skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Well if two people with rings say it, then it must be true, according to the Boston Globe today -
"When two players with rings say the same thing, it must be true: Aaron Ward (three Cups) and Shawn Thornton (one) both noted that the last win is the hardest one to get."
Oh, then I guess it is true. If these two guys can come up with words of wisdom like that. It isn't as if every single announcer won't be saying the same exact thing before the start of any possible game where a playoff series can end.
Again, as wrote in an earlier post, this writer has moer access than anyone to a team. Can we get some meaningful information? What is up next - coach says team is going to have to play hard from beginnnig to end to win.
What do you think football columnist Peter King would think if he read a column by an entertainment writer saying a football player should find something else to do for a career after just one game? I imagine King would be ready with a response centering around how you can't judge someone that soon, and you have to give the player a chance to get comfortable, to develop. I am wondering about this after reading King's Monday Morning Quarterback column, where despite there only being one episode, he is all ready to write off Amy Poehler and her new show Parks & Recreation. King writes, under the non-football thoughts section, "Keep your Saturday night job, Amy Poehler." First, not exactly the most clever phrase I have heard of, especially considering Poehler can't keep a job she no longer has. If anything, it should read, "Go back to your Saturday night job." But second, and more on point here, it was one show. Cheers was the worst rated show on TV after one episode. Seinfeld was a failure early on. King loves The Office, a show that had it not been for Steve Carell's movie success, likley would not have survived very long. Could you wait maybe a few episodes, possibly give it a chance, before you use your national football column to take a shot at it?
This is another pet-peeve of mine, and I see it all over the place. Headline today on ESPN.com - "BC athletic director gets extension." The article is then about Boston College giving an extension to Gene DeFilippo. Now DeFilippo runs BC's athletics department. He is the Athletics Director (note the "s"). That is someone who is the director of athletics. He is NOT the Athletic Director (note lack of the "s"). An athletic director can be a director of anything who happens to be in good shape, maybe can run a mile or plays softball. I guess DeFilippo could be an athletic Director, but he received an extension for being the Athletics Director.
In today's Washington Post (Monday, 4/13/09) there is a front page article about Rahm Emanuel, and how he is working with lawmakers to help pass legislation. The writer is showing how Emanuel has been functioning as Chief of Staff in a manner that is different than his previous reputation. "But in his new job, Emanuel is overhauling his image, becoming more valet than hit man, and his formula for moving Obama's agenda through Congress is beginning to resonate. Even Republicans concede that given Obama's early victories, thornier tasks such as landmark health-care, energy and education bills may not be out of reach."
As support for this, the writer then quotes Republican Representative Peter T. King saying, "He's tough, and he's really not that partisan. He doesn't think he's morally superior to Republicans, and that alone will get you far in this environment."
The writer then needs contrast, to show that not all Republicans have the same view of Emanuel that King does. Sure, no problem. But who does the author quote - Newt Gingrich, who yes, he is a republican, but hasn't been in office in 10 years. What would Gingrich possibly know about how Emanuel has worked with lawmakers since becoming Chief of Staff. This isn't anti-Gingrich, but for this article, and this topic, his opinion is not particularly relevant. Can the Post not find a living, breathing Republican who is actually holding office to give a quote? To me this is just lazy reporting. I know Republicans in office is a relatively small number, but there are still 100s of them. Find one, one Republican in office who would say that working with the Obama White House and Emanuel in particular has not been easy.
And you know what, if by some chance you can't find someone to say that, then don't include that portion in your article. We don't need Newt Gingrich's opinion on everything, and in particular, we don't need someone who does not hold office, who is not a lawmaker, spouting off in an article about current lawmaker's dealings with Emanuel.
Please, America, tell me this isn't true. Please, tell me this is a mistake, or a satire, or something. Please, tell me, that Fast and Furious is not, by a rather large margin, the top movie in America. I would say a new low, but again we are on a third season of Rock of Love. So maybe this is just par for the course.
So Boston Globe columnist Bob Ryan is at The Final Four. He can write about anything he wants before the championship game tonight. And thankfully, Mr. Ryan gives us a column telling us about UNC's Tyler Hansborough. I just want to thank him for writing this informative column about a topic that has never been written about anywhere or anytime before. Tyler Hansborough has been a four-year college basketball player, and a star from day one. But despite all his on-court success, people tend to focus on the negatives, in particular that there are questions about whether or not his game translates to the NBA. But Bob Ryan doesn't care about that, and he is going to use the forum of his column to tell the world that. It isn't that I disagree with one word Ryan writes. It is just that this article has been written. And written, and talked about on tv, and written some more, and talked about some more. It took me all of one other web site to visit before I saw another writer who wrote essentially the same article, here. Do you want to make newspapers relevant and reporting relevant again - give me something new. Bob you are there. You are at the games, you have access to these players and these coaches and information almost no one else has. Yet, you give us a column that any person who follows college basketball for one second could have written. In addition to the repetitive nature of the topic of Ryan's column, he and the editors at the Globe also showed how little attention they paid this particular column with the following sentence:Again, this is all about his NBA future, and where he'll go in the draft, and the supposition that he would have gone much higher last year, and that he'll never be more than a role-player, etc., rather than focusing on the fact that throwing the ball to Hansbrough on any given possession is still the best hope any team has of putting points on the board, if only because he gets to the foul line more than anybody and he makes 'em when he gets there.
Yes, that is a sentence, 87 words without a period anywhere in sight. Maybe Ryan can be forgiven if he didn't give this column his all with the news this weekend that The Boston Globe may be coming to an end unless the writers make a series of major concessions. I can understand. Ryan has been synonymous with the Globe for longer than I have been able to read. The thought of no more Boston Globe bothered me all weekend. I can't imagine what that concept does to someone like Ryan. But at the same time, one of the failings of newspapers has been an inability to give readers something different than what can be found on any internet site or any cable news show. Take advantage of your access and give people something special. Make people call or e-mail their friends, saying, "Did you read Ryan today - you have to." Would it be enough to save the paper or newspapers in general? Probably not at this point. But isn't it better to go down swinging, then simply providing more evidence for people who think the demise of newspapers is not really all that big of a deal.
It is almost as if scheduling this game to be played outdoors in New England in early April, when it very easily could have been played in a dome, did not make any sense. What is the point of having teams play their home games in domes if it isn't utilizyed at this time of the year. I understand there are not enough dome teams and warm weather teams - but it seems like every year we go through this with opening day games in Boston, New York, Cleveland, etc.
So, this post should be about why I like something, but really it is just going to be a backhanded way to note what it is that makes me not want to watch the NBA (and it should be noted that basketball is my favorite sport, and the NBA is the league I follow the closest. What that says about me, I don't know).
Anyway, three things I like better about the NCAA than I do the NBA -
1. Better officiating. 2. Less complaining. 3. No (or considerably less) flopping.
Of course in the interest of fairness, what do I like better about the NBA than the NCAA - no Duke.
