College football is a funny game. It's chaotic nature distinguishes it from every other major organized sports league in America. It's the only NCAA sport whose champion is not decided by a tournament-based system. Hell, the NCAA doesn't even officially declare a national champion of the "Division 1 Football Bowl Subdivision." The coaches/computer/media polls are certainly one of the nuttiest parts of this crazy sport that we love, and I'm not here to clarify the confusion. I'm here to add to it.
My power rankings order teams based strictly on what I believe to be the quality of each team, not desert. I believe USC is the sixth best team in the country, not that they deserve to go to the Rose Bowl before Washington or any other Pac 10 team with a better record. The basic test I used for the rankings is "Would team #1 usually beat team #2?" and so on. You'll notice that I only have one non-BCS conference team in the top 25, three fewer than most official polls. That's because I think these team generally suck and would usually lose to the teams I have ranked. (I think Boise State and Utah would be middling Pac 10 teams at best. Houston and TCU would be Big 12 bottom-feeders.)
One of the major flaws of the poll system is that it begins before the season does. Pollsters usually rank the teams based off of how many returning starters they have and how they did in the previous seasons bowl game. The drawback to having a preseason polls is that teams can only rise up the poll so fast and so far making the poll itself a determining factor in who finishes at the top. Those that start at the top have a clear advantage over those who don't. A major reason why the undefeated 2004 Auburn Tigers didn't play in the BCS national championship game was that they began the year ranked 17th in the AP Poll and 18th in the ESPN/USA Today Poll. This is why I believe polling shouldn't begin until after the third week of the season when we have at least a small sample size of performances to rank the teams based off of. (And why I'm starting mine now).
You can follow my rankings every week for the rest of the season here. Let me know how much you think they suck.
Monday, September 21, 2009
College Football Power Rankings
Saturday, September 5, 2009
We Did Love Dinosaurs Once
Well hello there.
So the resurgence I promised has failed. Did I make a valiant effort? Maybe. But probably not.
Life is a car in the fog on a mountain. Nothing you can do to see further ahead so you just take it as it comes. Carefully. Because it's pretty dangerous. To your left is a hard place; a rock, if you would. The side of the mountain wouldn't be so forgiving if you struck it, so you do your best to avoid it. But not by all that much. You hug its cold and honest face because to the right is the Cliff. You wouldn't make it. For sure. So you just try to hang on to the middle, whatever that means. You're a 2 ton mess of iron and you can do damage. To yourself and to the mountain. To the world. The mountain, the world, will heal over time no matter what you do, because despite your power, you are too small. You are a speck on a speck on a speck on a speck on a speck. Probably hundreds of specks smaller than that, too. But there is hope...
There is the sunset when the fog lifts. There is the other side of the mountain. There is the road you've climbed. The pebbles you've turned and kicked aside.
And there are people like Anis Mojgani. And poems like his. So take them. And run with them. And cling to their lines and use them as a guardrail when you think you may fall to the side. Or when you'll run into the mountain. Don't rush. Take it in.
Rock the fuck out.
Anis
Mojgani
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
One Reader and Counting...
Well, at least we know someone is reading.
SI.com's Ian Thomsen covers the NBA off-season:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/ian_thomsen/07/06/artest.turkoglu/index.html?eref=sihpT1#
Monday, July 6, 2009
The Rich Get Richer
After a season void of any significant personnel movement, the NBA's top teams are reloading for the 2009-10 season. The best teams of this decade (Lakers, Spurs, Pistons) and of late (Celtics, Cavs, Magic) have all made serious upgrades in the early stages of the off-season. If Bill Simmons' theory is correct, that the NBA enjoys its best seasons when the gap between the elite teams and the rest is widest, than we may be in for a great year.
Recent acquisitions:
Lakers - Ron Artest
Spurs - Richard Jefferson
Pistons - Ben Gordon and Charlie Villanueva
Celtics - Rasheed Wallace
Cavs - Shaquille O'Neal
Magic - Vince Carter
This is the rest of the post
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
The Difference Maker
The LA Lakers championship this season can be attributed to many things, and there were many reasons they failed to win it the year before (namely, the Boston Celtics). But one factor that I think was not acknowledged in the Lakers failure two seasons ago, and that made the difference this season, was Trevor Ariza.
Ariza got his due this year (including his name in an SI article headline) and rightly so. But two years ago, after getting injured a quarter of the way through the season, no one talked about the difference he could have made to the Lakers in playoffs. Instead of Sasha Vujacic missing open threes and getting abused on defense again (Ray Allen in game four of the 2008 Finals anyone?), Ariza was making hustle plays and hitting clutch shots for the Lakers in the 2009 playoffs.
What came to my mind was that Ariza played the same role for the 2008-09 Lakers that Manu Ginobili did for the Spurs during their 2002-03 championship season. When you watched that Spurs team play they just had an extra spark that was missing the year before (which ended with an early exit from the playoffs) and Ginobili was that spark. Ariza was that guy for the Lakers this year. Take a look at their averages from the playoffs those two years.
Manu Ginobili 2003 playoffs: 27.5 min, 9.4 ppg, 3.8 reb, 2.9 assists. Trevor Ariza 2009 playoffs: 31.4 min, 11.3 ppg, 4.2 reb, 2.3 assists.
Monday, June 29, 2009
Race War!!!
This post will be entirely related to the recent US Supreme Court decision that The Wall Street Journal so kindly outlines for us here. Basically, the decision ruled in favor of a group of white firefighters that sued the city of New Haven, CT for denying them promotions solely because of their race. Juicy enough for you? Let's talk it out...
OK, so Race War is something I'm familiar with. Just kidding. Actually the opposite is true. Being a recent alumnus of Reston College, the amount of diversity we experience puts the graduates of our fair institution probably in the top 1% of liberally-minded people when it comes to race. Boundaries simply should not exist because of color. People are just people!
But boundaries do exist. And color does matter. Just as it did for these firefighters. After taking a test to EARN a promotion (I will come back to the word EARN in a minute), they were told the test would be thrown out. The reason? Not enough minorities did well on the test, and the city wanted to avoid being sued by affirmative action supporters. The merit of the individual was disregarded because of the failure of a group, and that group happened to be made up of people that shared one similarity: they were minorities. Thus, personal performance and achievement were trumped by race. The race card once again acted as a net to save minorities that stumbled and a governor on the engines of advancement for the white individuals that worked hard to succeed and move forward.
Did the department intend for the test to hold minorities back? Decidedly not. They even testified that the reason they threw out the test was because it made them liable to suits by affirmative action supporters! In my mind, that means they did nothing wrong. They intended for the outcome of the test to act as a basis for promoting deserving individuals, and they even hoped that a significant number of these individuals would be minorities. So intent to make things fair was clearly their.
And that is all that matters. Or at least all that should matter. And the Supreme Court apparently agrees with me as their decision favors the white firefighters. And I thank them for entering the debate on race not on the side of white or black or any other color, but on the side of fairness.
I'll sum up now. For a long time race was used as a way to hold people back. Just as sex was. People feared difference, and fear turned to hatred and violence and simply evil. And good things have happened in the last fifty years to turn that around, thanks to heroes like Martin Luther King, Jr. and many others.
But we all know that. The question is where do we stand now? And I think the answer is that we have come nearly full circle. People see each other as equals, as people. We are now, finally, starting to look past race. No, not in every situation, but in both institutional and individual instances, and it's a noticeable change.
So we're down to the final question: where do we go from here? I fear that if things continue in the affirmative action vein, then race will begin to be used not as a reason to offer aid to minorities, but as a way to hold the majority back. And the Supreme Court seems to share my view in this manner. In this case it was clear that the city was holding white individuals back in order to allow for the group that did not do as well to succeed. And that group contained a substantial number of minorities, and it was clear that this was the SOLE reason that any action was taken at all. Situations like that cannot arise, and the Supreme Court was right to condemn this instance of it and all future instances as well.
EARN. I said it before, and I'm returning to it now. People, all people of all races, need to EARN their advancement. That is the American Dream. When people are held back or pushed forward without EARNING either treatment, the tenets of our great nation are put at risk, and that we simply cannot afford.
Given the same opportunities, race should not matter. Only what someone earns. However, people should be given the same opportunities, and the attempt to create equality, then, should come through balancing out the opportunities afforded to young people everywhere in terms of getting an education! If students are motivated to succeed, they should be given that opportunity. By the time they graduate from college, all students should have been given the same opportunities. What they chose to do with them, and what they choose to do after them, are entirely up to them.
Rx: Ignoring race completely
Signed,
The Doctor
Saturday, June 13, 2009
Comedy Done Right (And in a Sterile Setting)
Alright TV fans. It's showdown time. We're not going soft on anyone. No taking it easy. We are getting down to the nuts and bolts of two of my favorite comedy shows on television and letting them have at it. Think Celebrity Death Match from MTV but in real life. We're going to have ridiculously violent things happen to these shows in the octagon so that we can know once and for all which is best (and why).
Scrubs vs. The Office.
Lab Coats vs. Suits
Stethoscopes vs. Ties
JD's hair vs. Michael's hair
The Janitor's Creepiness vs. Creed's
FIGHT!
OK, let me get this over with. I KNOW Scrubs is dead. It's finished. The series finale came at the end of the last season (number 8), and there will be no new episodes ever. However, I a) am not all the way finished with my frantic catching up yet and b) am a tremendous fan of anything I've ever seen on the show. So bear with me.
And we're off. I reviewed The Office in my last post and was as cruel as possible with them. But I want to say this: it's a great show. Those of us that watch know beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is one of the few shows still on the air that is worthy of tuning in for week in and week out. The cast is great, the writing is great, and the laughs are great.
But as Flor says in one of my favorite movies Spanglish, "[If] this was small enough to be [summed up in one blog post], I would be a fool to bring it up. But I need to say, no matter what the result... I need to be impolite!" I need to go to town on The Office because we should demand the highest quality from our television shows, even if they are currently among the best in existence. To do so, I will compare it to one of my new favorite shows: Scrubs.
Scrubs is fantastic for many of the same reasons The Office is. The characters are both ridiculous to the point where they are slightly unbelievable (which is definitely a good thing as humor that hits too close to home can quickly become not funny) and deeply and carefully characterized. Yes, JD is beyond absurd, but we are past that and fans of the show love him for his oddity. We are at the point where we understand him (in ways that we are often unable to understand the stupidity of a certain Michael Scott). JD lives in a fantasy world, has odd daydreams about almost everything, loves appletinis, needs physical affection from friends and mentors to validate his existence, is often sexually inappropriate, and constantly falls short in the social side of his life, but we love all of that about him! Zach Braff makes it not only acceptable but endearing. And it is the same way with all the characters on the show.
Also, the story line centers around a work space that we all have some sort of familiarity with. It helps us in accepting the shortcomings of the places we know so well by allowing us to laugh at their expense. They somehow become less scary, though the danger and fear remains.
Finally, every storyline wraps itself up nicely. Despite having us laugh for a half hour straight, when time is up we have learned something. Whether it's that "there are more important things in life" or that "everything will be OK," we can take comfort in the lessons we come away with when we turn the TV off.
Despite all this, Scrubs does not fall short in any aspect whatsoever. Where The Office lacks a degree of cohesion between the episodes, Scrubs does not. The patients that live keep living and the stories surrounding them continue. The ones that are treated or pass on do so, and we take what we can from their situations and move forward. The relations between the doctors evolve, the running jokes don't lose their steam, and problems aren't always resolved in an episode or two. I know that the Jim and Pam saga has its development and setbacks and from time to time a solution, but barring Michael Scott's ever worsening idiocy, their relationship is really the only thing on the show that is not stagnant.
What's more, the characters we watch week in and week out (well the main ones, save The Janitor, The Todd, and Ted) are not necessarily fatally flawed in ways that cannot be ignored or forgiven. They often do what they can to earn our affection and admiration, even at their lowest points.
Those are my two major points: episode cohesion (and even season cohesion) and character respect. Even though he's a nerd, you want to be JD. He's a doctor. He has great friends. He seems to laugh a lot and love a lot, despite being hurt sometimes. He saves lives. The same is true for almost every character, even if they're overly feminine, overly macho, overly insecure, overly over-bearing, overly cynical, or overly anything. They still have those always redeemable base qualities. Jim Halpert, arguably the most admiration-worthy character on The Office, doesn't have that. Yes, he laughs in a crappy environment and has found love there, but do you really want to be him? Trapped in that office of hilarious nimrods? I for one would prefer to be JD. And maybe that's why I prefer to watch him.
So really what I'm asking for is improvement from The Office. I've said it before and I'll say it again: it's a great show. But it could be better, and all would be happier if it were. And there are two ways to do that. The first is to improve the cohesion between episodes. I keep thinking back to the stupid office picnic episode and barring the wonderful news at the end, can you tell me one thing that happened? Michael sees Holly, but nothing develops. Another branch closes, but it doesn't affect anyone from the viewers perspective. Basically, hilarious things go on over the course of the day and that's it. We see the characters in a new setting and see how they handle it. Yes, it's novel for the show, but not for the fans. We want things to happen! If you had missed the entire episode save for the last thirty seconds, would you really need to go back to "catch up?" I think not, and I think that's something we want in our shows.
And as for character respect (kind of an awful phrase for what I mean, but gimme a break), I think there are ways for The Office to improve that. There are certainly glimpses, like in the episode where Pam's parents get divorced, but please let me know if there has been any sizable personal growth that I have missed in the following flat-as-a-pancake characters: Andy, Dwight, Kevin, Oscar, Kelly, Michael, Ryan, Angela, Stanley, Phyllis, Creed, Toby. From day one to day now, has ANYTHING CHANGED FOR THEM? Maybe that's part of the humor for some of the characters, and that's fine, but all of them?! That's 90% of the show and I need to be OK with the fact that there is nothing new happening with any of them?! I demand more, and I think you can deliver, Office writers. I know you can.
I understand that I've tried to explain the shortcomings of The Office and the lack of any in Scrubs in this post, but it hasn't been easy. If I've fallen short, I hope the episodes will fill the gaps. I don't think I need to panhandle on The Office's behalf for viewership, but PLEASE WATCH SCRUBS! If you have, tell more people to watch. If you haven't, DO IT! Go to here and start with season 1 episode 1. And run with it. I don't think you'll find a better show to laugh at, learn from, or enjoy in your spare time.
Trust me. It's just what The Doctor ordered.
The Doctor
PS - Doctor Perry Cox. Nothing in the entertainment industry can even compare to the rants he makes so often on the show. They just never get old for me. He alone could tip the scales in favor of Scrubs, but thankfully there is an amazing show to go with him. Go watch.
Friday, June 12, 2009
Cornell, I Feel Your Pain
In true Quint Kessenich form, I'll try to make lacrosse intelligible by comparing it to a mainstream American sport. Anyone who watched Superbowl XLII (NY Giants 17 NE Patriots 14) can probably understand how the Cornell men's lacrosse team felt after losing to Syracuse 10-9 in overtime in the national championship. The roles of underdog and favorite in the two games may have been reversed, but the improbability of the game-saving plays was eerily similar. After trailing 9-6 with five minutes to go, Syracuse rallied and scored the game-tying goal with four seconds left on a spectacular/fucking absurd play (depending on who you were rooting for).
Monday, June 8, 2009
Politics, why bother?
I'm a Bostonian born and raised, but unlike most from my state I am a diehard conservative. It brings me so much joy to see Sal Dimasi go down in flames along with the past 3 speakers of the house for MA. On the national level you have completely incompetent people like Barney Frank attempting to get as much media coverage with his persecution of those he deemed "responsible" for the financial collapse when he attacked Edward Libby. And on the international level you have the joke that is the English parliament. Not only did Gordon Brown's party, the labour party, lose their elections last week but they fell from first to worst.
Politicians are a joke. Never are they acting in the best interest of our society. They are always trying to appeal to the mob in order to secure reelection. They will take whatever money they need to fatten their state's wallet (bridge to nowhere) and their own wallets (British elected officials writing off having their moats cleaned as an expense).
Sadly enough though this effects all parties and all countries throughout the world. The big they are, the more money they have to spend, the more falls through the cracks and the less of it we see actually helping where it’s needed. Give States their power back, force term limits on all public officials and for the love of god give us a reason to vote.
Saturday, June 6, 2009
My Year In Television
So it's been about a year since I've been writing as close to full time as a NYC internship would allow. And I'm back. But I've been over that with you already (Comeback? Bigfoot? Blurriness? Britney!? Yeah, you remember). Now we're on to actual content. The cutting edge stuff that made this blog what it still hasn't been. And for myself, my greatest contributions came in terms of television. When you come to me saying, "Doctor, I've been having symptoms of showlessness. What can you do for me?" Or, "Doctor, I needed a second opinion on what went down in [enter fantastic series here] the other day. Can you help me?" With questions like that, you've come to the right place. Jump it.
Thanks for jumping. Anyway, as I was saying, I am your man when it comes to television. Why is this? Well there are a number of reasons. First of all, I have way too much time on my hands, and keep up with a lot of television shows as a result. In addition, when I am caught up with my repertoire of shows, I don't just relax and play video games or drink my face off (OK, I do that, you're right). No. Instead, I find other shows to ADD to my lists, to try out and then dedicate myself to. I've done this a lot over the year, and the list of shows that I am dedicated to has grown substantially. In order of the first ones that pop into my head, my list now includes but is not limited to:
Lost
Heroes
The Office
Kings
Breaking Bad
Scrubs
It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia
Glee
Trust Me
My Name is Earl
Burn Notice
Monk
and even no longer new shows (especially that aired between classes last semester) like:
Just Shoot Me
Home Improvement
Scrubs
Seinfeld
and many others
I don't really know where to go from here, but I'm going somewhere. I'll probably begin with focusing on some of my top shows (Lost, Heroes, The Office, Breaking Bad), detailing the emotional roller coaster ride they have taken me on since we last talked.
Maybe we'll start sort of light to round out this article: The Office.
A great show, some cutting edge humor, and lots of imitation being attempted around television. But nothing does it for me quite like The Office. As any habitual (or casual) watcher of the show knows, though there is humor in some of the running jokes or character relations, the greatest part of the show is the daily interaction between the employees, the monotonous hilarity that is their lives. And that has not suffered too greatly this season. The comedy was still very tight, interactions were kept hilarious (see Charles and Jim's relationship or Angela and Kelley competing for Charles's attention for examples), and from what I've seen I don't think they should be losing any fans.
However, that is not to say they are doing perfectly. Fans are happy, but they are not elated. And I say this for one reason: the overarching storyline used to have some real direction and continuity behind it, mostly led by the Jim and Pam storyline, but also with Michael's love life and the rise and fall of Ryan.
This season (5), a lot of that was missing. Yes, they had a fine story arc set up with Michael's quitting and his starting of a new paper company. However, they came full circle in the end, and I was left feeling like my time was wasted and other stuff should have been happening in The Office universe. Also, how many of the shows were simply one and done story lines that had to be explained in the beginning and were resolved by the end with little to know actual plot development having occurred by the episode's end? All I know is that it seemed like there were too many for me.
Despite anything bad I have to say about the show, it's one of the most hilarious on television and should be watched religiously by all. You're missing out if you haven't been. And finally, with the Pam pregnant cliff-hanger at the end, a lot of interesting things should go on next season without a doubt.
Rx: Watch the show like your life depends on it.
Consequence for not obeying: Death by crushing.
Signed,
Doze-Daddy
Do I Know You From Somewhere?
So it's been a while. I know that. We all do. But here at Bigfoot is Blurry, we believe in comebacks. We believed in Jordan when he came back after dabbling in an intergalactic basketball game to the prevent the enslavement of Bugs Bunny and friends (or we just believed he should quit the bull crap and stop making awful movies). We believed in Favre when he quit then came back then quit now is thinking of coming back (or we loathed him for bothering us the entire time. And for the record, I'm betting he does come back much to the disappointment of SoBDD). We believed in the Sox's miracle comeback when they were down 3-0 in that magical ALCS (I have refused to watch baseball ever since). So clearly we're strong believers in comebacks and big fans of those that attempt them...
Sorry, but we sort of had to go with Britney at some point. C'mon. We had to. Right? Thanks for understanding. Anyway...
OK, well maybe we don't believe in comebacks. And maybe we don't particularly love the individuals or teams that do comeback (or try to). That being said, we're rooting for ourselves. Maybe that sounds ridiculous, but given our nonexistent fan base, our preoccupations that keep us from our blogging dreams, and our graduation from the esteemed Reston College into a world of limited jobs and endless days on the couch, someone's got to root for us. Why not let it be us?
And thus it shall be. We will root for ourselves. And those of us that have way too much time on their hands will come back and will come back in a big way. In a Bigfoot way, even. Because the world just wouldn't be the same if anything happened to Bigfoot's famed blurriness. Whether he was discovered once and for all or just faded away and no one ever talked about him anymore, neither would be good for the world.
The same goes for BIBTTP. No, we may never make it; we may never be "discovered" by the world. But neither can we simply fade away and end our blogging, end our relationship with our tens of fans (that we threaten and force to visit the site). Nay. The world needs us just as we were: blurry as hell. And now that we have some more time on our hands, that's what we intend to give you: some really blurry Bigfootedness.
Come back soon. I know I will.
Rx: A whole lot of clicking around this beautiful blog once a day for the rest of your natural born (or artificially inseminated) lives.
Your Doctor,
Dozer
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Weekly Draft 4: All-Time All-Basketball Selection-Off
With the 08-09 NBA season beginning this week, Sons of Big Daddy Drew and I started talking hoop. We decided to each draft a team picking from the greatest basketball players of all time. When making our picks we weighted each player’s professional career more than their college performance and we weighted NBA seasons more strongly than any other professional experience. Our rosters consist of five starters and three subs. We limited subs to players that have never won a championship or never been the star player on a championship team.
After the draft, we used whatifsports.com to simulate a seven game series between our two teams. When creating a dream team on whatifsports you pick a specific season that a player played. For instance, if you draft Michael Jordan, you have to decide whether to add 93-94 Jordan, 97-98 Jordan, or any other season he played. Whatifsports places a dollar value on each season a player has played, to represent his value. In general, I assembled the teams based on each player’s highest rated season according to whatifsports. However for players that won an MVP award, I selected their highest rated season in which they won the award. The most significant impact this had was on Wilt Chamberlain – he did not win MVP in the 61-62 season in which he averaged 50 points and 25 rebounds per game. The other exception in addition to the MVPs was Julius Erving, whose top rated seasons were played with ABA teams the New York Nets and Virginia Squires. Whatifsports requires you to have a full 12 man roster so we used 00-01 Tyronn Lue, 00-01 Tariq Abdul-Wahad, 05-06 Lonny Baxter, and 04-05 Vitaly Potapenko to fill out both our rosters so they would have no effect on the outcome the games.
Sons of Big Daddy Drew picked first in a straight (alternating rather than serpentine) draft. SoBDD named his team the Duke Street Kings (picks are in red) and JuicyJuice named his team Walter’s Warriors. Here’s how it all went down.
The Draft
Draft Analysis
• Interestingly, the two players with the most points in NBA history, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar and Karl Malone, were not selected in the draft.
• The dollar values of the two teams according to whatifsports:
o Walter’s Warriors - $69,555,850
o Duke Street Kings - $71,641,298
• 7 of the first 10 players selected played for either the Celtics or the Lakers.
• Tim Duncan and Allen Iverson were the only two players selected that are still playing today. Duncan is really the only player that should be considered in the “all-time greatest…” club as Iverson was selected as a sub.
• Bill Simmons’ “42.4 Club” can be used to point out a number of notable exclusions from our draft. This club is “for stars who averaged at least 42 per playoff game in combined points, rebounds.” Only 4 of the 16 players in the 42.4 Club were selected in the BIBTTP draft: Michael Jordan (8x), Larry Bird (4), Magic Johnson (2), Allen Iverson (2). Simmons club only includes season since the ABA-NBA merger in 1976, which explains why so many of our players are not part of this club. Of the twelve players in the club not selected but were legitimate candidates are: Shaquille O’Neal (4), Moses Malone (4), Kobe Bryant (3), Charles Barkley (3), and Karl Malone (3).
• If JJ were to re-do the draft, he probably would have altered his strategy slightly. JJ selected as though it was a real league in which many teams were drafting. All it really was though was SoBDD and JJ picking the two greatest players (in our opinions) at each position. So, the first five picks of the draft should all be different positions, presumably the best player at each position. There was no reason for JJ to take Chamberlain with the second pick because SoBDD certainly wasn’t going to take him after nabbing Russell. Despite how limited in scope this draft was, it provided for some interesting twists and turns. This draft is worthwhile however because if it were repeated a number of times by different people, I think you would get some real variation in the draft order and composition of the teams.
Draft Commentary
Sons of Big Daddy Drew: Okay. With the first pick in the All-Time All-Basketball Selection-Off I choose:
Winner of 2 national collegiate championships,
Winner of an Olympic gold medal,
Winner of 11 NBA championships,
A 12 time all star,
Elected NBA MVP 5 times,
Member of the NBA's 25th, 35th, and 50th anniversary teams,
Named "Athlete of the Decade" by the Sporting News for the 1960's,
Named "Greatest Player in the History of the Game" by the PBWAA in 1980,
Possessor of a 22-0 record in elimination games (that is, single elimination games, game 5 of a 5 game series and game 7 of a seven game series) across the collegiate, olympic, and professional levels,
The first black head coach in North American sports,
The toughest competitor, hardest worker, and greatest basketball mind the game has ever seen,
Bill Russell.
JuicyJuice: With the second pick, I select Wilt Chamberlain. Simple put, Chamberlain is the most dominant player to ever play the game. 7-1 250 lbs as a rookie, Chamberlain eventually bulked up to 300 lbs when he played with the Lakers. Chamberlain has a list of impressive accomplishments of his own: he is the only player to ever average more than 40 and more than 50 points in a season; only player to score 100 points in a game; he won seven scoring, nine field goal percentage, and eleven rebounding titles, and once even led the league in assists; he won two NBA titles, earned four regular-season MVPs, one Finals MVP, and was selected to 13 All-star and ten All-NBA First and Second teams. Over his fourteen seasons in the NBA, Wilt averaged 30 ppg, 22 rebounds, and 4.4 assists.
But the awards and stats don't measure how dominant Chamberlain actually was. Chamberlain was such an unstoppable force that his play forced the NBA to change the rules of the game. These rule changes included widening the lane and instituting offensive goaltending. You may think that old Dr. Naismith decided that players are not allowed to cross the free throw line when shooting a free throw. But you'd be wrong. The NBA instituted that rule because Chamberlain would leap from behind the line and throw down every one of his free throws! Leap from behind the line and throw it down! FROM BEHIND THE LINE!
Despite your first pick’s offensive ineptitude, I really can't say too much bad about him.
SoBDD: Wilt Chamberlain as "the most dominant player to ever play the game"? I guess Wilt has never met Bill Russell. Oh wait, he did. Eight times in the playoffs, in fact. Chamberlain's record in those series? 1-7. Sure, Wilt dominated with the ladies--20,000 according to him--but if he were so great on the hardcourt, why did Russell's teams consistently wipe the floor with him? Chamberlain was, to be certain, a giant presence, and his impact on the game is undeniable. He was also a giant douchenozzle. Teams generally don't decide to give away great players for the hell of it, and yet was traded twice in his career because no one could stand the bastard. And how dare you use Chamberlain leading the league in assists as evidence of his greatness? The reason he led the league in assists was not because it was the best for his team--it was because he didn't want to be considered selfish, and he figured the best way to show how unselfish he was to pass the ball all the time. Look, the man was on the great scorers ever--your rundown of his accomplishments showed that. And for such a great scorer to decline to shoot to prove a point-- to the detriment of the team--is about the most selfish thing anyone could do. (Is there a 'Kobe Bryant' in the audience? Hell, there's no one in the audience.) Listen, Chamberlain was a very good player, there's no denying that. But the goal here is to have a great team, and to put Wilt at the center, well, you're going to fall short.
Instead, give me Michael Jordan... As his NBA.com biography states, "By acclamation, Michael Jordan is the greatest basketball player of all time." He scored more points per game than Chamberlain, and he did it in an era when scoring was down and physicality was up. He led his team to the best single-season record of all time, and he won six championships. His five MVP awards and 10 scoring titles lend evidence to his individual greatness, as do his nine selections to the All-NBA defensive team. Think about it: the best scorer in the league 10 times, he was one of the five best defenders another nine times! ESPN named Jordan the greatest athlete of the 20th Century, and he's sold millions more shoes than anyone in history. And really, isn't that what it's all about?
Your pick, m'liege.
JJ: NBA.com and ESPN can suck my dick. Fuck Michael Jordan, I would have selected myself for this team before I took him.
I select Larry Bird. For many basketball purists, Larry Legend was the consummate basketball player: skilled in every facet of the game, played with hustle, had a tireless work ethic, and was the ultimate team player. His singular impact on a team is rivaled only by Tim Duncan’s, as Bird led the Celtics to what was at the time, the greatest single season record turn around in NBA history. Bird would win three championships with the Celtics and is the only player to win three consecutive league MVPs other than the first two picks in the draft. Bird was a 12 time all star and 9 time 1st team all-NBA selection, and his career statistics reflect how well rounded his game was (24-10-6). A three time selection to the NBA all-defense second team, Bird was no slouch on defense either. Maybe the most amazing statistic Bird 
owns is his career .496 shooting percentage which is just absurd for a non-post player. The legend of Larry Bird grew through epic clutch performances and plays and spectacular shooting expositions (once told a player how he was going to score after the ball was inbounded to him and proceeded to score the game winning basket in exactly that manner). Bird was everything you wouldn’t expect an unathletic white boy from French Lick, Indiana to be.
JJ: I select Bob Pettit. Although Pettit does not have the Q rating of Russell or Chamberlain, he was without a doubt the third most dominant post player of that era. Pettit played 11 seasons with the Milwaukee/ St. Louis Hawks after being a two time All-American at LSU. Pettit has the third highest rebounds/game average behind Russell and Chamberlain and the seventh highest scoring average ever (26-16). Pettit won two MVP awards and his only championship ring came at the expense of the Boston Celtics (Pettit poured in 50 points to seal a game 6, series-clinching, victory). 
Pettit's Hawks surely would have captured multiple titles had it not beenfor Red Auerbach's Celtics dynasty, who the Hawks lost to a number of times in the Finals. In his finest season, Pettit averaged 31-18. Pettit is generally credited with revolutionizing the power forward position, as he was the first dominant offensive player at his position. He will surely continue to dominate alongside his front court partner, the most dominant center to ever play the game.
JJ: I select Jerry West, yuh boi, Zeke from Cabin Creek. Yes, I know West led theLakers to the NBA Finals 9 times, all against the Celtics, and only won one once. But West is an icon, literally: the NBA logo? Yea, that's West dribbling the ball with his left hand. Mr. Clutch was a sharp-shooting guard that was as pure as they come. He averaged over 40 ppg over 11 games one post season and finished with career averages of 27-7 assists-6 reb. West also wore #44 which is sweet.
SoBDD: Fuck! The reason I took Hondo is because I figured I could still get West in the sixth, while there'd be no way you'd pass on Havlicek. What a stupid I am.
SoBDD: With my sixth pick, I'm going with a man who didn't just dominate basketball: he revolutionized it. The NBA of the 1960's was a game built on defense and rebounding, a game dominated by Bill Russell's great Celtics teams. But the next decade saw myriad changes, and chief among them was the newfound competition that the ABA provided. 
The ABA, with its colorful ball and three-point line, ushered in a new era, one built on excitement and theatrics. And the most colorful personality, the one who scored the most points, and the most exciting and theatrical was the man himself: Doctor Julius Erving.
JJ: I select: Scottie Pippen
DE - FENCE!! DE - FENCE!! DE - FENCE!!
JJ: With my 7th pick, I select Nate Thurmond. Every team needs a banger, and no one was better at banging than Nate the Great (other than Wilt the Stilt off the court obviously). Thurmond was the first player to ever record a quadruple double and averaged over 20 ppg and 20 boards pg one season. His career avgs are 15 pts and 15 boards pg. Thurmond was just a bad dude that intimidated the shit out of great centers like Russell, Chamberlain, and Kareem. He was also probably the greatest player (along with Rick Barry) to wear arguably the greatest basketball uniform of all time.
The Series
For our home arenas Sons of Big Daddy Drew chose the Boston Garden and JuicyJuice chose the Great Western Forum. Iverson was the primary sub for Walter’s Warriors and Havlicek played almost as many minutes as any other starter for the Duke Street Kings.
After dropping the first two games on the road, Walter’s Warriors adjusted the lineup slightly, giving more playing time to Chamberlain and Bird. This helped the Warriors to a game three win but the Kings stole game four at the Forum behind a strong performance by Kevin McHale odd the bench, putting JuciyJuice’s team in a 3-1 hole. Back on the road, and with their backs against the wall, Walter’s Warriors pulled out a game 5 victory. But the Warriors weren’t able to extend the series any further as the Duke Street Kings clinched the series the very next game. Whatifsports awarded the series MVP to Tim Duncan.
Duke Street Kings over Walter’s Warriors - 4-2
Monday, October 27, 2008
"Kerry Collins Doesn't Suck"
ESPN.com's Paul Herskey posted an article previewing tonight's Colts-Titans game in which a few Titans talked about QB Kerry Collins. Albert Haynesworth sounded less than enthused with Collins' play thus far for the undefeated Titans. The Titans superstar DT had this to say:
"Peyton [Manning] is still a great quarterback and everyone would love to have him on their team," he said. "What Kerry has come in and done is not made mistakes for us, put us in good situations and let the defense do a lot of the work.
"Peyton has to carry [his] team and Kerry doesn't. He just needs to make plays and not make mistakes, that's all we ask of them ... There is not as much pressure on Kerry as Peyton. He's the face of that franchise. You know here, the face of the franchise is going to be Vince [Young]. So all Kerry has to do is go out there and basically not lose it, which he hasn't. He's played well for us."
By "play[ing] well," it sounds like Haynesworth means, "not sucking." Collins has thrown three touchdown passes in the six games so far and has a passer rating of 74.2. Even Collins himself isn't so sure how well he's playing, as he said, "Maybe my numbers don't jump out, but I think offensively as a whole, we've been fairly productive."
Most people wouldn't expect the offense of the NFL's only remaining undefeated team to be described as "fairly productive." So, are the Titans a group of honest and humble players in a league of egomaniacs? Or is there a little concern in Tennessee that their title hopes hinge on a quarterback that is only not sucking?
(Note: Collins' stat line vs. Colts in the first half tonight: 11/18 for 74 yards, 0 TDs, 0 INTs = not sucking!)
Monday, September 15, 2008
The Psyche of Fantasy Football
So I was sitting in my philosophy class at Reston today, thinking about fantasy football as I usually do. Only this time my I was actually thinking about fantasy football in relation to the topic of the class that day, the philosophy of making choices. We read an article by psychologist Barry Schwartz called the “The Tyranny of Choice,” in which he presents research showing that “increased choice and increased affluence have...been accompanied by decreased well-being in the U.S. and most other affluent societies.” His basic hypothesis is that some choice is better than none but too much choice can decrease happiness.
This struck me as the answer that I’ve been looking for
to the question of: why does fantasy football always leave me with an empty, unfulfilled feeling in my stomach? And no, the answer is not because I never win. I’ve won multiple leagues in the past and have a successful track recorded. Schwartz’s article made me realize, fantasy football is a game of choice. It’s not a game of choice and chance the way Yahtzee is because there is certainly some skill and knowledge required to successfully predict the performance of players. But fantasy football is also not like real sports in which you not only have to make decisions, (do I pass the basketball or shoot it?) but you have properly execute the play.
Fantasy football is fundamentally about making choices. From the beginning, you have to decide on a draft strategy (should I take a pair of top RBs in the first to rounds or a stud WR and QB?). During every round of the draft you are comparing players and have to decide between a few players which you’ll pick (do I take Reggie Williams or Reggie Brown in the 8th round?). Once the season has started, your job as manager is to pick which players on your roster to start and which to bench each week. In a tricked out league like the cash league I play in, the decisions that must be made are endless. How many points should I wager to pick up so-and-so off the waiver wire? Which players that I drafted after the 7th round should I keep on my team for next year? Hell, we even have a draft to pick which draft position each owner will pick their team from!
According to Schwartz, all of these choices do not make for a happy group of 10-12 nerdy football-crazed guys. Schwartz says that each choice we make carries with it opportunity cost, the potential for regret, and a phenomenon called adaptation (enthusiasm about positive experiences does not sustain itself). In fantasy football terms he means: “Fuck, I took Marshawn Lynch in the 2nd round and now I’m not going to get an elite receiver.” “Fuck, I can’t believe I took Steven Jackson in the first round.” “Fuck, my team is good but not as good as it should be after I spent two months researching to draft this team!” No matter how successful you are, you’re going to make incorrect decisions every week that are disappointing. For instance, my friend’s team was the highest scoring team in the league in week one, but he didn’t start Michael Turner, the highest scoring fantasy performer of week one. The key point of Schwartz’s theory is that the bad feelings from wrong choices outweigh and outlast the good feelings of correct choices. More choices to make, more times you want to punch yourself in the face.
So why do we play? Well, because fantasy football is really fun. The thrill of pretending that you’re a GM for an NFL team is fun. And making choices that are correct (all of you who drafted Eddie Royal) is really fun. Playing fantasy football enhances my experience as a fan and I am not going to stop playing. But if you’re like me, and sometimes wonder where that disappointed/frustrated feeling is coming from during fantasy football season, well, now you know.
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
Am I A Fantasy Football Legend? Maybe...
The NFL regular season is finally upon us. Rejoice! Sing for the heavens! Turdurkens for everyone! (Note: the pic is the first google image search result for "fantasy football")
In addition to all of this, it's a time for betting and of fantasy football. And I am amazing when it comes to that. Don't believe me? Read on.
Well, obviously SoBDD and myself are avid fantasy football fans. We're in two leagues together. My record in those 2 leagues? 2-0. His? 0-2. Conincidence? Probably. Hilarious? Undoubtedly.
Taking a look at the rosters of my three major teams, I just want to point out that I was smart enough to start Chris Johnson, smart enough to draft Eddie Royal in a spot where he is worth a 14th round pick next year, and dumb enough to sit both he and Michael Turner this week. All in all, I'm 4-0 as an owner. Not too shabby at all.
In addition to my fantasy football prowess thus far, I've also shown some ability as a bettor. SoBDD dragged me into a competition over at one of his favorite blogs (VEGASWATCH.NET) where you have to take the over/under on the Vegas line for wins for an NFL team from each division. You can navigate around vegaswatch for my picks (or just spend some time reading as it's a fantastic blog). You'll also notice at the bottom of the linked article that the individual in first place is... YA BOI, DOCTOR DOZER! This may not last, so celebrations are definitely in order. See you never.
Signed,
The Doctor
Thursday, September 4, 2008
Weekly Draft 3: Classes Every Student at Reston Should Take
Well, not quite now, persay, because first, a moment of clarification. Because theShow and Torshin, for all their wonderful qualities, do not attend Reston, we're going to be a bit short-handed. Order is SoBDD, Doctor Dozer, blogsquatch, JuicyJuice. Four men, two rounds, eight picks. Andnowwestart.
Sons of Big Daddy Drew: Introduction to the Law.
Cliche? Sue me. Or better yet, take this class, then sue me. Taught by Reston legend Houston Taras, Social Org covers nearly every important Supreme Court case of the last 100 years. This class gives prospective Poli Sci and Pre-Law majors a solid foundation in understanding the law, its interpretation, and its failures. The reading load is heavy, and Taras is a master at exposing your ignorance on that one day you didn't do it, but ithe knowledge gained makes it well worth it. From the fittingly-named Loving v. Virginia to the strange case of Riss v. City of New York to poor, poor Ceballos, these are some of the most interesting, enlightening, and relevant cases that've ever sat on the SCOTUS docket.
Doctor Dozer: Introduction to Geology.
I'll admit my skepticism when first signing up for the course at the recommendation of my hippie-scum adviser, but I actually enjoyed the hell out of it. Let's face it: we all need to pad our GPAs every once in a while, so why not get a few outdoor field trips and a little bit of knowledge out of it? And if you're afraid of actual science, why not take a fake one? Over the course of a semester, I did in fact learn a bit, and I never studied, let alone opened a book. I had a box of rocks (really minerals) in my room, and the girls always love that. And at the end of the day, your professor is guaranteed to be a fun-to-talk-to grass-smoking granola who doesn't have the heart to give you less than an A-. Dinosaurs. Oil. Hawaii. Yup, all the cool things, kids.SOBDD-I've heard of Rocks for Jocks, but now they've got Rocks for Kids Who Suck Cocks? What's next? Rock for Box? (Dozer's motha) Rocks for Fox? (Bloqsquatch's motha) Rocks for people who like to trade stocks? (Gary) Rocks for lovers of smallpox? (Jeff)
Blogsquatch: Vampires.
Yes such a class does exist at Reston. When first finding out about it, I couldn't help but laugh at the thought of learning, reading, watching, and writing about vampires for an entire semester. Surely such a class would attract the most interesting group of people. You know the type: dark shades of eye-liner, long straight jet-black hair, crooked and off-centered designs on t-shirt that look like they belong in the artwork for a Rob Zombie album/movie instead of on people's...well not really chest, more like shoulder-back-side-pectoral area. Very Docter Dozer-ish. But to tell you the truth, the class actually....was everything I expected, but not really. Not too many crazy-clothes wearing fellers in the class, but you definitely get a different feel for the good-ol' vampire. You almost learn to love the poor misunderstood, creature of the night. Where else can you be assigned to watch a variety films where you have elements including but not limited to action, plenty of exaggerated and hilariously funny gore, Salma Hayek dancing 85% naked before she turns into a horrifying creature that actually reminds me of one of my english teachers from back in the day (of course you wouldn't know them), or even cartoon vampires from Cuba who are incredibly thristy for blood and unsatisfyingly horny as well (does that even make sense, Doctor Dozer knows more about that than any of us do so we'll ask him later about that). Anyway, the professor may strike students as a bit free-spirited and chique, and he is defintely a cool guy, but he certainly adds an extra value to a class that already is very much under-rated and over-looked by much of the student body.SOBDD-The vampires weren't the only thing in that class that sucked! Hoo Boy! Burned! Oh yeaaaaaah! Gotcha blogsquatch!
JuicyJuice: Biological Psychology.
This class is definitely the closest I will ever come to taking a real science course (a step above Geo, which I also took). I was considering being a psych major at the time but I also took this class because I was genuinely interested. Bio-psych is a great course for anyone who has ever wondered how the brain works and why the human body does some of the things it does. Each week you cover a new topic including topics such as how the brain controls eating, drinking, sleeping, sex, memory, and language and basic sensory and motor functions. Pretty cool stuff, not to mention you sound really smart when you can talk about things like how a ligand-gated ion channel works and what the hypothalamus does (I would list more things but I have obviously forgotten most of the cool and useless information that I learned). Despite totally misrepresenting himself in a picture on the "psych professor wall”, Professor Beard was a cool nerd that was sometimes funny and usually interesting to listen to. The class does live up to its slightly intimidating name though as almost every paper and test is a bitch. But I think most students’ GPA survive this class just fine. I enjoyed this class so much that I considered taking a neuroscience class and I signed up for Psycho-Pharmacology, which I promptly dropped after realizing that I remembered none of the little chemistry that is required.JuicyJuice: World Politics (That's the 4th thing to come up when you google image search world politics, I swear.
If there is one political science class to take at Reston, this is it. I say that because this is the only intro course that provides students with a basic understanding of the important ideas in political philosophy and of today’s important political issues. Topics include – the dynamics of great power politics, the changing role of state sovereignty, international civil society, international legal institutions, and the United States’ relationship with the EU, China, India, Russia, the Middle East, and Latin America. The most valuable part of this course for me was that its emphasis on geopolitics forced me to learn geography. I am very grateful that I now know that the difference between the Balkans and the Baltic states and that I can now name and locate more than one country in Africa on a map. Professor Mancala doesn’t even attempt to hide his radically liberal views on every topic but it honestly doesn’t detract from the course because the readings are a fair representation of the spectrum of political views. I can also guarantee that over the course of the twelve week semester, Mancala absolutely will not learn your name. Despite his flaws, Mancala and his accent are funny to listen to and he shows some cool clips that waste class time.Blogsquatch: India in Film
What you get from this course will more than likely serve you no purpose after you graduate. Many consider it to be a joke class, and a g.p.a. booster. Yes, it proves to be a relatively simple course that you can take to help boost your grades, but its actually an incredibly entertaining and fun course. The movies, all Bollywood films, are incredibly awkward and different at first, but after giving it a chance, the common storylines, spontaneous dance routines, and the catchy music will eventually grow on you, and you'll end up enjoying class far more than you ever thought you would.
Doctor Dozer: Writing Poetry
With his second pick, you might think Doctor Dozer would pick a biology related course, or maybe organic chemistry, given his affinity for the body and doing doctoral things to it. However, you'd be wrong. The Doctor chooses Writing Poetry. Taking a creative writing course should be important to everyone. Never again in your life will complete strangers be forced to listen to your ideas and smile politely, so you might as well take advantage. With poetry in particular, though, not only are you expressing yourself creatively, you're also finding things out about yourself that you never knew before. Once you finish your first 4 poems about how light and fluffy the world is or how that bird is singing outside your window on a Sunday morning after brunch with white pants and linen shirts, using your little rhyme schemes and meter and witticisms, there's nothing left to do but dig inside yourself and see what's really there. You simply have nothing else to write about. The ideas that pop into your head when you're struggling for a topic are mostly frightening, but don't shy away from them. That's who you are deep down. Learn to embrace it, express it, and shock people with your honesty. No other class gives you the opportunity to "Fight Off Your Demons" like Writing Poetry. Be careful, thought, because you might just find out who you are and where you came from.
Sons of Big Daddy Drew: Introduction to Economics
Want to understand the relationship between supply and demand? Want to know why the Fed raises interest rates? Want to know what the Fed is? Want to know what interest rates are? Want to know why the summer gas tax holiday (endorsed by Hillary Clinton and John McCain) is a pointless idea? Want to know why this is such a stupid facebook group? Want to learn about Supply-Side Economics, Reaganomics, the Trickle-Down Effect, and VooDoo Economics? Want to know what William Jennings Bryant's "Cross of Gold" speech, widely considered one of the greatest orations in American history, was actually saying? Want to know, once and for certain, that Ron Paul is a crazy person? Want to know what that weird dude Russell Crowe played in "A Beautiful Mind" was all about? Want to know why your father got laid off from work? Take Introduction to Economics. (Oh, and your father got laid off because he's a lazy, drug-addled man-child who hasn't worked a productive day in his life.)What are your own recommendations for classes, either at Reston or elsewhere? Great topics, great professors, great pictures? Yours in the comments...
Saturday, August 30, 2008
Brad Childress: Who I Really Am and The Future of my NFL Career
Dear Zygi Wilf and the Minnesota Vikings Organization,
In light of recent events and the buildup of endless guilt for the lies that have surrounded my life in my years as a football coach, I write you this letter to inform you of my resignation. The primary reason for this is that I am, in truth, not the person you thought I was. I am not a football coach. I am not Brad Childress. I am...
Tobias Fünke. I know this may come as a shock to you, the players, and the fans, but it is the first bit of truth I have told since I began my open relationship with my wife, Lindsay Bluth Fünke. It has been a long road getting to this point, so before I explain my reasons for leaving the organization, let me explain how I came to be here.
In the summer after our open relationship began, I rededicated myself to what I knew was my calling: acting. I knew that, with the help of the famous Carl Weathers (who owes me a quarter million dollars despite his massive weekly fee of $10,000), I could make it as an actor. I could take on a role that no one had ever thought possible. I could even take on roles outside of fictitious productions and screenplays. I could do it in every way (which is incidentally what my piano tutor used to tell me as he stroked my balding head with his hairy bear hands), and I could do it in real life, too.
So that's what I set out to do: something unbelievably believable. Carl and I were driving along in out Volkswagen Beetle to Vernon, British Colombia in Canada for the taping of "Making the Cut," a reality hockey series in need of a hockey coach actor. It sounded as real as I could imagine. Think about it for a second: reality. What could be realer than this reality business? If I could do this, then I'd have everyone fooled. 
On the drive, however, we broke down just outside of Minneapolis, Minnesota. Instead of selling my mouth to lonely truckers so that Carl and I could make it the rest of the way, we decided to find something real to do in Minneapolis. It was a Sunday in late December of 2005, and a number of individuals wearing purple tights, pointed metal helmets and manly beards exited a bar just ahead of Carl. As I admired their garb, I asked them what had gotten them to such a frothy and excited state. After much ado about some game with an oblong ball that Carl seemed to know quite a bit about, we discovered that the Vikings organization was in need of a coach. A real live COACH! This was the same role that I had been headed to Canada for, but this was so much closer. All we needed now was to convince a man named Zygi that I was the one for the job.
So Carl and I fabricated a resume about coaching quarterbacks and some such nonsense that landed me an interview with Zygi himself. Although the interview didn't go so well at first, the conversation turned somehow to all the men that would be in the showers, and somehow during this discussion, I discovered that Zygi was a never-nude!
And just like that, I had the job. From psychiatrist to jobless actor to actor playing an NFL Head Coach, I had come full circle. I had made it.
After getting the job, it truly wasn't all too difficult to convince people that I was qualified. I yelled at players and patted their butts. I waited for them to be in between their football and street outfits before addressing them. No one really listened to what I had to say as I eyed their bulges and hairy, muscular chests, dreaming of times when I might work out with them and spot them as they did leg squats.
And somehow this has worked. The Vikings got a man they call Purple Jesus, and fans believe we can actually be a good team this year. Hunky Brett Favre is out of our division, and we may finally do well in the NFC North! But alas, you must go on without me.
The guilt has become too strong. The lie has become too hard to maintain. And I cannot bear to stare at these strapping naked men much longer lest I misbehave in ways that would deem me insane.
So please, Zygi, accept this resignation and know that it comes from a man with a now heavy heart. I'm sorry I wasn't who you thought I was. I'm sorry that I'm not Brad Childress. I can only be the man I'm destined to be, the actor I've worked to be. And that man is...
Tobias Fünke.
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
ESPN Finds All These Chinese Names Very Confusing
You know who Wei Yang is, right? Chinese male gymnast, best in the world, winner of the all-around title and two other medals in Beijing? This guy:
Obviously, he's a great athlete. But he's not so great that he also competed for China in women's badminton doubles. But don't tell that to ESPN. Take a look at his page in their athlete profiles section:
You can see for yourself here.
I'm sure you'll agree that the real story here is the Chinese badminton team getting bounced in the quarterfinals. China has literally 1 billion more people than us, seemingly all of whom are enrolled in state-run sports academies training to play medal-rich sports no one else cares about like badminton, table tennis, and diving. So while Wei Yang the gymnast is a national hero, Wei Yang the badmintoner is a cultural traitor whose actions hurt the feelings of the Chinese people. Nothing five years in a hard labor reeducation camp won't fix.
For the record, the Wei Yang who plays badminton is this person:
Weekly Prescriptions: 8-24
Sorry I missed you all last week. We had our fantasy football draft on Sunday so SoBDD was down visiting and much preparation went in to making it a fantastic draft experience. So this week we will resume with your regularly scheduled Weekly Prescriptions. On a side note, I've been taking Pepcid AC because I cannot stop burping. That's my personal daily dose, but yours will be much sweeter after the jump.
1. Beijing Olympics Wrap Up Photos
Not much else to be said about that. Some cool pics of what was a great event. Although our softball team is a joke. Losers.
2. Goddamn Batman
This is how I feel almost all the time. I get urges to call people retards and remind them of my identity while placing a "god damn" in front of it. What an absolute bad ass...
3. Travis Pastrana
I just stumbled upon this and remembered watching it happen a few years ago. What an awesome stunt. Balls. On my chin.
4. Charles Manson's Epic Answer
I don't know much about Manson, but I know that this video scares me and creeps me the hell out. Holy crap.
5. Statue Pics
You'll get exactly what you're expecting from this site. Statue pictures. And lots of them.
6. Real Robocop
People hate when science fiction has bad science. Well, Robocop's science just got a little more real. Check this walking S.O.B. out. Not too shabby for a cripple.
And that'll do it this week. See you soon.
Your Doctor,
Dozer
Sunday, August 24, 2008
Photoshop Gone Too Far
I know magazines like to touch up pictures, especially those of models. But don't you think today's Boston Globe Magazine is a bit excessive?
I mean, where's her left arm?
(Sorry for the small picture; we're working on getting a bigger one.)