The Dismay in the Disaster

No, this isn't a column about the impending loss of Peyton Manning for what will probably be more than just one game because of a mysterious slow nerve regeneration problem. That's bad enough. This is about something bigger. Peyton Manning will return, whether it be Week 2 (highly unlikely), Week 10 (probably close to the real date) or in 2012 (God Forbid). What won't return is what will probably end up being a bigger loss to me than the loss of Peyton Manning for several games. That said, I'll start with Manning. I first saw the news in a closed off bar at the tail end of an exceptionally entertaining wedding weekend for a long time family friend. I glanced over to the TV screen as it was on ESPNEWS. The bottom half of the screen was cut off, so all I could read was "Peyton Manning to be". The rest was cut off. The sound was fully off. I was left in a state of total speculation. I quickly went online to find any confirmation of what could be happening but found nothing. Immediately my mind raced; what was the missing phrase. To me the most likely scenarios were the two ends of the aray of possibilities, one being "to be... placed on injured reserve," while the other "to be... ready for Week 1." It probably was "to be... reevaluated." but I would never find out.

Later that night I looked again online and saw reports that Manning might need another surgery as the rate of nerve regeneration was going dangerously slow. Then I saw a post from my favorite trusted Colts blogger (Nate Dunlevy from 18to88.com) that Manning will indeed have to undergo another surgery. Within minutes I was at a loss for feelings, let alone words. This was the francise going down. This was one year of Manning's career taken away, and with an aging core that probably only had one or two cracks together as a unit (Freeney, Mathis, Wayne, Clark), to lose one of those years was just devastating. Anyway, the Colts said that Manning is just getting another opinion. I have no idea what to believe, but I am sure he won't play Week 1, and probably not for until the Colts are effectively out of playoff contention. My only real hope is that the Jags stay a mess (cutting Garrard really helps), the Titans Hasselbeck experiment fails (which it easily could), and the Texans defense doesn't get much better under Wade (probably unlikely), and Manning returns around Week 8 with the Colts 3-5, and pulls off a 6-2 type finish and sneak in the playoffs.

Either way, as I said, Manning will be back. Life will go on. Manning wasn't going to play without missing a game forever. I just feel that it was cheapened. It wasn't a ferocious hit that got him. It was his own body failing him in the oddest way possible, a man struck down by himself. I hope this is not a recurring injury. Anyway, now with the Manning part of this out of the way, let's get to what really has me depressed (to some extent, as there is no need to worry about my emotional state).

___________________________________________________

I was thrust back into the US last week after spending eight weeks abroad and what I found was a lot of change. The Northeast had experienced an earthquake (which I'm sad I missed) and a massive hurricane (I'm okay with missing that one). There was also one more change which I only found out during my "welcome back to being able to drive" drive that I took last Wednesday night. 94.1 WYSP was shutting down as a classic rock station. No more needed to be said, or as it were, heard, for me to become absolutely nonplussed. I grew up with 94.1. As far as music fm stations went, it was my station. It was the station that introduced me to Van Halen (my favorite band), to the beauty of old classic rock; to Zeppelin, to Sabbath, to Floyd, to the Who. To everyone. I'm a huge classic rock fan while also being an inherently lazy one. I'm not one to put in the work to find bands and music hidden under rocks, or as they were called "indie" groups. I'm under the impression that in a market that is already targeted to a slight niche group (rock fans, which is admittedly a large niche), that the bands that had the most success are most often very successful for a good reason. That said, WYSP made me listen to bands I hadn't heard. They made me listen to Blue Oyster Cult, to Megadeth, to Metallica (which are for more melodic and beautiful than I ever could've imagined), to Alice in Chains, to Cheap Trick, and I can't thank them enough.

It all started with Metallica. I had always thought of Metallica as some loud, dirty band that wasn't worth two listens, but that was because I hadn't really heard them before. Then one day I stumbled upon WYSP playing "Fade to Black." I had no idea it was Metallica until they told me when it was over. I was speechless. The song was truly beautiful. The guitar, the melodies, the riffs. The song was incredible, and I was thinking "This is Metal? This is the music the nation was supposed to be scared of along with Gangsta Rap?". Right after Fade to Black, WYSP played "Don't fear the Reaper" by Blue Oyster Cult. They were another band I never listened to, this time because of innocent fear of the "cult" part of their name. I again found the song moving, captivating. I listened to WYSP for an hour and was struck by the heavy beauty of all these songs by all these bands that were heretofore unknown.

WYSP's tagline was "the rock you grew up with," and although I wasn't really their target audience for that tag, WYSP was the station I grew up with. It was the station I lived with. WYSP played the music I liked and played it all the time. It was a tad more heavy than the other major "classic rock" stations in the NYC/Philly area (102.9 MGK and Q104.3). It was the only one that played Metallica, that played a lot of Guns 'N Roses, that played Van Halen other than just Jump (Unchained was a WYSP favorite). On the weekends, it simulcasted Eddie Trunk's 'That Metal Show', which as a kid I gobbled up, playing it when I was sleeping on Saturday and Sunday nights. WYSP was my radio home, my radio paradise; an oasis where I could listen to real rock amidst a never-ending Sahara of pop.

WYSP is now gone, the "rock I grew up with" is now the "rock I better get on iTunes because I won't be hearing it on radio again." There probably are other rock stations out there that play metal, but do those same ones play Queen and the Doors with equal frequency? That was the true beauty of WYSP. It wasn't for metalheads. It wasn't really for fans of rock in the 60-70's. It was for anyone who liked rock music (The one major group that was kind of ignored on the station was Nirvana, but that's defensible in my eyes since I was never a big fan). WYSP played everything. Their DJs loved everything. Their fans and listeners wanted everything. It was rock all the time and it was amazing. For whatever reason now, it is all gone.

I searched the internet for reasons why WYSP would lose it's face, why it would switch from the best rock station on the East Coast (my appointed title for them) to a simulcast of Philly's sports radio station. I couldn't find any. There was no other explanation other than a lack of ratings, which I guess is the only reason necessary. I guess in the end ratings will be king and lack of them will always spell the end. That said, I will always remember my time listening to WYSP fondly. It opened my eyes to rock music, to hard rock music, to bands I never would have listened to and to songs I never would've blasted in the car when driving. During long night drives they kept me company. When I couldn't get sleep as a 15 year old, the kept me company. WYSP was like family in a weird sense. They were comforting in an obvious sense. They were home, and now WYSP, like so many of the bands they once played, are gone.

Fun With Conspiracies

When I have a lot of time on my hands, I like to look up something random on Wikipedia. This will ultimately lead to me traipsing around to many different Wikipedia pages, just reading up on different things. A couple days ago I was on Youtube and I was somehow linked over to a “Paul is Dead: The Evidence” video that gave evidence to the conspiracy theory that Paul McCartney has been dead for 45 years. That got me over to the “Paul is Dead” wiki page, which got me to the Wiki page for all conspiracies. The night somehow ended in me watching a documentary on Youtube about Jeffrey Dahmer (I shit you not – it was actually quite good), and one on alternative theories in the OJ case (his son killed Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson, or some hitman for the drug mafia). Anyway, it got me thinking as to what my personal favorite conspiracy theories are, in both sports and the wide world. Here they are now, my Top 10 conspiracy theories, 5 related to sports and 5 related to the world at large.

Honorable Mention.) 9/11 Was an Inside Job

I don’t want to talk about this one mainly because it would be so abhorrently evil if it was true. It will ruin America forever, and I’m sure of that. It would be an injustice on the level of the Nazi Party and the holocaust, and I believe that, as everything that the US has done in war in Iraq, Afghanistan stems from the actions of 9/11. If it was an inside job, and the WTC were downed in a control demolition, it would be the biggest political scandal ever, BY FAR. It would be an event that reaches far beyond anything I can currently comprehend.

The Sports’ Conspiracies

10.) Brazil Threw their 2006 Quarterfinal against France

I first saw this conspiracy bandied about after the World Cup finish in a pretty shoddy Youtube video. The main claims were that many of the Brazilian players were seen crying before the national anthem (as in they were depressed that they knew they would lose), and more jarringly, only three Brazilians even attempted to defend Zidane’s free kick which was tapped in by Henry for the only goal. In fact, one Brazilian defender is noticeably seen tying his shoe when the ball is in the air for what would be the goal. I doubt this has any merit too it, mainly because the Brazilians did put on a spirited effort to tie the game in the last 10 minutes, and Brazil is notorious for not defending set plays (which is just how they lost in 2010 to Holland). That said, I wanted France to win, but to see them absolutely dominate Brazil in that fashion was a bit odd. In the end it gets chalked up to France’s great defense and Zidane playing out of his skull, but Brazil definitely played soullessly enough to merit a thought of whether they were really in the game for the long haul.

9.) Barcelona gets preferential treatment

This started back in 2009, when Barcelona, a truly incredible team headed by Messi, Henry and Eto’o (they weren’t yet made up of basically the entire Spanish National team minus Casillas, Xabi Alonso and Torres). They were exciting, free-flowing, and mostly new. People weren’t tired of seeing them string together 5-foot passes yet. They met Chelsea in the Champions League semifinal, and Chelsea, in the mold of their previous manager Jose Mourinho, played all-out defense for 90 minutes in the Camp Nou in the first leg. I remember seeing the game and claiming that their strategy was “any time we get, give it to Cech, let him kick the ball 100 yards, and have Barcelona try it again.” It worked well enough, and then with Michael Essien’s super strike early in the second leg at Stamford Bridge, it seemed that the plan might just work. Then the injustice began. There were six shouts for penalties, ranging from the hollow (a push in the box by a Barca player, something that rarely gets called), to the incredibly, heinously obvious (a handball that would make Luis Suarez blush). None of them were granted, and in the 93^rd minute Andres Iniesta scored. Barcelona went through on away goals and beat Manchester Utd. In the final. The only reason why UEFA would want Barca and not Chelsea would be to avoid a 2^nd consecutive Man U – Chelsea final. I chalk that one down to incompetence. After the last two years, I’m not so sure.

In 2010, in the CL Semifinals, Barca was given the advantage of basically playing the entire second leg 11 on 10 after Tiago Motta was given a straight-red for an arm-bar that at worst deserved a yellow. Sergio “The Rat” Busquets (nicknamed so by me) crumpled down and then peeked to see if the ref was buying it. The ref initially didn’t, so Busquets rolled around some more, and then the ref gave the straight red. Inter defended brilliantly with 10 men and knocked out Barca, giving way to a boring final between Inter and Bayern Munich that UEFA probably wanted to avoid. 2011 was worse, when Barcelona was given an 11 on 10 advantage in the second leg of the Round of 16 tie against Arsenal (after losing leg one 1-2), and then again in the first leg of the semifinal against Real Madrid (after being scoreless for nearly 70 minutes). The Arsenal one was ridiculous, when Robin van Persie kicked away a ball barely a second after the offsides whistle blew, resulting in his second yellow. Oddly (or not so oddly), Barca did the same thing later and weren’t given a yellow card. The game was tied 1-1 when van Persie left (Arsenal up 3-2 on aggregate), before Barca scored two goals to advance. In the semifinal, Real Madrid had basically equaled Barca with great defense mainly due to Pepe’s covering of Messi. Then, after in what was actually a play with little to no contact, Pepe was given a red for swinging his leg to kick and airborn ball, but missing and getting Dani Alves’ leg. Alves went down as if he would need the leg amputated, and the medical staff carried him off on a stretcher. The lasting sight was Alves wanting to get off the stretcher before it even left the field and the Barca health team pleading with him to stay until they reach the bench, just to make the flop look 10% more decent. After Pepe left, Barca scored two goals turning the second leg into a dud.

The main point is why would UEFA favor Barcelona?? It is obvious really. A lot of the UEFA heads are Spanish, and Barca has ties in UEFA upper management. Barca is also seen as the crown jewel of the sport, the Lakers of UEFA, as they were sponsored by UNICEF, and played the beautiful game beautifully. Referees probably had no financial reason to favor Barcelona, but the amazing string of calls and cards to go for Barcelona is jarring. Both their 2009 and 2011 CL Titles were won under a shroud of controversy (leading to Mourinho’s hilarious quote that Pep Guardiola should feel ashamed that he’s never reached the CL Final without cheating). Barcelona is given the benefit of the doubt on almost every call. It probably doesn’t help that they are the best floppers out there. If it is true, then that probably just adds to the legacy of cheating and shadiness in UEFA and FIFA. It makes Jose Mourinho not look like a madman, and probably makes Messi come under darker light. I don’t think it is true, but in a sport with rampant favoritism and bribing, it could easily be possible.

8.) The Patriots did tape the Rams Walkthrough (and other Spygate related conspiracies)

Let’s take a trip back to late-January 2008. Before the 18-0 Patriots were set to play the Giants in Super Bowl XLII, a Boston paper released a story from a certain Matt Walsh, alleging that the he, a former video employee for the Pats, taped the Rams walkthrough prior to Super Bowl XXXVI. This unleashed a 2^nd round of Spygate drama, and although it was eventually shot down by the Patriots and the paper admitted fault, I’ve always believed that there was more to that story, and Spygate as a whole, that met the eye.

Roger Goodell really screwed himself in the Spygate circus by burning the tapes. That was a silly move that makes everyone think if he was hiding something, if the tapes were more useful than the Patriots spun them to be, which is a legitimate thought. Goodell finished the discipline over Spygate in about two days, seemingly very hastily. It was all very hush-hush and them the walkthrough story comes out. Why would Matt Walsh just tell a bold-faced lie? How could he get so specific as to say he taped the Rams walkthrough? For a team who was caught cheating by stealing signals, was taping a walktrough that much of a step up? All in all, it has never been proven and the story died a quick death, but what if it was true? If the Patriots really did tape that walkthrough, I think they should be stripped of their 2001 Super Bowl Title. Taping the signals on game day is one thing. Secretly taping another teams’ private practice is about as low as it can get. In a way, I’m happy the story wasn’t true because that would have released a shitstorm on the NFL that I wouldn’t have wanted to see.

7.) Every NBA Draft Lottery is fixed.

Doesn’t it seem a bit odd that so many draft lotteries are won by teams with little chance of winning them? Doesn’t it seem a bit odd that so many players go to teams that make sense. The year University of Houston center Hakeem Olajuwon was the 1^st pick, it just so happens that the Rockets win the lottery? The year that Akron native LeBron James is the first pick it just so happens that the Cavaliers win the lottery? The year that Chicago native Derrick Rose is the obvious 1^st pick it just so happens that the Bulls win the lottery against tall odds? Doesn’t it seem strange that almost always when there is a sure-fire 1^st pick, the lottery is almost always won by a premier team or a team with close ties to the player?

The draft lottery’s most notable shadiest moment came in 1985 when Patrick Ewing was the prize. The Knicks were in need of a jolt, and they, against tall odds, one the lottery. Back then, they put a bunch of cards into a spinning cauldron and Stern spun the wheel and then picked out a card, so the story goes that the NBA put a Knicks card in a freezer to make it icy cold, so Stern would know which card was the Knicks and then to pull that card. The next bit of conspiracy evidence is that Stern really takes a while rummaging his hand through the vat of cards before choosing one. Now a days, the lottery is actually done off-site, and then they reveal the order, but how can you really trust what is going on? All in all, even if it is true, that the lottery is many times fixed, it doesn’t really change my perceptions of the NBA. The NBA is already the most crooked of the 4 major sports, and especially so after the MLB cleaned itself up. The refs have more impact in the NBA than any other league, and one player can have more impact than in any other league. I will say that notable examples of lotteries appearing shady are with teams that don’t have great histories (The Cavs, the Rockets), but it definitely is odd to see so many guys get drafted #1 to a team close to home, especially when those teams are rarely the odds-on favorite to win the lottery.

6.) Michael Jordan was suspended for gambling.

Michael Jordan’s abrupt retirement from the NBA in 1993, which led to a comical career in Minor League Baseball is probably the strangest story in NBA history. Here was an athlete that had just won three titles and was on his way to having a career that would eventually make him almost undisputably the best NBA player ever. He was at the top of his game when he just decided to give it all up to play baseball? Jordan claimed it was part of the fallout of the murder of his father and just a tiredness from the game, but that makes no sense for a guy so insanely driven by basketball and by winning. He wouldn’t want to go play a game that he was not the best in, that he could not win in. Over the years, the conspiracy theory developed that Michael was suspended from the league for 18 months for gambling too much (not necessarily on the game of basketball Pete Rose style, but that Jordan’s obvious gambling addiction was harming the league’s image, not only his personal finances). As weird as it seems, it makes perfect sense.

Jordan’s gambling problem was supposedly permeating through the team, as he would raise stakes on nearly everything, from a shootaround in practice to poker on the team plane. He was truly addicted (by all reports, he very well could still be). Stern, instead of publicly scolding the league’s biggest star, gave Jordan the option to temporarily “retire” from basketball as a way to serve his suspension and save face with endorsers. If any commissioner would think of such a plan, it is David Stern. Stern knew that a public suspension would be bad for the league, worse than even if Michael left for a while. Granted, Michael retiring still hurt the league tremendously, as attendance and ratings fell to a point that there was a legitimate discussion as to if the NHL could pass the NBA in popularity. Then, like the knight in shining armor, Jordan returns to save the league, win three more titles and put any questions over his “best-ever” worthiness to rest. I’m not sure if it is true, but I will say that out of all the conspiracy theory’s on the list, this is the one with the highest chance of actually being true.

Other Conspiracies

5.) There is a New World Order hideout under Denver International Airport

I’m guessing 99.9% of the population has never heard of this conspiracy and that is because it is patently absurd; but then again, that makes for the most entertaining conspiracy. Denver opened its new airport sometime in 1995 and it had a lot of architectural quirks. There is a bronze statue of a lot of symbols, one of which includes the phrase “New World Airport Commission”. The New World Order is a secret group of people conspiring to rule the world under one global government, and will use genocide to get the world to that stage, and part of the theory is that members of the order had a hand in building the airport (hence the “New World” Airport Commission). Anyway, after Denver International Airport was built, there were conspiracy theories that the US Military had built large underground bases, and one of them was supposed to be under Denver International. Then, a man who worked on building underground tunnels (reportedly to aid the quick transition of cargo, bags and fuel across the airport) claimed to have seen large “holding cells perfect for prisoners”, and “strange electromagnetic forces.” There are strange words, like “Cochetopa”, “Sisnaajini”, and “Dzit Dit Gaii” which conspiratists point to being a secret New World Order code. Finally, there is a haunting mural painted on the walls of the airport that depicts, of all things, genocide taking place, and after the genocide ends, the children of the world coming together under one rule (just like the supposed plan of the New World Order). Therefore, the theory states, Denver International Airport is a base for the New World Order to carry out part of their plans.

Of course, most of this has been debunked. The airport uses those tunnels (they do exist) to, as I said earlier, carry bags and cargo across the long airport. The words cut in the floor are Navajo words which are the words for different Colorado Native landmarks. Also, the paining is haunting, but it is about how the people of the world will come together to defeat genocide (not come together because of it…. And yes this is admittedly a stupid theme for a mural in an airport). However, the New World Airport Commission is pretty hard to explain. It looks like these evidences of a New World Order base at Denver International are really hollow, but nevertheless it is a wild theory that I, a lover of airports, am particularly smitten towards. Denver International is almost assuredly not a New World Order base camp/prison, but even then, the architects did a nice job of leaving enough strange elements to get people talking about the airport.

(I forgot one, although this has less to do with the New World Order aspect of it all: From the air, the layout of the runways of the airport make out what looks to be a Swastika. Of course, it takes a creative mind to fill in the gaps in the swastika, and this can also easily be explained, as the airport built runways in all directions, spreading them out so if crosswinds were to occur, at least two runways could be used. Then again, why a swastika type shape???)

4.) Elvis is Still Alive

To me, this conspiracy, if proven true, would be more meaningful and memorable than if the other theories about musician deaths were true, such as if Tupac was still alive, if Michael Jackson were still alive, or if Kurt Cobain was murdered and didn’t commit suicide. Elvis being alive has more merit than those (although the Cobain one is interesting, I ultimately put it right next to JFK as theories that wouldn’t really change anything if they were proven true). The basis for Tupac being alive was the proclivity of songs sampling him being produced after his death, though this can be explained through a catalog of recordings of his being made prior to his death and unused. The Michael Jackson ones have no merit at all. Elvis is a different story.

The amount of Elvis sightings since his death in 1977 are quite numerous, and deep in scope, with people claiming to know him well after death and being close friends (rather than just “saw him across the dark room” witnesses). Elvis would be just 76 today, so he could easily be alive. His death itself was quite mysterious, as he did amid a maze of drugs and illnesses, but he did not have any serious illness (cancer), nor was he the drug addict like a Jim Morrison or Jimi Hendrix. There is no reason for Elvis to have possibly made the career move of dying (other than the theory that many musicians find their greatest success after their death). If Elvis is still alive, he’s hid it well – which gels with a lot of the Elvis sightings as many people who claim to have seen him say that Elvis put on a totally new persona. Elvis is most probably dead, but it is always interesting to theorize that people who died are still among us.

3.) Osama was killed some time before the announcement

I’ll admit that this one is probably something I’m hesitant to talk about since it is political, but I feel it is an interesting theory, especially since if it was true probably doesn’t hurt Obama as much as it would seem. The theory is that Osama Bin Laden was killed well before the May 2^nd national announcement, one that was delayed about 2 hours from its originally scheduled time. The killing of Osama was a rallying day for the US as a whole, and really a perfect excuse for college kids everywhere to get hammered on a Sunday in celebration. More reverently, it was seen as a seminal day in the war on terror, and a day of rejoice across the world, that that madman would never harm another soul. The only question was when did he actually die? If he died that day, it would be extremely difficult to verify the body as him using DNA that quickly. If it was done a couple days earlier, which is not only likely but highly possible, there are two good reasons for Obama waiting on the announcement, one that especially doesn’t hurt his reputation. The first is the more scurrilous reason that he wanted to wait specifically for the 8^th anniversary of Bush’s “Mission Accomplished” speech, as a way of saying to all Republicans “The Mission is Accomplished Now, Bitches!”. The other was that he didn’t want an announcement of his death to coincide with the Royal Wedding earlier that weekend, which oddly makes sense. The Royal Wedding was a global event, and Osama wouldn’t have been more or less dead if he waited another day.

That said, there are darker theories, ones that claim that Osama died years earlier, and Obama was waiting to use the killing of Osama Bin Laden as a trump card to play anytime he felt his poll numbers were lagging. I say bunk to that theory since then why wouldn’t he wait closer to the election, when he knew his opponent. I mean, Obama’s approval ratings did get the inevitable bump (just like Bush’s did when Saddam was captured), but if the economy continues to lag, the specter of Osama Bin Laden’s death will shine less brightly upon Obama. Another theory is that Osama died of Farney’s disease, and that the US kept his body in a plan to use it, again as a trump card, although this is probably even less true as it alleges he died sometime during the Bush administration. Generally, most of these dark theories are just the mad concoctions of FOX NEWS and their viewers/supporters who are all a bit miffed at the credit Obama is taking for offing Osama. That said, I could easily see a case where he actually died a day or two before Obama’s national announcement, and then the delay with the announcement was caused by the administration making sure they covered their tracks.

2.) The 2000 election was fixed in Florida

Political again, but unlike Osama Bin Laden’s death, the 2000 Election has become something of a pop-culture event than a political race. Let’s go back to 2000, on a November night. Al Gore was winning a lot of the big states, but Bush was taking every last small state, and finally we were down to a situation where Al Gore was just three electoral votes away, and Bush 24, with Florida (and its 25 votes) the only state left. If Gore had won any of the 3-vote states (like Montana, the Dakotas), or even his homestate of Tennessee, or Clinton’s home state of Arkansas, the Florida result would have been moot. But alas, it was not, and it was first called to Gore, then Bush (leading to Gore conceding the race), to “too-close-to-call” (leading to Gore un-conceeding the race), back to Bush, and finally resting on “too-close-to-call”, the spot it would lie for several weeks. Over the next month, the country got all-too familiar with hanging-chads, Dade & Broward County, the prospect of a recount, absentee ballots, and the world got to laugh at a country who couldn’t effectively pick a president. In the end, the Supreme Court upheld a law that stated that recounts only had a certain time to be processed, and the state of Florida went passed that time, and basically awarded Florida to Bush and the presidency to Bush. After the dust settled, George W. Bush was our president, becoming just the 3^rd president to lose the popular vote. Al Gore became the world’s most prominent Global-Warming Awareness leader, and the country went back to forgetting what a hanging chad was. However, was Gore even given a fair chance in Florida?

A lot of the problems stemmed from the ridiculous voting results from two counties: Dade and Broward; two counties that both had a high percentage of Jewish residents as well as a shockingly high percentage of votes for 3^rd Party candidate Pat Buchannan. What really made the story ridiculous was that Pat Buchannan was a staunchly conservative Christian, which made it very unlikely that he would receive significantly more votes from two highly Jewish concentrated counties than in any other county in the country. A likely explanation was that the maddeningly confusing of the manual ballot made people who thought they were voting for Al Gore vote instead for Pat Buchannan. Al Gore lost those two counties big time, and if he would’ve gotten 90% of the Buchannan vote, he wins the counties and then the election. Of course, this is where the fix possibly comes in. The state of Florida, instead of issuing a re-election in those counties with a better ballot, decided to keep those results, but recount them. This was despite the many cries of people in Dade and Broward County claiming that they voted for Buchannan mistakenly, instead of voting for Gore. In the end, the recount took forever, and it was mainly held up in the state government bureaucracy, and it just so happened that in the state of Florida, George Bush had his own brother as governor. The recount was held up, and finally took too long to be completed within the deadline set by the courts. Bush was president.

Now, I don’t think Florida was fixed prior to the election, nor do I think that the ballots in those counties were intentionally made in a confusing manner to draw votes away from Gore (and it can be said that Bush would be affected from the same confusing ballot – although it should be noted that there was no irregular voting for the candidates surrounding Bush’s place on the ballot). However, I think it is entirely plausible that Florida, a state headed by a Republican governor who happened to be the main Republican candidate’s brother, and a sate with a high republican presence in its state courts, would try everything to slow down this recount. Lost in all of this is if they never did do a re-vote in Dade and Broward counties, Bush probably still wins, but the actions of everyone involved in Florida wreaks of shadiness and purposeful laziness. I’m not sure why any ballot would ever be made that confusing, or manual, but Florida for some reason thought it was a good idea.

1.) “Paul is Dead” is true.

The Grand-Daddy conspiracy theory. Not only is it among the most interesting to dissect, but it is probably the theory that would give the most “Holy Shit” reaction if it was in fact true (well, apart from the 9/11 one). The theory is simple, really: Paul McCartney died in a car accident (an accident that definitely did happen) in 1966, and was replaced by a look-alike. The Beatles, troubled with guilt for hiding the death of their band mate, littered the proceeding four or five Beatles’ albums with clues to reveal that Paul was dead. Some clues are quite interesting. If you play some songs backwards of the Beatles, you get a long drawn out noise of a car crash, a man screaming and a woman crying, and then an ambulance. In another song, when played backwards, John Lennon is heard saying “Paul is Gone.” There are more symbolic lyrics to Paul death than I can possibly write (all when played forward, mind you). Then there are many visual clues on album art. The cover of ‘Abbey Road’ is the most infamous, where Paul is barefoot and out of step with the rest of the Beatles, who are dressed as if going to a funeral (John in the preacher’s white, Ringo and George in mourning black). In ‘Sgt. Peppers Lonely Heart’s Club Band’, and a couple other albums, there are hands extended up in a blessed pose above Paul’s head. Then, there is the whole story of the look-alike. The Beatle’s held a Paul Look-alike contest shortly before his death, and the claim is that they used the winner in the contest to be Paul. Of course, the winner would have to both be left-handed, sound like Paul and be quite musical, but the theory goes that they found someone who was all three. Paul died in 1966, and the Beatles replaced him? Too crazy to be true, but alternatively, just as crazy that it might.

The evidence against this obviously is that it would have been extremely hard for the Beatles to find someone to emulate Paul so perfectly that no one could ever use Paul’s appearance or voice as clues. Think about that. Not one of the common clues for the “Paul is Dead” crowd is anything like “Paul stopped sounding the same” or “Paul looked different pre-1966 and post.” They are all just supposed clues littered along the album covers and in the songs of the Beatles. That said, the accident definitely happened, and there were talks of a premature TV report that Paul McCartney had died in a car accident. The Beatles did have a natural place to go with a replacement from the look-alike, and the Beatles were the type of band who would bandy about clues among their songs and the album artwork. There were also notable clues to the Beatles being reduced to “3” (John, George, Ringo) in songs post-1966. All in all, the circumstantial evidence is there, but they could all be the machinations of minds similar to those who claim the Dark Side of the Moon lines up perfectly with ‘The Wizard of Oz’ (which is a theory that just missed the list, mostly because I’ve never put it to the test). Paul is almost assuredly alive.

Then again, wouldn’t it be truly incredibly if the theory was true, if the Beatles were slyly employing a fake Paul for all those years, if the man now beloved as Paul McCartney, the last remaining relevant Beatle (Ringo Starr can count in millions in the relative obscurity that is his life now), is in fact an imposter, a replacement? The Beatles would have carried out one of the great hoaxes of all time, and done it under intense scrutiny over, what is now, 45 years. If Paul McCartney did die, that means millions have probably wasted their money going to Paul McCartney solo concerts these past 20 or so years. I will say that the replacement would have had to be quite an artist to be as successful as solo Paul. If Paul McCartney did die that night in 1966, it would probably have been one of the biggest “what-if?” deaths of all time, cutting off a bright bulb so shortly into a career. Paul McCartney, one can argue, is the biggest musical star right now, in that he could command the highest price. He’s still a Beatle, for shits sake. However, he easily could not be a Beatle, and the clues are there to say that we should have known it all along.

Summer Breeze

Here's just a quick rundown of the things I'll be doing during the summer here on the blog:

1.) I will still write about sports. I'll probably have something on the NBA and NHL Finals, then transition into maybe something on the Champions League. Like much of the free world, I have no idea what I will do if the NFL is not around come September, but obviously that hampers the amount of what I can write.

2.) I will start doing reviews of my favorite past TV shows. I'll start with reviews of each episode of Season 1 of Desperate Housewives, by far the best season of the show, and arguably one of the more groundbreaking influential seasons on TV in the 2000s, as it was the first show that starred mainly women (in S1, the husbands were far smaller characters than they are now) that drew huge ratings.

3.) After that, I'll move on to either Arrested Development S1 or How I Met Your Mother S1. Depending on how this all works, I might carry this over into the fall, and I definitely will if the lockout is ongoing then.

4.) I will finish my wedding write up (my goal: get it done before their 6 month anniversary) sometime next week.

5.) I am waiting to reveal my #1 Athlete of the 2000s (yes, I know I planned to finish all of them by end of 2010) in July, on a 5th anniversary of a special occassion in the life of that athlete.


I'll check in with something new by the end of today.

Welcome Back.... And Other Stuff

Yes, that's right, I just took essentially six weeks off. First, had finals, then had a trip to India. Tough times for the blog, but good times for me. I will be back to writing at the same rate I did before, and I probably will do more than I did last NFL offseason.

Anyway, championship preview coming up later, plus a whole new set of Pats-Hate!!!!!

Blog Update

Yes, I have not posted picks the last three weeks. The first week of the three I actually made picks but didn't have time to post them. Other than that, I have no excuse. I probably won't do picks for a big reason. No, it has nothing to do with the fact that the Colts are going through a disastrous (for their standards) season. It has more to do with my impending trip to India for weddings and other things starting on December 22nd and going until January 20th. This means I am missing the last two weeks of the season, and what's worse, the first two weeks of the playoffs. I might still be able to catch the games, but writing about them, breaking them down, and all of that might be difficult. This was a big problem before the season started. I was worried about missing the playoffs. Now, with the Colts in flames and the Pats somehow 9-2 despite being outgained by 600 yards, I am looking forward to being disconnected from the NFL for a while. Anyway, I am here to say that I might do power rankings, but no more picks. With four finals coming up within two weeks and me not being there for the conclusion of the regular season, it just is not worth it.

Instead, I am taking whatever time I have on the blog to write about other stuff. I still have to do Stories for 2008 and 2009, and reveal my pick for the Player of the Decade. I will also do some other Decadium related things. It should be interesting to see if I can really distance myself from the NFL. The NFL, and the Colts in general, have been as addicting and hard to let go of as crack (I am assuming). I am going to try my best.

The Legacy of Erotic Pie

It has now been nearly 11 years since 'American Pie' came out. Since I was eight at the time, needless to say, it has been fewer than 11 years since I first saw the movie. Back then it was fresh, funny and ludicrously edgy. The 90's were a different era, with conservatives running Washington, turning the movie industry into a censored, un-masogynistic world, far from the frat-party nature of the comedy films that littered the 1980s. That all changed when a group of men decided that they would build a movie about the all-to-real pressures of high schoolers trying to lose their virginity before they graduate, because, you know, everyone else is doing it. They then decided that, as a way to add to the fun, they would make a kid have sex with a pie, show a kid, lets say, letting loose early not once, but twice (sadly same kid), and then have other kids crap in a women's bathroom, and go after one of their friends mothers. All of this was packed into a 90 minute bundled, causing teens and college-aged kids to finally flock to the theatres (for something not related to a galaxy far, far away), and the middle-aged mothers to lose their cool. The page was turned. 'American Pie' was here, and it was not leaving.

Sadly, the two sequels were quite bad, with 'American Pie 2' delving into the category of utter crap. 'American Wedding' slightly redeemed the franchise, but essentially 'American Pie' had run its course. The game was over. There was only so many ways you can use one man and his constant ability to get caught naked doing embarassing, and sometimes illegal, things. However, a recent announcement was made that Universal was ante-ing up, giving the thumbs-up for an 'American Pie 4' (an actual movie, not those direct-to-dvd 'versions' of American Pie), one that would, they hope, feature all of the original cast in their roles at some reunion (I assume). That got me thinking about one questions and one realization: 1.) Is there really a need for another movie and is anyone going to care? and 2.) 'American Pie' may well be the most important movie of the last 12 years.

First, I'll answer the question. There probably is no need for another slice of Pie. It is intriguing that they signed the writer's of the original Harold and Kumar to write the movie, leaving the first acclaimed then criticized Adam Herz out in the cold. However, it has been seven years since we have seen the gang, and 9 since we saw some of the characters. There is no doubt that some of the cast will be itching for work, as the lives of Chris Klein (by far the WORST actor I have ever seen on a movie that was succesful), Mena Suvari, and Thomas Ian Nicholas haven't turned out the way they all hoped. God knows Tara Reid thought she would have some relevance other than her breast implant horror story a decade later. The only three people that have done anything are Eddie Kaye Thomas (Finch), Seann William Scott (Stiffler) and Alyson Hannigan (Michelle), who unsurprisingly are the best three characters in the movies anyway. This is where the problem exists. Are Scott and Hannigan going to do the movie? Scott, who at least is in movies (unlike the rest of the cast, not counting Hannigan) that are popular (Role Models, Cop Out) has already said that he would do it, but Hannigan is the wild card. In reality the character of Michelle is probably something Aly Hannigan doesn't want to revisit, unless the character matured tremendously in her 7 years of marraige. Aly is a mother now, and she might not want the fact that she once said 'I stuck a flute up my pussy' to be rediscovered and brought out into the limelight. Aly has said in the past she said no to other movie parts and auditions because she wants to concentrate on her family, and the 'How I Met Your Mother' schedule is already long enough and lucrative enough that she probably has no need for American Pie. I will say this, they cannot make the movie and have any hopes of being successful if one of its only two marketable stars does not sign on. A Michelle-less movie will not go well, especially since Michelle became a lead in 'American Wedding'.

Now, for the more debatable and exponentially more controversial realization. 'American Pie' (and I stress 'Pie' not its sequels) is the most important, influential movie of the last 12 years. No, its not all that great (although to its credit, the original 'American Pie' movie was and still is funny and watchable), and no it will never get acclaim from the "critics", but damn is it important. The answer lies in one word: Apatow. Apatow is famous, and worth millions, for two reasons. One is Will Ferrell, and the other is 'American Pie.' If 'Pie' never gets made, I doubt '40-Year Old Virgin' or 'Knocked Up' or 'Superbad' do. Those three movies are Apatow's magnus opus, they are his masterpeice. Those are the movies that he directed/produced/wrote, unlike Anchorman, which technically is an Apatow production, but Judd had little to do with it. Those three movies revolve around sexual humor, cursing and lewdness. Hell, there is a scene where they depict a 10-year old kid addicting to drawing cartoon phalluses. Cursing is in alot of movies, but not to the extent that it is in an Apatow (at least for successful comedies). No one cared. There were no protests, no wives of Senators creating a 'committee' to make sure children did not see this 'smut' like there was in the 80's. Nothing but millions of kids ready to see what Seth Rogen, Jonah Hill and Steve Carrell would say and do next. Why is that?

It all goes back to 'American Pie.' 'Pie' made it okay to curse, it made it okay to show nudity, to show sexual-oriented situations and ideas (the 'penis drawings' in Superbad can probably be tied back to the 'book of oral sex' in American Pie). 'American Pie' was the first movie since the early 90's to say, "screw you Congress Moms and your taste, we're releasing something kids want to see" and see it they did. Without 'American Pie' breaking that ground, rebelling against the iron curtain restricing movies sexual humor, Apatow is never able to make '40-Year Old Virgin'. Sure, Apatow's movies were better and funnier (although Judd has produced his fair share of clunkers like 'Walk Hard: The Dewey Cox Story' and 'Drillbit Taylor' and 'Year One'), but they were not the original, they tied themselves to the universal acceptance of 'American Pie'. Judd was able to see that America didn't care if a movie's premise was teens going to all odds to have sex, featuring a foul-mouthed teenage gigolo with a hot mom. If America would accept that, why wouldn't they accept a movie that has a scene with a laundry list of sexual acts and another with a whole conversation about a box of porn ('40 Year-Old Virgin), or a movie where the leads run a web-site that lists all the nudity in movies ('Knocked Up').

'American Pie' was a cultural phenomenon. It turned the comedy movie industry all around. 'Austin Powers' is the only other movie I can think of that aided the direction comedies took as much as 'American Pie.' Sure the two sequels were bad, and of course it is hilarious that all but one of people 'American Pie' introduced to America as its stars actually became one (Stiffler - unfortunately for American Pie, many people knew Aly Hannigan before it because of her work on 'Buffy'), but it is an oversight to not mention what the movie meant to the industry. In some ways, Judd Apatow would have had to rely on his other comedic abilities (riding cottails of Will Ferrell, creating shows that while good were cancelled - Freaks and Geeks, Undeclared - or producing bad not-sex comedies like 'Year One' and the un-funny 'Funny People'). I'm sure many would not believe this, or think that Judd Apatow's brilliance would have shown out anyway. Fine, we can all agree on one thing that 'American Pie' allowed to become mainstream: the MILF.

DECADIUM

Yes, I am finally going to start the decadium in earnest. Sure, I started this in some form back in November (or December.... or October?? I have the memory of a goldfish on speed), with my Top 15 NFL Playoff Games of the Last Decade. Sure, it's February, and the teens are 1/120th of the way over, but it's never too late to start celebrating the last decade, and the first complete decade that I have lived through.

I will be doing two lists here, that will be counted down 10-1, as well as random "Best of the Decade" for random categories, some of them about things that are not... wait-for-it... sports. Also, I will breakdown a year. This seems confusing, because this should not have been doled out in paragraph form. When things are written in paragraph form, the completeness of lines inevitable confuses the reader. So, let's re-dole out the Decadium information in bullet form.

Decadium

Top 10 Lists

1.) Top 10 Athletes of the Last Decade
2.) Top 10 NFL Teams of the Last Decade

Random "Football xyz of the Decade"

1.) QBs of the Decade
2.) Games of the Decade
3.) Coaches of the Decade
4.) Players of the Decade
5.) Non-Super Bowl Winning Teams of the Decade

Random "xyz of the Decade"

1.) Musician of the Decade
2.) Movie of the Decade
3.) Company of the Decade
4.) TV Show of the Decade
5.) Celebrity Untalented Bimbo of the Decade
6.) Trend of the Decade
7.) Band of the Decade
8.) MovieStar of the Decade
9.) Book of the Decade
10.) Man of the Decade

(Told you, no sports)

and finally Breakdowns of every year.


Schedule, for the Next 5 Weeks:

Monday: NFL Team.
Tuesday: Year
Wednesday: "XYZ of the Decade"
Thursday: "Football XYZ of the Decade"
Friday: Year
Saturday: "XYZ of the Decade"
Sunday: Athlete.


So, Enjoy the Decadium, starting on Monday Feb 15th

(Why Feb 15th? Next week is all Super Bowl breakdowns).

War of 18,12 - aka 4th and 2

However, this is not all about Bill Belichick's decision. Not at all. This is more about the Colts getting outplayed for three quarters, looking like paper tigers, and then DOMINATING the Pats in the fouth quarter.

That said, I feel compelled to start with the 4th and 2 decision. It was an extremely risky decision, but one that was mathematically defendable. This was their scenario: punt and let the Colts drive 70 yards in two minutes and win the game, or go for it and either win the game or give it back to Manning at the 29 with two minutes to go. Now, the chances of the Pats winning (either making the two yards or stopping the Colts) are basically the same either way in a vaccuum, taking away the account of who they were playing and game scenario. The math states that converting a 4th and 2 is done roughly 63% of the time. Adding that to the chances of the Pats stopping the Colts if they do not convert the fourth down, which is roughly 40%, gives the chances of the Pats winning by going for it at a clean 77%. The Chances that the Colts drive 70 yards for the touchdown are roughly 30%, so the Pats have a better chance of winning going for it. That said, that does not adjust for the fact that the opposing QB is Peyton Manning, or that the Colts defense was winning nearly every important play in the fourth quarter. Anyway, it is a debatable call, but definitely not a brilliant move or a idiotic one. It was a risky one, and one that would have either coronated Belichick as the ballsiest coach of all time or the loser in the greatest football-related version of Russian Roullette.

Now, let's get to the actual game. Leaving the game, the general public's perception was "Pats Dominated", "Colts were lucky", "Belichick cost his team the game." This is complete bullshit. Complete. The Pats dominated a one and a half quarter portion of this game starting from the middle of the first through the end of the half. Their drives in this portion netted them touchdown, field goal, touchdown, touchdown and Indy's drive netted them Punt, Punt, Punt, touchdown (I'll throw in that touchdown just to make the amount of drives even). The Pats got 273 yards and the Colts got 91. Now, that is Florida vs Alaska A&M type domination but was just one and a half quarter. Here was the end of the third through the end of the game: Pats: touchdown (after the long Welker punt return), punt, field goal, downs. Here is Indy's drives in the same part of that game: touchdown, interception, touchdown, touchdown. In that part of the game the Pats got 54 yards and the Colts got 153. Pretty much equal domination. People always seem to overrate the team that jumps out to a big lead and underrate the team that made the comeback. Just becuase the Pats outscored the Colts in one stretch 24-7, does not mean the Colts cannot outscore them similarily. The Pats did not outplay the Colts for the entire game. Also, the Colts were not lucky. They probably score on that drive even if the Pats punted it to them. Finally, Belichick's decision was not the reason the Colts won, it was the reason the Pats did not win easily. Also, many of the big plays by the Pats early were schematic problems by the Colts, as they played a deep zone against Moss, instead of manning him up with safety shadow help like they did in 2007 when they held those Pats to 24. They can correct those problems. We all know that the arrogant Pats would not simply play ball-control, clock-draining offense and still try to pour on, and they were held to 10 points in the second half, when the Colts made the defensive adjustments.

The game was a total domination in the fourth quarter by the Colts and a total breakdown by the Patriots. The Patriots were simply outplayed for the entirety of the fourth quarter. The Patriots managed two first downs in the fourth quarter, and the Colts scored three touchdowns, spanning 153 yards in a total of five minutes and forty seconds. Contrary to popular belief, the Pats were not playing prevent for either of the first two touchdown drives. Manning made adjustments to what Belichick was doing, which was essentially doubling Clark and Wayne and forcing Garcon and Collie to beat them, and then Belichick had no answers. The only negative play was the interception which was a result of lack of communication. As for the Pats offense, what people failed to remember due to Belichick's boner, was their inability to gain yards when it mattered. Four times Brady threw on third or fourth down in that quarter, and he was 0-4. The Pats ran the ball six times for three (yes, THREE!!!) yards in the fourth quarter. The Colts defense dominated them. The Pats are one of the better teams at playing smart, clock-draining football in the fourth quarter (remember the 07 Title game against San Diego when they ran out the last 9 minutes of the game), but were simply awful. Even when the Colts handed them a short field, they went 5 and out, and kicked a field goal. It was awful. The Colts dominated when it mattered, in the fourth quarter. The reason the Colts were totally outplayed early on was schematic, and of course the Pats playing exceptional defensively and Moss playing like Moss. The reason the Colts dominated was great adjustments by the offense (again), and the defense changing schemes and dominating an awful Pats running game and suddenly plodding passing game. The Pats blew it, the Colts earned it. The Colts dominated them in the fourth quarter, and as anybody will tell you, that is the quarter that matters in a close game.

Now, this is where I will start to wax poetic about the rivalry at this point.

It is absolutely stunning how the dynamic of this rivalry has completely changed in the past four years. From 2001-2004, and mostly in 2003-2004, the Pats were the team that had the no-name defense, with street defensive backs like Randall Gay and a young Asante Samuel, and Jarvis Green, and the quadro of stout, smart linebackers. The Colts were the flashy team with high-powered offense and a defense that was fine against the Dolphins or the Titans but could not hold up against the big boys. The games, at least the regular season games in 2003-2004, played out to a diametric opposite of Sunday Night's. In both meetings the Colts "outplayed" the Pats, coming one yard away from winning the 2003 game, before Willie McGinest stoning Edgerrin James on the one yard line (if anything personified those Pats teams, and how the physically and mentally intimidated the Colts, it was that McGinest tackle and the play in the 2004 Divisional when Tedy Bruschi literally ripped the ball out of the hands of Dominic Rhodes). Then, a year later in the 2004 game, the Pats were outplayed, except Manning threw an interception in the red zone and James fumbled at the 2 yard line (much like Maroney did), and missed a 48 yard field goal to send it into overtime. Now, all the Colts fans, including myself, thought "they got lucky, the Colts were two plays away, they will win come playoff time." Then, come playoff time, it did not happen. Belichick's defense was in Manning's head. Our defense was helpless against Brady. Each time we played, regardless of how the stats played out, how the game played out, when we looked at the scoreboard, the Colts had fewer points than the Patriots. It was a matter of life, we could roll against the Bengals, and the Bears, but when we needed to man-up and fight, the Colts wanted to fence, the Pats wanted to box.

It is crazy how it has changed. The Pats are now the high-flying team, with the insanely good receivers and the QB with all the stats. They are now the team whose defense could shut down the Titans and the Bucs, but are just average against good offensive teams. The Colts are a team missing many offensive and defensive starters, but have Manning. They play next-man-up to a Patriot level on defense. They are now the smarter, more focused, more tough football team. The Colts are the team now who execute in crunch time. Save for the 2007 game, where the Pats came back valiantly from 10 down in the fourth quarter, which can be contrasted with the 2003 game when the Colts nearly came back from a 21 defecit in the last 20 minutes as the exception to the norm, the Colts have dominated since 2005. For all the "Manning can't beat the Pats" stories that circulated the media-world much like swine-flu is supposed to infiltrate the human-world, there should be similar "Brady can't beat the Colts" headlines now. It was not Manning, but the Colts that could not mentally play smart in late, close games, and now it is the Pats, not Brady. Much like Belichick was clearly in Manning's head in 2003 and 2004, Manning is now in Belichick's head. Belichick can say what he wants, but if the team they were playing was 30 other teams, he punts on 4th and 2. It might be respect, it might be abject fear, but it is really both. Manning has owned Belichick in late game situations, save for that 2007 game. Remember, Manning came within one yard of leading the Colts back from a 31-10 deficit with 20 minutes left in 2003, and then overcame a 21-3 deficit in the 2006 Title Game. Now, he has done the trifecta, coming back from a 34-17 4th quarter deficit. Belichick now knows that games are NEVER over against Peyton. Never. He supposedly preached "60 Minutes" till the cocks crowed after the 2006 meltdown, but it is stunning that it happened again, and although the stakes were certainly greater than, the order of diffuculty of the comeback was more this time. These teams may very well meet again in the playoffs, but I am sure that Manning and the Colts have the mental edge.

In 2003 and 2004, we entered those playoff games with an offensive arrogance, "we cannot be stopped... pffft Patriots defense". We entered those games with the knowledge that we were centimeters away from winning the earlier game. We were slaughtered like lambs in those playoff games (although it must be said that the 2003 Title game was amazing, since even though there was really shoddy officiating, and we handed the Pats 5 turnovers and a safety, Manning had the ball with the opportunity to tie the game in the fourth quarter). This is now the opposite. Pats fans can console themselves in their perceived domination, the can console themselves that they nearly beat the Colts, that they should have, would have. They can enter their game off thier 31-20 beating of Cincy or whatever it may be. They will not win. We have the mental edge. The players know it. If the Pats would win a game against the Colts, it would have been this one, with Gonzalez and Hayden out, with Garcon playing one of his worst games, with Manning throwing two picks of uncharacteristic natures, and with the defense playing a scheme so irrational that it deservedly lended us to spotting them a 24-7 advantage. Yet, at the end of the day, the same team was ahead. The same team pulled out the game. The same team won every critical fourth down battle, stopped the high-powered Pats offense when it mattered late, and took advantage of mistakes and stuck a stake in the Pats home-field advantage aspirations. I could have written those last five sentences and switched "Pats" with "Colts" and I could have been describing a 2003 game, when there was, as we know now, a mental edge that the Pats just had. It has all changed, and it is so sweet. Now, the Pats want to fence, and we want to box.

The 5 Most Toolish People in Sports

Sports Toolism is at an all-time high. With the media becoming a larger and larger influence in the world of sports, people are either drummed up way too much, or their toolish behavior is way to open. Either way, here are the 5 most Toolish people in sports (in no order).



Roger Federer



Yeah, that guy. The fag that wears suit jackets and long dress pants out to a tennis match. Someone needs to tell this fool that this is not a fucking dinner. However, his really really questionable attire is like the 10th thing wrong with him. He's a huge fucking baby. He drops to his knees and cries everytime he wins a tournament. This was all good when he won his first major, and I'll even give him a pass when he won on clay for the first time this year, but seriously, Rog, when you win the same tournament for a fifth straight time there's no need to bawl like a toddler. That is really showing up your opponent. Take a look at Rafa Nadal (not a tool), after he basically gave Federer a Colonoscopy in his 6-1 6-3 6-0 beating last year at the French Open, he, a man who respects his collegues, did not fall to his knees, did not even celebrate. Then, there was Federer's actions after losing to Nadal at the Australia, where Federer openly wept after losing. Now, those are more pussyish than toolish, so for evidence to the later, there is Federer's being one of the most arrogant people ever. He has openly said bueaties like "When I play my best, I will win always" and "I get the feeling people who watch me are watching greatness." What the Fuck? Is this guy serious. Nadal has pretty much made him into his personal sex slave, as that he bangs Federer every time they meet, and Federer is still quoted as saying that he feels that he is better than Nadal. Federer is a delusional shithead arrogant fuck, and what does not help is his gold-embroidered jacket he wears after winning wimbledons (and losing them). Also, Tennis is a sport where the males get surprisingly hot girlfriends/wives, and Federer is pretty much married to a bovine. Mirka Vavrinec is easily the ugliest Tennis wife ever. I honestly think that Brooklyn Decker's (Roddick's wife) shit looks better than Mirka. Now, again, this is not evidence of his being a tool, but it is just another piece into Federer's scrumptious tool cake that he is baking.



Bill Belichick



Ohhhhh, where to begin. Weirdly enough, I'll start with his attire. Bill Belichick is now famous for his hoodie. What is less famous is this trend of cutting off the sleeves, as shown. This was fun for all of one day. Ever since his team stopped winning Super Bowls, its become less and less interesting and quirky and more and more ridiculously gay. The great coaches of all time looked the part: Tom Landry and Vince Lombardi wore suits; Bill Walsh wore sweatervests; Belichick wears a fucking salvation army hoodie. Anyway, to risk me coming across as way too interested into clothing, I will move on. Bill Belichick is by far the most arrogant SOB ever. His handshake shenanigans are legendary, in that he barely looks at the person he is handshaking, unless of course if he is the winner, in which case he pretty much dry-humps the other coach while shouting "Suck on my hoodie-sweated nuts, Bitch" at his opponent. Then, are the case of his postgame comments, where he never gives his opponent any credit. He also cheats on the injury report, where he has listed Tom Brady as questionable for years with a shoulder injury. Either Tom Brady has a glass shoulder and has the pain threshold of a ant, or Belichick is a cheating fuck. Also, there is the case of him actually being a convicted Cheating Fuck. Part 1: his cheating on his wife with a married woman, and then dumping them both for some other gold-digger. I would pay serious money to watch a conversation between Belichick and his dimwit girlfriend. Part 2: Spygate, where he stole signals for years, continued to do it after the league told everyone to stop, and then acted like he was set-up. This guy is by far the most insufferable bitch in NFL coaching history, and it is a great day every time he loses, as the world gets the gift of a cold handshake, his monotone comments and scrutiny.

Tom Brady

I really, really hate the Pats (can you tell??). However, I respect Tom Brady the QB. Tom Brady is a legendary QB, and is a surefire first-ballot Hall of Famer. However, Tom Brady the guy is a total tool. Here are three anectodes to prove his being a shitbrain bitch. 1.) At his wedding he ordered his security team to shoot at, yes shoot at, papparazzi. Not even the Mel Gibson will let people shoot at papparazzi, but Tom Brady decided that trying to snap a picture of his wedding to an overrated Model merits a death sentence. Not that I blame him, I wouldn't want people to know that a goat was my best man either. 2.) Some man took scrap-iron from potters (I have no idea what that is) left in Brady's trash heap, and Brady not only got mad, but sued him for 4,000. Brady did not know that this man was bankrupt after medical bills, and had been collecting scrap metal and selling them for medical treatments. Needless to say, Brady did the classy thing and decided to proceed with his lawsuit, becuase you damn well not steal Brady's gardening shit. 3.) After being grazed on his leg by Terrell Suggs, he hopped up and down and pleaded for a penalty (which of course the ref obliged after briefly stopping to pray to his handmade Wooden Brady statue and sucking Brady's balls). He was barely touched. Tom, I think you should start winning games again, and stop calling for the death of photographers and suing ill people for plant shit. This guy was the golden boy, but after his much unpublicized turning into a fashion icon (Stetson cologne, whatever the goat is above) his is more like the model wife he is married to.

Urban Meyer

I would love to put Tim Tebow here, but sadly it is the media's fault that he is reviled nearly as much as he is loved. Urban Meyer, however is reviled much more than he is loved, and by his own doing. Firstly, he is a traitorish bitch. After his meal ticket, Tim Tebow, came back for his senior year, Meyer promised to run more of a pro-style offense so Tebow could get more ready for the NFL. It really is the least he could do for the guy who single-handedly got him a title. Well, I have seen a couple Florida, and Tebow has ran exactly 0 plays under center, and is still stuck in his womanly spread-option, something that has 0 relevance in the NFL. He is basically screwing his top player. Then, he needlessly tries to run it up every game (like throwing while up 42-10 against Georgia last year) to the point where Tebow then gets a concussion playing at a time where the backup should have been in. Another example is when he tried to cover for his bad performance against Tennessee this year (23-13 win when they were expected to crush Tennessee and its loudmouth coach) by saying that Tennessee was not playing to win. Shut the fuck up, Urban. Admit your offense sadly does not work against a real NFL defensive scheme like Monte Kiffin's. Monte Kiffin knows more football than Urban will ever know, and Urban Meyer still acts like a smartass. Also, Urban Meyer is supposedly buddy-buddy with Belichick, which immediately puts him on the bad list. Urban Meyer, please, please come to the NFL, just so your shotgun spread option can be kicked in the balls and you can go crying back to college like Spurrier, Saban, Petrino and all the others before you.

Jerry Jones

This one is pretty obvious. The guy is a huge egotistical fag. It reached new heights when he opened the new Cowboys Stadium this year. He claimed it to be the best stadium ever, but with a almost carnival-like clown scoreboard and jumbotron, it really is not. It may be just me, but I still prefer Reliant Stadium. What also helps is that Reliant did not cost all of 800 million of taxpayer money. Then, the first game was essentially a Jerry Jones wet dream come to life. 100,000 people in the stadium (which was complete bullshit since 20,000 of those were outside the stadium), girls dancing in cages (cause Jerry loves those ho's... Yeeeehawww!!!!), and a Cowboys loss (the best part). He is also known for using his ego to the absolute detriment of his team, like when he fired Jimmie Johnson to hire his fuck-buddy Barry Switzer. These are the list of teams that have won playoff games since the last Cowboys playoff win (1997): Giants, Eagles, Redskins, Bears, Vikings, Packers, Saints, Buccaneers, Falcons, Panthers, Cardinals, 49ers, Seahawks, Rams, Jets, Patriots, Dolphins, Ravens, Steelers, Colts, Titans, Jaguars, Broncos, Chargers and Raiders. Yup, that's the list, yet Jerry continues to act like he runs a dynasty. Oh, and that dynasty that he did have, they were a bunch of cheating, whoring, drug-addled fuck-ups, who included men who continuosly jacked-off in public (Charles Haley), had choreagraphed six-somes with five women none of whom are his wife (Alvin Harper), and cut teammates in the neck with scissors (Michael Irvin). Stay class, Jerry, stay classy.

Honorable Mentions: Geno Aurriemma, Tim Tebow, Tony LaRussa, Alex Rodriguez, Robert Kraft, Kobe Bryant, Tony Romo.

Simmons vs Francesa (The Weirdest, Most Egomaniacal Sports Fued of All-Time)

Mike Francesa, for those who don't know, is by far one of the most egomaniacal jagg-offs in sports radio history. He has some modicum of sports knowledge, but it is his complete and utter inability to ever admit that he was wrong, about anything, that makes him come off as an asshole. He seems to have this feeling that no one in the world, even people who have some credibility, and by "some" I mean that they have actually played the sports in question, can out smart him.

On the other side we have Bill Simmons. For those who don't know, he's the "writer" of The Sports Guy columns on ESPN. I say "writer" because he seems to have forgotten his primary job as a writer, and has become completely enamored by the sound of his nasally voice, as he puts out about three podcasts a week. These (The B.S. Report - Get It!!!!! Its his initials, and code for "bullshit" - that Billy Simmons, he's clever) usually feature people funnier or smarter than him, which is quite entertaining. Either way, he started out as a lowly "blogger" like yours truly (although he is far, far better than I am - or at least he was then), who sold out by joining ESPN, getting castrated, and losing any sense of self-depracation and bitter sarcasm that defined his old work on his "Boston Sports Guy" website, which was quite excellent.

So here are the two sides. This started out becuase Mike Francesa was against Bill Simmons becoming a corporate sponsor for ESPN, as Simmons has been at the head of ESPN's "30 for 30" campaign (which seems excellent, by the way). Somehow, Francesa has seemingly forgot that he has acted as a complete "stooge" (his words about Simmons) for his continual sponsoring of WFAN events. Simmons, then fired back on Twitter (which it seems he has some perverse love for (a twittophile!!! pass it around, that term will become a thing)), saying that Mike was wrong calling him a stooge (which was true), and saying that he has an open invitation for Mike on his podcast. Mike then responds by saying that he would accept an invitation if Bill would ask him, and then verbally assaulted him by saying that Bill is pussying out by not breaking ESPN's rule of appearing on WFAN. Apparently, there was an earlier incident where Simmons said that Francesa did not have the balls to come on his podcast on a Simmons chat, but that was probably in humor. Although, Francesa holds a gruge (he still does not talk to Bill Belichick after he backed out of the Jets job years ago; however, I can't fault either party. I mean, I would certainy not take the Jets job, and moreso, I would certainly not talk to Bill Belichick, in fact I would certainly slap him across the face) I would bet that this is unrelated.

Here's my take. Both parties come off badly. Simmons less so, but his tweet that Francesa was hypocritical in calling him a "fraud" was unsupported and came off a little sour. Yet, Francesa just increases his perception of his being a unsatiable dickhole. Why would he accuse Simmons of, in essence, being a pussy for not breaking ESPN rule and appearing on WFAN. If I were Simmons, getting paid probably upwards of 1 million (I could be the next Simmons, ESPN, just incase you are interested), would I break their rule, a rule that would come with the minimum a suspension. No, I would not. Unlike Francesa, who really plays with WFAN as if it were his personal butler, Simmons cannot just break ESPN rule, to get the I'm sure once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to appear on the most reverent Francesa on the Fan (which has become at least 83% worse since Mad Dog Russo left, becuase unlike Mike, Russo had the ability to admit fault and act like a normal human from time-to-time, and also, Russo was funny). Then, who cares if Simmons is helping to sponsor the 30for30 campaign. Who honestly gives a fuck? As if Mike, approached by WFAN execs to do some ads for the upcoming new show airing at 10AM, and say how it was great, and better than its competitition, would gallantly get on his feet and proclaim, with his voice that soothes the crying babies at night "No, my boss, I will never stoop to those levels." Bullshit, Mike and you know it (sadly, Mike does not read this, as if anyone else is). Who cares if Simmons did not like the Ted Williams HBO special. Its his fucking opinion.

Then, what was even more brilliant, was Mike's stance about Simmons: (taken from Francesa on the Fan, courtesy of the Fantasy555 podcast) “If they would like to invite me to chat with Bill on his whatever-it-is… his website? [Simmons] doesn’t even have a show. [A podcast] is not a show… THIS is a show. Here’s what I’d say to Bill: Bill, get a show, and then you can invite me on your show. That’s not a program you’ve got… what do you want to call it, some kind of a little electronic get-together? Please. We want somebody to be able to hear you, to see you. If we do it at your place, nobody’s gonna know it’s happened. We want there to actually be record of it. We want somebody to actually hear it. It’s called an audience.” Holy shit. Bill's podcast gets fine ratings. It is a show. My favorite part is that Francesa seems ignorant to what a podcast is, calling it an electronic get-together, when his show is spliced up into PODCASTS and given on iTunes. Then he says "We want somebody to be able to hear you." Hey, Mikey, you know how we "somebodies" here him, by pressing the fucking play button on his podcast. Thats how. This is Francesa at his misguided, egocentric, batshit insane best. Also, and I guess this goes to Simmons as well, this whole "I would go on your podcast if you invite me..... we have an open invitation for Mike" crap wreaks of one of those "fights" where each party just pretends to want to throw down, but just kind of feel each other out.

This really is a hilarious, and most telling, case of the Giant, Rhino-Balls sized Ego of Mike Francesa. Simmons is at fault too, but Mike is like the guy who in revenge murders the guy who stole two bucks from him. Hopefully, one day someone will be allowed on Mike's show, with a bigger voice than Mike (as Mike is famous for his ability to just scream like a fucking child when someone tries to disagree with him on certain points). Sadly, Simmons, who lacks the fastball that makes him great (as evidenced by his inability to really prod people on his podcast (which, Mike, is a program and a show and is listenable and recordable and everything else that you said a podcast is not, which you should know about considering we can digest your show as Podcast)), is not this person. This fued hopefully is not over. Simmons, I wish to all my heart, will fire back on his Twitter, and Mike will use his loud, orangutan voice to shoot down Simmons for things that are unrelated. Fight On!

The Beginning

For all the most likely three people that will read this (its good to have low expectations), welcome to Lounging Pass. I know that's an awful name, but when I'm the 80,000,000th blogger here, there are only so many choices. Anyway, this will primarily be a sports blog (as if you needed more). It will combine some more lighthearted, humorous stuff, and also real analysis from time to time. I will focus on football, but ever so often delve into the other sports. I will also do TV write-ups from time to time, and other stuff that I feel is interesting (to me, at least). First, a couple things about me:

• I am a Sports Bigamist, in that I love multiple sports teams in a sport. However, this is not in a perverse way, like a man with a wife and a mistress. It is more in a classic Mormon way, or, if you like, a African way (in some of the villages, the men pimped out with a hut for each wife). I love my teams equally. In football, it is the Colts and the Raiders. The Raiders are my true love, like the Mormon wife who is slightly better looking, the one that is a bit foxier in bed. So if the Raiders played the Colts in the AFC Title Game tomorrow, I would want the Raiders to win. Thankfully, my Raiders are deadset on never allowing that to happen. Its almost spooky how it worked out, the Raiders run of being a competent NFL franchise ended in 2002. The Colts have won at least twelve games since 2003. Anyway, I do love multiple teams, but I spare no expense in following them. It works so well that I'm looking into Mormonism.

• I am one of the five remaining hockey fans in this country. Hockey is great. Playoff hockey is orgasmic. There is nothing better than overtime playoff hockey. Nothing. Not only in sports, in life. Give me the opportunity to walk outside in the middle of the second overtime to pick up a bag containing one million dollars, and I will stay planted in my chair. My sports bigammy comes up here again, being a Devils fan (the more commited wife, the one I have my "real" kids with) and a Sharks fan (the "fun" wife, who I go to one the weekends). I also like tennis..... really. Now, if you are still here after I admitted to liking tennis, I loved Marat Safin, like Rafael Nadal, hate the tool that is Roger Federer. Anytime a man can come out onto a court wearing a fucking blazer and long pants, that man needs to be hated, for life, by society. Anytime a man comes onto court with three different "girlfriends" in his players box, that man needs a standing ovation. Just a hint: the first man is a long-haired odd-looking fellow from Switzerland, the second man starts with "M" and rhymes with "Shmarat Shmafin".

• Other teams I like, the Houston Astros, and Tennessee Football and Basketball (what can I say, I have a soft spot for Orange; bright, nauseating, vomit-inducing Orange), and Liverpool (for those "Americans" not in the know, that is a futbol team (I refuse to say soccer) in the English Premier League). I also hate, with an ever-increasing passio, the New England Patriots and the Chicago Cubs, just abject hatred. I'm sure this is not healthy; hell, I'm not sure this is even humanly possible to hate teams this much. Then, I wake up the next day, check my hatematron 3000, and see that, yes, indeed, I can hate them even more.

• As for non-sports related things. The only TV shows I watch religously are How I Met Your Mother, which I will refer to as "Mother" since I'm lazy as hell, Desperate Housewives ("Housewives"), and Pardon the Interruption ("PTI"). I have other interest, but I feel like I am writing one of those get-to-know-you things that you do on the first day of school in 3rd grade.

So, that's me. As of now, I will write the following each week: Colts recap the day after their games (this will be really analytical, as football is the only sport I feel erudite enough, as well as compelled to, write an actual sports analysis column on). Devils-Sharks-NHL in total-Liverpool-Astros recap once a week during their respective seasons. NFL Power rankings each Tuesday. NFL picks each Friday. Then, I will try to write other columns as often as I can, on any topic I feel like will be interesting, and compells me to write. Hope you enjoy (the two of you that are still with me, mom and bored guy in cubicle 203).