But, I still saw some impressive stuff: Running up the outfield fence after catching a fly ball on the run because he couldn't stop his momentum so he just ran up the wall. Or, the time the umpire wouldn't grant him a timeout while he held his right hand up but kept his left on the handle as the pitch was coming. Needless to say, the pitch traveled 400 feet the other direction.
Donovan McNabb: Basketball would have probably led to easier injuries to rehab, but I doubt he would have been a starter.
Charlie Ward: Won the heisman, but maybe he could see the writing on the wall and didn't want to be the next "Heisman winner who sucked in the pros." Didn't want to be the next Gino.
Antonio Gates: I think he made the right choice. Then again, he may have turned out to be a brute in the paint like a Charles Barkley. If I remember, Charles wasn't exactly towering over anyone.
John Elway: Did he play college Baseball?
I can't remember, but it seems like John Smoltz or Tom Glavin or someone like those guys was really good at Hockey. I could be confused with some other guy. I thought there was some MLB pitcher good at hockey.
1. Jordan: Can't believe I didn't think of him.
2. Bo: Another great example. He might have been one where doing both was the right decision, if his health had held up.
3. McNabb: Football had to be the right decision.
4. Ward: Yeah, he saw the writing on the wall.
5. Gates: He's changing the way people think about the TE position, even more than Tony Gonzalez. Definitely the right decision.
6. Elway: He played baseball, he used it as leverage at the draft when he was selected 1st overall by the Baltimore Colts and managed to get traded to Denver. Again, right decision.
Thursday, January 18, 2007
Baseball trip, Cleveland, circa 2003?
Around Christmas 2006:
I leave you to your comments.
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
It involves the Lions....
I want the Lions, out of bitterness, to be the last NFL team to ever reach the Super Bowl.
Here is where I need your help. If the Saints make the Super Bowl, that eliminates one more team that still hasn't played in the Title game, which still leaves the Lions as one of those teams. I know the Lions will make it some day. I'm just thankful they didn't make the Super Bowl prior to 1987, because I would have been too young or cognizant to realize what the SB was all about and that the Lions had accomplished such an amazing feat. I wouldn't have cared about football, Lions, etc. at that age. Since it's already been 41 Super Bowls, if the Lions had made the SB in 1987, I really don't feel like waiting another 41+ years to see if they make it to another SB.
So here is the contest:
Name the teams still remaining that haven't ever played in the Super Bowl.
I already gave you two. And I'm not sure if it's even fair to count the "recent" expansion teams, even though it's been almost 15 years. Then again, that was plenty of time to reach a SB for one of them. I don't have the answers, so good luck.
Monday, January 15, 2007
The only thing I can come up with is that they cut him because no team would want to pick up his salary.
Saturday, January 13, 2007
Friday, January 12, 2007
So, here is my attempt at what I think a memo would look like coming from the Four Seasons Commissioner addressing his "tardiness":
Dear Mr. Old Man Winter,
The residents of the State of Michigan and those of the midwest region of the United States of America wanted to make sure you realized that the first offical day of Winter was December 22, 2006. Our records indicate that to this date, January 12, 2007, you have yet to make an appearance. We also wanted to make it a point that the first offical day of Spring is March 21, 2007. Just so there is no confusion in your job description, you may "show up" when you like, but you are to be terminated as of March 20, 2007. You are alloted a working time frame, not a total amount of time. That means, if you arrive later than expected, the days you were late do not get to roll over into the start of a new season, thus pushing back the start time of Spring. For example, if you do not deliver snow until March 1st, you don't get to deliver snow after March 20 so you can make up for lost time. There is to be no "catch up" period. You can come in on any weekend prior to that end date and play "catch up" but that is all. No overtime. No grace period. Nothing.
However, it should be noted that if you decide not to produce any snow, most of the customers will not complain. Lucky for you, you have that luxury. Summer, unfortunately, doesn't get away with 60 degree days in June or rainy days in July and August. That does cause for some stress with the other "guys" in the group.
We thank you for your cooperation in this Winter Schedule "Budget." Times are tough in our Four Season Economy, so please understand our concern. We do not want to upset the other deserving seasons of the same pleasures and opportunities. We want you to know that your services are important.
And finally, your services are needed most from December 20 to January 5 to cover the Christmas and New Year's celebrations. Because no snow was produced during that time for the Spirit of Christmas, sales were down and you will be put on a suspension. Because sales declined, we had to make cuts in the 2007 budget. You are losing 30 days of your Winter 2007 season. That will take in affect January 5, 2008 because of the required mandate to have snow on the ground over the 2007 Christmas vacation.
Mr. Summer Time
Chairman of the Four Seasons
Then the wheels fell off. Purdue and Iowa lived up to their crappy playing all year. Minnesota decided to go Northwestern on Texas Tech (then again, was anyone surprised Texas Tech made that comeback?). Then Michigan left at halftime of the Rose Bowl to make it back in time for President Ford's funeral. Let me tell you, the funeral began after halftime. Thanks for putting the egg on my face for sticking up for Michigan.
Oh, and I can't forget the way Ohio State put the cherry on top of the Big Ten bowl display. How anti-Tressel of you. I know nobody is giving excuses, but something is probably going to change to eliminate 50 days of rest between huge games. Why is the Championship a week after all the other BCS games...on a school/work night? At least have it on Sunday so people on the west coast can be home in time for the game. Or a Saturday night so no one has to work the next day. I mean, if that game had actually been good or worth watching all the way till the end, like say, oh I don't know, Boise St. and Oklahoma, then the game would have finished well after 12:30 and people would have school or work the next day. Instead, everyone was able to go to be at 10:30 or halftime.
If they put off the Championship game any further, pitchers and catchers would be reporting to Spring Training. At least finish the Bowl season before the NFL playoffs. And, first and foremost, what are you doing sticking a GCRAP...errrr...GMAC bowl with Ohio after New Year's day? Stick that Toilet Bowl where it belongs...nowhere but in the regular season schedule.
Side note: That Boise State/Oklahoma game was UNBELIEVABLE!
I don't know. I really don't think the Lions can afford to lose Mike. He needs to stay and I hope he does. If he goes, I think that is a blow below the belt to the Lions "O."
UPDATE: Mike Martz is rumored to be the top candidate for the Raiders job.
So, that leads me to my question. If Cal and Tony didn't earn every vote, and they did deserve every vote, then what future player could ever get a higher percentage and is there any that could get every vote?
I think a few things need to be covered first. One, you probably have the typical voter that has an ego or chip on his shoulder and his agenda is going to come across. Some might think you have to "pay your dues" and can't get elected the first year. Or, some might know the guy is going to get voted in anyway, so why not use my vote on a guy that will need some help getting votes. And I think that is valid. If Cal and Tony pick up 1070 votes, I can't imagine there are many votes left to be given to anyone else. It will also be more difficult to get the hightest percentage as more voters are added each year (226 votes in 1936 and 497 in 1999). And, of course, biasness. If the best player ever to play the game was from the Red Sox, you know a Yankee writer isn't going to vote for him.
Ok, so here is my list of guys I think should or could get every vote, if not set the record for highest percentage of votes received:
1. Derek Jeter
2. Roger Clemens
3. Greg Maddox
4. Alex Rodriquez
5. Albert Pujols
6. Mariano Rivera
7. Randy Johnson
Cal Ripken Jr. 537 votes 98.5%
Tony Gwynn 532 votes 97.6%
Monday, January 08, 2007
Sunday, January 07, 2007
Saturday, January 06, 2007
Looks pretty silly, but I can't deny the that it would be fun for at least a little while.
Wednesday, January 03, 2007
Top Player: Donovan McNabb, 48.10 pts
Top Team: All Night Long!, 181.50 pts
Top Player: Peyton Manning, 58.20 pts
Top Team: All Night Long!, 182.60 pts
Top Player: Brett Favre, 51.50 pts
Top Team: SKAtomic Bomb, 148.70 pts
Top Player: Donovan McNabb, 55.50 pts
Top Team: Pooper Scoopers, 199.00 pts
Top Player: Donovan McNabb, 51.50 pts
Top Team: Pooper Scoopers, 168.80 pts
Top Player: Marc Bulger, 52.00 pts
Top Team: Pooper Scoopers, 217.00 pts
Top Player: Peyton Manning, 58.10 pts
Top Team: All Night Long!, 201.20 pts
Top Player: Tom Brady, 59.30 pts
Top Team: Pooper Scoopers, 228.10 pts
Top Player: Drew Brees, 50.30 pts
Top Team: Pooper Scoopers, 184.40 pts
Top Player: Steve McNair, 52.20 pts
Top Team: All Night Long!, 204.70 pts
Top Player: Drew Brees, 57.00 pts
Top Team: All Night Long!, 212.30 pts
Top Player: Tony Romo, 60.20 pts
Top Team: Time to lose again, 210.10 pts
Top Player: Jeff Garcia, 50.40 pts
Top Team: All Night Long!, 165.60 pts
Top Player: Drew Brees, 67.80 pts*
Top Team: Battletoads, 232.40 pts*
Top Player: Michael Vick, 53.30 pts
Top Team: Time to lose again, 202.40 pts
Top Player: Marc Bulger, 65.50 pts
Top Team: GOOD NIGHT NOW!!!, 197.80 pts
Top Player: Peyton Manning, 75.20 pts ('04)
Top Team: Battletoads (Stack, '06), 232.40 pts