If you're going to cheer for a sports team, you might want to make sure that you at least know the names of just some of the players. It doesn't have to be all of them. Just a few. Just one even. Just know the name of at least one player on the team. That way when you're asked by a reporter who your favorite player is you won't say the name of someone on another team. That way you won't sound just like the woman in the clip below who was asked who her favorite New York Giant player is and responded, "Sanchez!" Umm...he plays for the Jets, cupcake. Still New York, but that's not good enough. Let's watch what not to do. Behold!
Yes, I'm sure that I've already wrote enough about my devastation after the 49ers lost to the Giants last week. But what if I didn't convey exactly what I was feeling very well in type? I'd better make sure. Here is a video of a very small and very disappointed 49ers fan. His reaction pretty much sums up my feelings on the matter. This should be the last from me on this subject (unless something cuter comes along). Behold!
Yeah, I'm still not totally over the 49ers loss on Sunday. I'm not not over it, but I'm just having a hard time dealing with the fact that they lost to this guy. Behold!
Seriously? That guy doesn't look like he could fight his way out of a wet paper bag, let alone through an entire game of football.
A lot of people who follow sports have certain superstitions. And they're pretty serious about them. They believe that doing just one thing wrong could jinx your team and they'd lose. That's the case with the lovely young lady in the video below. She appears to be distraught that her beloved Green Bay Packers lost their game last week. And she blames Megan. And the sparkles. That's right. The sparkles. Enjoy.
I don't write about my personal life here very much. But I'm going to briefly do so today. And with good reason. I have been a San Francisco 49ers fan my entire life. I love that team so much. The past eight years that we have missed the playoffs because we've sucked have not been fun. I was seriously worried that yesterday's playoff game could potentially end in disaster. And just when I would think that we were ahead enough that we could win, the Saints came roaring back to push our imminent shot at victory aside. But in the end, it was the 49ers who prevailed in spectacular fashion. And in the video below, you can relive that very spectacular fashion. And pay attention to the guy who caught it and how he's just bawling his head off afterwards. Those are some mighty manly tears of relief and happiness. It was just awesome. One of the best things I've ever seen in my life. I still can't believe that we flipping won!
Are we still in the Everybody-Gets-A-Trophy era? Or are people gradually weaning themselves from the idea that everyone needs to win every time they are in some sort of competition? I thought that we were in the weaning process. But after reading about a sixth grader who plays football so well that he is now formally limited from scoring more than three touchdowns per game, I'm thinking that we're not quite as weaned as I would have hoped.
See, Fox16learned of a one Demias Jimerson. He's eleven. Apparently, Demias (pronounce that any way you'd like) is an awesome football player who can score just about any time he touches the ball (so they claim). Thus, the Wilson Intermediate School Football League instituted something called the Madre Hill rule. (They make a point in the article of telling us that Madre Hill was a Razorback at the University of Arkansas. Like we care or know who he is anyway.) Apparently, Madre Hill could kick ass on the football field as well. So they made a rule that after a person has scored three touchdowns in a game, if their team is ahead by more than 14 points that person can't score any more for the rest of the game. Wait. What?
Yes! That's the rule. The Principal of Wilson Intermediate School is a one Terri Bryant. She claims that "...the rule isn't meant to punish Jimerson. It's there to help the other fifth and sixth graders on the field develop as football players too." Hmmm. And it's going to do that by having them play against sub-standard players and teams? I'm not seeing how that is helping. I'm also not seeing why the game can't just be played without having to make stuff up!
Why is this happening? I understand that the kid is good. The other teams can't compensate? I don't know what to tell you. I don't think that the rules need to be changed because one guy is really good. Let's just dumb everything down for kids so that they won't have to try quite as hard. Let's just give everyone a chance...to think that they can do something that they can't. Are we supposed to make these sorts of exceptions for everything when one kid really excels? The answer, in case you're struggling, is NO! These things happen. Get used to it! Don't change the rules so that everyone doesn't feel bad! What is wrong with people?!
Ready for another story of something being made of absolutely nothing? And complete with non-existent racial overtones? No? I wasn't either, but I read the article anyway. That's how I learned about a bunch of folks in Painesville, Ohio (and this IS a pain) who are flipping out over a sign that some high schoolers put up that read "U Mad Bro?" You know. Because 'bro' is a racial term. Wait. No, it isn't. What now?
See, there's this Internet meme that has this tormented smiling face looking sideways at you. It usually is captioned with "U Mad Bro?" According toFox8 in Cleveland, "U Mad Bro?" means "To make a ragin [sic] person rage even more by asking the most ironic question." They said they got that from Urban Dictionary, but I did not find that definition, even though that definition fits. (It's the same as kicking someone when they're down. And I like that definition better because it does not include the term "ragin".) Here's the face. Behold! How is that racially offensive? Hard to say, but that's probably just because it isn't. See, there was a high school football game between Kirtland and Painesville. Kirtland won and I think it was at Painesville. So after the game, a bunch of students and some parents put up a sign (that was really a tarp with words spray painted on it) that read "YOU MAD BRO?" You know. Because Painesville lost the game on their field. End of story, right? Not so fast.
A one Roderick Coffee, who is the president of the Lake County chapter of the NAACP, decided that this would be a good thing to make a huge stink about. That's why he said, "At the conclusion of the game, some of their students and parents put up a sign that we believe was racial intimidation, ethnic intimidation." OK. Now, let's say that I understand (even though I don't) how he could have thought that. And then let's say that I explain to him that it's not racial. It's not even the slightest bit racial. Then what? Well, then they don't accept that explanation and take it to the local news, of course.
And they must have brought it to the attention of the superintendent for the Painesville school, a one Michael Hanlon, because he said, "I think the reference to 'bro' in the sign definitely has a racial connection to it." OK, you can think that, but I'm telling you, it has ZERO racial connections AT ALL. So why are we still talking about it? I'm guessing that it has something to do with this part of the article: "No doubt, the sign offended people." Crap. This again?!
Look, just because someone is offended, that doesn't mean that they're RIGHT. And there isn't a Constitutional right to not be offended. And truthfully, if you're offended over something as simple as a sign that reads, 'YOU MAD BRO?" then you need to wear a helmet at all times and stay inside as much as possible. But don't you worry. According to the Principal of Kirtland High School, a one Lynn Campbell, "...there will be a thorough investigation." But WHY?!
I'm telling you! There is no NEED for a "thorough investigation". It's NOT racial! What, exactly, will this "investigation" consist of? Getting on the Internet? Let me save you the time. It's NOT racial! Why are people so quick to jump to something being racial? Even something as tested by time as sports teams taunting each other? Do those folks really have so little to do that this is what they've resorted to?
The other day there was a pre-season football game between the San Francisco 49ers and the Oakland Raiders. It would have been fairly routine had it not been for the ridiculously high number of brawls. Oh, and that one guy that got shot a couple of times in the stomach. (To be fair, he did have a "F*** the 49ers" shirt on, so he kind of had it coming. I'm just sayin'.) That wasn't very routine at all. None of it was. And that's when everyone totally overreacted.
Because of all of these unfortunate incidents, do you know when the 49ers will be playing the Raiders again during pre-season? That's right. Never. According to the Miami Herald, "The 49ers will recommend to the NFL that their annual preseason games against the cross-bay rival Raiders be postponed". Because of a handful of a-holes? Wait. Are they really serious? Oh, they are. And here's what they say about this decision: "I don't think this is indicative of either of our fans. You have a very, very small percentage of a handful of people who ruin an experience for everyone else, and it's not going to be tolerated".
So, wait a minute. They know it's a very, very small percentage of a handful of people that are up to no good and their solution is to punish everyone. That's not really what I would call a rational decision. And it's completely unnecessary. The 49ers team president, Jed York, even said that all of the hubbub that erupted during and after the game "...is partly due to season ticket holders selling their seats to people who don't normally attend games." Thus, could their response to not continue this rivalry be any stupider? I don't think that it can.
There is stupidity that can be added to this, however. (There's always room for idiots!) "The 49ers will no longer allow tailgating during or after games". Right. Because that was the problem. The tailgating. Oh, wait! No. No, that wasn't it at all. In fact, that had NOTHING to do with it. So of course you can see why they will no longer allow it. There's nothing better than overreacting to solve something. Oh, wait. Yes, yes there are plenty of things better than overreacting. How about just realizing that sometimes, things happen? Or how about trying to figure out WHY they happen and then do something about THAT? Is it because things would actually change? And we can't have that now, can we? Apparently not.
Currently, the chances of a 2011-2012 NFL season are not good. Almost non-existent, if you will. Something about the collective bargaining contract expiring and the players unions and the owners not being able to agree on new terms. And while I lean toward being on the side of the players (there's no reasonable argument for why the season should consist of eighteen games instead of the current sixteen), I really don't feel sorry for anyone in this scenario except for the fans. All I want is for September to roll around and have NFL games on TV. That's what I want. And I don't care how they make it happen just as long as they make it happen.
Seriously, who am I supposed to feel sorry for in this scenario? It's millionaires arguing with billionaires. There's an awful lot to not like there. (And the NFL is super hot right now. It would be asinine for both sides to end up forgoing an entire season because of any of this.) But you know what makes the whole thing even less likable? When one of the players compares the current agreement in the NFL to "modern-day slavery". For cryin' out loud.
According to an article over at The Huddle at USAToday, a one Adrian Peterson was talking to Yahoo! Sportsand made the following statement: "It's modern-day slavery, you know? People kind of laugh at that, but there are people working at regular jobs who get treated the same way, too. With all the money … the owners are trying to get a different percentage, and bring in more money. I understand that; these are business-minded people. Of course this is what they are going to want to do. I understand that; it's how they got to where they are now. But as players, we have to stand our ground and say, 'Hey — without us, there's no football."
Now, look...I don't know what "modern-day slavery" would even look like. Because slavery, in and of itself, seems like it would be a timeless profession. You work for someone, you do what they tell you to do, you don't have a choice in the matter and you don't get compensated for your work. That's slavery. So, would "modern-day slavery" simply be with different clothes and with different chores? I guess it would. It's hard to say why I'm taking so much time trying to noodle this one through, as his entire statement is asinine.
I think what he was trying to say is that by making the players play an extra two games per season and not giving them any more monetary compensation for those two games, it is like when people were slaves and didn't get paid for the work that they were forced to perform. What he neglects to realize is that the non-modern-day slaves were not millionaires who were seen by millions on TV every Sunday. Yeah, not a good comparison. Not a good comparison at all. And I don't know that the real slaves of yore would take all that kindly to your making that comparison, as they were far from millionaires. They were barely dollar-aires.
I didn't know if there was any way that I could feel any less sorry for the parties involved. But apparently, I can. Quit your whining, Adrian Peterson. Focus on getting talks between the owners and the players back on track so that I can watch football all the live long day every Sunday for four months come September. That's what's really important here. My leisure time. So chop-chop! Time's a-wastin'.
Side note: The article at USAToday, which was published at 1:07 EST, noted that Yahoo! Sports, where the ill-advised "modern-day slavery" comment first appears, had removed that comment from its story at 2:47 EST. Although it does go on to say that the author of the story did confirm on his Twitter page that Peterson had made the remark. Even weirder than that is that it goes on to say that by 4:24 EST, Yahoo! Sports had returned Peterson's comments to the article. Good to know that Yahoo! Sports will be editing the content of interviews in their articles as to not "offend" anyone. Nice. Just what we all don't need. Edited reporting. Jackasses. I've sent them an email asking them why they removed the comment in the first place. I'm sure you will be shocked, simply shocked, to learn that I have not yet heard back. Don't hold your breath, either. I'm not.
I enjoy sports. So I pay attention when changes go on in sports. I especially pay attention to any time the owner of the Oakland Raiders makes an appearance in public. Al Davis is at least 130 years old and he's not wearing it well. The other day, he gave a press conference to introduce his new head coach and to try to explain some of why he fired the previous coach. All of that has nothing to do with what I found to be the more interesting (and frightening) aspect of said press conference. And that would be Al Davis' general appearance these days. Brace yourselves. It's not pretty. (Al's the one sitting down.) Behold!
Oh, good Lord! What the hell is that?! That is Al Davis. I think. It could be Nosferatu. Let's see if we can spot a difference between the two.
Hmm. Yeah, they might be the same person. Wow. What the what? Should he be out during the daytime? What's the deal with his head? Why isn't he having someone else do the speaking for him? He's scaring the children. Maybe they just photographed his bad side. Maybe he has a...a...good...side? Maybe? (I know! I know! I'm stretching it! Geez! YOU try and think of something to say in this situation. It ain't easy!) Where was I? Oh, that's right. Behold!
Oh, for cryin' out loud! It got worse! How could it have gotten worse?! Is there anything worse than that? (You know that I already know the answer to that, don't you?) Brace yourselves again. It's about to get real. Real scary.
My eyes! MY EYES! Kill it! Kill it with fire! NOW!! And if you're not going to kill it with fire then someone needs to make sure that his one eyeball doesn't pop itself loose because that's exactly what it looks like is about to happen. Would it hurt you to smile once in a while there, Al?
Holy crap. Wow. Yeah, it looks like it might. Never mind. Just go away and it will be like we never brought it up, OK? Good. Good. Now if you'll excuse me, I need to go bleach my eyeballs.
We've got the Super Bowl just right around the corner. Well, it's next week. I realize that's a pretty big corner, but it's still pretty close. And when it's Super Bowl time, that's when the station that's airing the game starts to wrap up finalizing all of the commercials that are going to be shown during the game. Already there is a lot of controversy over some of the ads and they've got nothing to do with those cute Clydesdales.
What we have stirring up some fake controversy (yep, another fakeroversy) is an ad that was paid for by the Christian conservative group Focus on the Family. Conservative. Family. Yep. You guessed it. They're "pro-life", also known as anti-abortion. This ad is going to convey the meaning behind the theme of "Celebrate Family, Celebrate Life." It is also going to contain a one Tim Tebow (apparently a really good collegiate quarterback for Florida) and a one Pam Tebow, the mother of the aforementioned Tim.
According to the huffy folks over there at theHuffington Post the ad will be "...chronicling Pam Tebow's 1987 pregnancy. After getting sick during a mission trip to the Philippines, she ignored a recommendation by doctors to abort her fifth child and gave birth to Tim." Um, OK. But can I just say something here? I want my freaking Clydesdales back!!
Look, do I personally care if this group wants to buy this ad time? No, not really. I'm not offended by it. It doesn't particularly bother me because of the subject matter. However, lately it has come to light that abortion has been illegal in the Philippines since the 1930s and it would have been odd for the doctors there to recommend such a procedure. See, that does bother me. You want to send your anti-abortion message to a bazillion people watching a football game? I guess if you have the money for that, you can do so. But I'd really rather that you didn't. And here's why:
I like the commercials during the Super Bowl. I find them to be interesting and hilarious. (And in the case of the GoDaddy commercials, I find them to be interesting and...uh....um...what? Oh. Sorry. I was just envisioning GoDaddy commercials of the past and got distracted. GoDaddy isn't so much pro-life or pro-choice as much as it is pro-breasts.) I want to see interesting and hilarious commercials during the Super Bowl. I especially want to see interesting and hilarious commercials during the Super Bowl if I am watching said game at a venue with other people, some of which may or may not have imbibed just a little bit too much of any sort of alcoholic beverage furnished for said viewing.
You're never going to come to a nationwide consensus on whether or not abortion is OK or not. And from what I can tell, people have some really strong opinions about the whole matter. Don't believe me? Just ask that dude down in Kansas who blew away the abortion doc whilst he was sitting in church. I'm thinking that if your opinion is so strong that it leads you to justify blowing other people away with a gun while they're in church that you're not going to be swayed very easily to see the other side's point of view, you know what I'm saying?
And the last thing I want is a room full of people who may or may not have been drinking and who may or may not have extremely strong opinions about this whole abortion matter. That right there could turn the Super Bowl into the Super Brawl. It's supposed to be fun! Why do are we being subjected to commercials about abortions?!
Can you imagine if this sort of thing catches on? What if next year, instead of having all of the cute little dogs and horses unite in their ways to pull some sort of decrepit wagon into Small Town, USA so that all of the residents can have icy cold beer (some with a minimal amount of calories), we were instead subjected to political ads? And abortion ads? And gay marriage ads? And grandparent visitation rights ads? Oh, my God, I'd hang myself.
We could find ourselves in the not so distant future, sitting down for the big game with our family and friends with some youngsters, hopefully belonging to said family and friends. We could find ourselves saying to said youngsters, "You know, Billy...it wasn't that long ago that the commercials during the Super Bowl were really funny! Yes! Funny! There used to be these horses...Clydesdales, they were called...furry hooves, boy were they a hoot! But now, we've just got these political commercials all the time and...my God! How many of these with President Hillary are we going to have to sit through?!" That would be rough. Really. Rough.
It's not a controversy that CBS sold a commercial spot for an ad that is going to be anti-abortion. It's not. It's a fakeroversy. If there's such a problem with it, what say you pro-abortion folks roll out your own ad and get your message out there as well. And actually, I wish that they would. I'd find that very interesting, because I'm not all that aware of many pro-abortion advertising mediums of late. It's a tricky thing to advocate without sounding like a villain, I get that. But maybe try the Clydesdales! People really enjoy those!
Really, what are people worried about? That the ad is going to sway people into what? Not having abortions? I don't think that's going to happen. I don't think that anyone out there that is contemplating an abortion is going to change her mind simply because of the possibility that their child could grow up to be a college football quarterback. I don't think the reason that they're considering the abortion in the first place is because they're worried that the youngster won't be good at sports. I think that has next to nothing to do with the decision. Besides, the only people that one would have to be concerned with being swayed by something like this would be the Supreme Court. And from what I can tell, they're about as anxious to have anything to do with the subject as I am, that is to say, they don't want to touch it with a ten foot pole. Nor do I think that they're the sort of bunch that's going to be swayed by a freaking ad airing during the Super Bowl.
By the way, below is a Bud Light ad which was rejected as a Super Bowl ad a couple of years ago. Apparently, its subject matter was not suitable for the big game. Suitable or not, its freaking hilarious. And I'd rather watch that than I would watch a commercial having anything to do with abortion.
I can only hope that this will be the last "serious" ad which will air during the Super Bowl. We're not wanting to have brawls with drunken family members because of an argument instigated by an anti-abortion commercial. We're wanting to be happy drunks. Drunk and happy and covered in grease and sauce from too many Buffalo wings. That's what we want. We're America. It's what we strive for. Now...where are those horses? What about that talking E*Trade kid? He's a riot.
Wait! It's just come to my attention that the actors in the above disallowed Bud Light commercial have an encore commercial. Please, please, please let it make it to the Super Bowl this year. We can handle this can't we?
I know I'm missing something here with this one. If anyone can help me figure it out, I'd be extremely grateful. The only thing is however, if the explanation for this which has me perplexed is simply that people are morons and will make a big deal over nothing just because they a) can, or b) want to, then I don't want to know that. I already fear that, I don't need to have it reaffirmed.
The Oakland Raiders of the NFL is a pathetic football organization. They are absolutely horrible. It is a team that is lacking in hap. That's right. They are hapless, if you will. And in Sunday's game against the New York Jets, the demonstrated once again just how lacking in hap they are. With their quarterback Jam-Orca Russell at the helm, they managed to finish the game with zero points. The Jets on the other hand, managed to finish the game with 38 points. Thus, the Jets won.
The Jets were up 24 to nothing at the half. Halfway through the fourth quarter is when the Jets scored their 38th point. All the way through the fourth quarter is when the Raiders scored none of their points. The Jets quarterback is an adorable lad by the name of Mark Sanchez. He's a rookie. But rookie or not, I don't know that anyone should have given a fat rat's ass about what he did on the sidelines of the game during the fourth quarter. But you'd think that he'd put on his helmet and forgot his pants with the amount of coverage that what he did was receiving on all of the sports shows. He did something that not only was noticed, was filmed and was shown over and over and over with the commentators who were calling the game mentioning it, but it was something that I guess because of the coverage, he felt he needed to say that he was sorry for and that he shouldn't have done. Intrigued yet? Just a wee bit curious as to what the naive little rookie QB did? I hope you're sitting down for this one. He ate a hot dog.
Wait. Is that it? A...a hot dog?
Correct. A hot dog. It seems as though the guy hadn't been feeling well for a few days and didn't eat before the game. Now, I cannot imagine playing a game in the NFL on an empty stomach. I mean, you've gotta run! If you can't run, you're gonna get tackled. It has to be hell to be tackled in the NFL as it is, but on an empty stomach? I think I'd be puking up my actual stomach. (They'd need a time out to take care of that!) You've gotta eat!
So he hadn't eaten before the game and, according to Hot Dog Sanchez (the ol' HDS) as quoted over there at the Huffington Post (who, by the way, went with the headline "Mark Sanchez Hot Dog Video: Jets QB Eats Hot Dog During Game" Good Lord, HuffPo....), he "wasn't feeling very good" and "a little queasy." And for some reason he thought that a stadium hot dog would make him feel less queasy. I don't know how that factors into the equation, but at least he didn't ask for nachos or something like that. (Hey! He wasn't Nate Newton playing for the Cowboys when he tackled someone and a Snickers bar popped out of his uniform! Give the guy a break!)
But taking the questionable medicinal purposes of a stadium wiener out of the equation, they're leading 38 to zero. I wouldn't care if the guy had a hot dog on the sidelines or a slab of prime rib with a side of horseradish! They're going to win! For all intents and purposes, they'd already won! The only reason they were still playing the game is because league rules state that you have to! But given the headline over at HuffPo and the coverage of the event (as the noshing of said dog was seen repeatedly on various evening sportscasts) you'd have thought this guy was eating explosives and planning to blow himself up when the final whistle blew. What the hell is wrong with people?
Clearly that question cannot be answered here or anywhere else for that matter, so we'll just do what we always do and chalk it up to folks being morons and in need of anything posing as either entertainment or controversial. (And really, this is kind of neither, so we're back to just folks being morons. It's not really OK with me, but it's expected.) Let's see how the scenario unfolded, shall we? The text of the flabbergasted commentators is below and the video is below that.
You know that life is good when you're the quarterback of the New York Jets and you can eat a hot dog on the sidelines. During the last TV time out, Mark Sanchez is trying his best to hide a hot dog...and eat it. Oh, wow!
Did that one guy really say "Oh, wow!" Good Lord, he did. ::: sigh ::: And apparently, life isn't good enough to whichever of those dough heads said that for one to just be the quarterback for the New York Jets. No, you have to be the quarterback AND eat a hot dog on the sideline. Only then will life be "good". ANNNNNyway....do you want to bet whether or not they could even control themselves so that they wouldn't ask him about it after the game? Please bet. Please bet and say that they could control themselves. Oh! Or better yet, please bet and say that they realized that a guy whose team is ahead 38 to nothing in the fourth quarter eating a hot dog during a TV time-out is not important. Please bet me that! The dialogue that wins me that bet is as follows:
Dumbass Commentator: "During TV time outs, we leave our cameras on..."
Hungry Mark Sanchez:"Yeah, I heard."
Dumbass Commentator: "Have you always been a mustard guy on your hot dog?"
Hungry Mark Sanchez: "Oh. Yeah, that was stupid. I didn't eat much before the game this morning. I couldn't eat. I had a terrible stomachache. And on the sideline I asked somebody for a hot dog and they got one. And I tried to eat it...and..."
Dumbass Commentator: So it was medicinal?"
Hungry Mark Sanchez:"Yeah, I wasn't feeling very good, but, uh, I'm going to get in trouble for that one, I bet. So, I'm sorry."
Dumbass Commentator: "Hey, Mark, have a good one!"
Hungry Mark Sanchez:"Thanks guys. You too!"
Did you read that? Did you get how they made him feel like he had to apologize for eating a hot dog on the sidelines? And he tells them that he's probably going to get in trouble for it and what do they say? "Have a good one!" They seem to gloss over the part about him getting in trouble. I can only imagine what he was thinking if, in fact, he really will "get in trouble" I'm guessing it would be something like: Thanks, asses! Thanks for pointing that out to the world. Appreciate it. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go eat whatever I want without a camera on me and see if I have to keep talking about this.
Sphere: Related Content
