Rick Jackson and the All-Big East First "Team"

Are any other Syracuse fans as outraged by the All-Big East First Team as I am? This is the first team roster.

ALL-BIG EAST FIRST TEAM
Kemba Walker, Connecticut, G
Austin Freeman, Georgetown, G
Ben Hansbrough, Notre Dame, G
Ashton Gibbs, Pittsburgh, G
Marshon Brooks, Providence, G-F
Dwight Hardy, St. John’s, G

How is Rick Jackson left off this team? He averaged 13.1 points, 10.7 rebounds, and 2.5 blocks a game leading the conference in both rebounding and blocks. Jackson was undoubtedly the most valuable player on Syracuse and was awarded Big East Defensive Player of the Year. Despite this Jackson was left off the first team in place of 6 guards who also happen to be the top 6 scorers in the conference. I am unbelievably frustrated by this. I don't understand how you can make an all conference "team" and not put any forwards on it. Why even call it a team in the first place if it isn't going to actually have all the positions filled?

This is really just a shame because a guy like Jackson in all probability will not be an NBA player, so this really is his basketball legacy. I have to feel for Jackson because the guy plays his ass off and really deserved to be on this team. Not to knock any of the other players on the list, but I just can't figure out how you keep the best forward in the conference off this team for guys who just score like Austin Freeman or Dwight Hardy. Also, isn't it pretty much saying that defense and rebounding aren't as important as scoring when the top 6 scoring guards in the conference are picked?

I guess in the end all conference teams and all-star teams a like are kind of a joke, so there's no use getting too worked about it. I just feel it was a blatant injustice that I can't figure out the reasoning behind. Rick Jackson shouldn't feel too bad though because he's one of the best forwards to ever attend Syracuse, and that's saying something.

This is not sports news

ESPN has a habit of posting totally unimportant news stories on its front page. The example today is this: Jerry Reinsdorf senses Bulls title run. Yes, breaking news to ESPN is the Bulls chairman in a random interview saying that his team has a chance to win the title this year and a chance to potentially win more in coming years. Conference tournaments are going on in NCAA Basketball and this is what we're reporting on? I'm sure if you interview an executive from any contending Franchise he's going to tell you something along those lines.

This is only an example of the maddening problem that ESPN has with blurring irrelevant articles with real news articles. This is just so aggravating because there has to be actual sports news to cover. I'm sure you could've interviewed Jerry Reinsdorf before the season and the interview would've been pretty similar so what is the urgency in letting the nation know about this? At least a few times a week I find articles on the front page of ESPN that are clearly not sports reporting, especially if it deals with the personal lives of Lebron James and Alex Rodriguez. I will start posting articles like this I find on this blog more often.

Hulu Plus Sucks

Hulu Plus is terrible. I signed up for a free trial expecting there to be more shows available and to not have commercials during them. Not only is there just about nothing available that's not available on the regular Hulu, there are still commercials during the shows! So you're basically paying 7.99 a month to have the ability to use Hulu on a Playstation 3, Iphone, Android, etc and watch things in HD.

Maybe this service wouldn't be as bad if it wasn't for Netflix, which is the same price, has more TV shows and movies, and streams in HD on basically any device you can think of. Even Hulu themselves knows this service sucks as they admitted in an e-mail response to an angry user.

In the ideal world, we would absolutely love and want nothing more but to be able to get every popular show out there that users love, and acquire the legal rights to stream them across every fancy device imaginable at the price that everybody wants. Unfortunately, due to stringent contract agreements on how content can be shared through certain devices, we are not able to have all of the content that everyone wants at this time.

So in an ideal world Hulu Plus wouldn't suck, but unfortunately it does and Hulu is sorry they're making you pay 7.99 for a bad service.

Unfortunately this is just beginning as Hulu will most likely take away their free service after this "preview" period is over. I really was on board with Hulu because it seemed like a win for everyone involved. The television networks were advertised, more people were able to watch shows they like, and the advertising made it relatively profitable. Obviously, something mutually good for the consumer and service provider would be too much for a company created by NBC and NewsCorp.

While Hulu is doing this to become more profitable it needs to be put in perspective that it still generates around 10 million dollars a year in profit. So really what we have here is a company trying to make you pay more for a service that is already making money. Of course the bottom line for Hulu is not pleasing its' millions of customers but making more money off them. Shame on you Hulu.

The Atrocious Seattle Seahawks and the Stupid Division Playoff System

The Seattle Seahawks are the worst team to ever make the playoffs and it’s not even close. You could even make the argument that they’re one of the least competitive teams in the entire NFL. They have been absolutely blown out in all nine of their losses and have a staggering point differential of -97. To put this into perspective only 4 teams have a worse point differential and they actually lost to one of those teams (Denver) by a score of 31-14. Simply put, this is one of the worst teams in the NFL this year and they are hosting a playoff game.

This means we have to watch a team that doesn’t do a single thing well in the playoffs. They are 27^th in total offense, 28^th in total defense, and in all probability will be starting Charlie Whitehurst with his 65.5 quarterback rating against the Saints. There are legitimately 5 teams that should go to the playoffs before the Seahawks in the Giants, Buccaneers, Chargers, Jaguars, and Raiders and I would even say it’s safe to argue that they’re not even a top 20 team in the NFL.

Despite somehow beating the Chargers, who are an anomaly themselves in missing the playoffs despite leading the league in both total offense and defense, the Seahawks were massacred by the Giants and Bucs who both have 10 wins in the NFC compared to the Seahawks 7. In those games the Giants beat the Seahawks 41-7, possessed the ball 42 minutes, and had 487 total yards compared to the Seahawks 162. The Buccaneers game was just as bad as they won 38-15 and had 439 yards compared to the Seahawks 174.

I know some may argue that this is just a freak year and the current structure doesn’t have to be changed, but I disagree. If there is any possibility of a team this bad ever making the playoffs then the current system is flawed. They didn’t even win half their games and were thoroughly dominated throughout the season how can we even remotely suggest that this is fair?

I don’t agree with a division system in any sport that rewards the winner of that division an automatic playoff spot. Why create a system in which the best teams don’t make the playoffs? Let’s not ever reward a team for mediocrity just because their mediocrity happened to be better than 4-5 other terrible teams. This is not just an argument for football but all sports as this has happened in the MLB several times.

So I hope we enjoy watching the Saints destroy the Seahawks in what should surely be as unentertaining a game as every other game of the Seahawks have played thus far. Sadly instead of watching the Saints play the Giants or Bucs we’ll be subjected to watching Charlie Whitehurst try to beat a far superior team. Hooray for the 2011 NFL Playoffs!

Baseball Free Agency: Favre to let teams know he is available if he doesn't retire.

In a bit of unexpected news, Brett Favre, in an attempt to be a bigger distraction to his football team announced that he will be available as a free agent pitcher this baseball off-season. Favre, furious with speculation that Cal Ripkin Jr. may hold a more impressive consecutive games streak, is convinced his gritty gunslinging style that just wins football games will be just as effective in the game of baseball. This does not mean retirement is out of the question for Favre who says he will spend some time to contemplate his future down at his Mississippi ranch this off-season. 

Chris Mortenson of ESPN, who has been living and reporting live from Favre's rectal region the past 5 years, initially reported this story and thinks Favre has what it takes to be a successful pitcher in the MLB. Mortenson reported, "You see Brett's a competitor, his teammate’s love him, and he's just a kid having fun out there. If he doesn't retire you can bet he'll be as big of a distraction for a Major League Baseball team as he's been for the Vikings this year."

The MLB seems to be a perfect fit for Favre who likes the idea of a longer season allowing him to spend more time cheating on his wife. If Favre decides to pick up the glove it is unlikely he will take part in spring training because he fully expects his retirement speculation to last at least until then. If someone wants him this off-season it will take more than the begging strategy the Vikings and Brad Childress used last off-season.

Many MLB teams are already willing to offer Favre a contract and have reached out to his agent regarding his available. Peter Gammons reports that among potential suitors, the Red Sox appear to be favorites. According to Gammons, Favre is a perfect fit for the Red Sox who are looking to acquire more white baseball players this off-season. The Red Sox owner John Henry worries if his small market team has the resources to sign the veteran Favre however. When reached for comment he said, "We just don't have the resources the Yankees do being in the small sports market of Boston. We will make Favre a generous offer, but 4-5 huge contracts are all we can spare this off-season with our limited resources.”

For now, Favre says he will just help the Vikings win football games and let the off-season work itself out when it happens. Expected to have his hip, shoulder, elbow, and ankles replaced after the NFL season, one can rest assured that if Favre does play for a contending team this upcoming MLB season, it will be entirely his decision. Will he retire, play baseball, or be a cast member on Survivor? We will just have to wait and see.

Troy Aikman is an Idiot

Alright, so you probably already realize that Joe Buck and Troy Aikman are one of the worst announcing teams ever. Joe Buck has such a dry and elitist tone to his announcing that it's really unbelievable that he announces every big game on Fox. Troy Aikman is no better and some of the stuff he says makes me think he has serious brain trauma from the amount of concussions he's received. Normally I wouldn’t comment on his inepitude but at the end of the first half in the Giants-Vikings game he even managed to amaze me with his stupidity.

The Giants had the ball on the Vikings two yardline and there was thirteen seconds to go in the half. It was second down and the giants had no time outs and Aikman suggested that maybe the Giants should consider running the football. Obviously, this is a stupid decision because if the Giants run and fail to get into the endzone time would expire, and they would not have an opportunity to kick a field goal. This is an obvious football decision, you throw the ball twice and if you don’t get in, you settle for a field goal.

The Giants threw the ball as any competantly coached football team would in this situation and the result was an incomplete pass. Aikman, still convinced that running the ball was a viable option, again stated that he wouldn’t be surprised if the Giants ran the ball. It would have been a stupid decision on second down and still would have been an obviously stupid decision on third down.

The Giants were then called for a foul start penalty putting them around the six yardline and Aikman still suggested the Giants could run the ball here and that he had seen them do it in this kind of situation before. Really? I find this statement quite surprising considering I’ve seen every Giants game in the past several years and do not remember a single circumstance when they did this. I’m also sure I would have remembered it because I’d most certainly be bitching about it if it did happen!

I mean what the hell is Troy Aikman talking about here? The Giants of course passed the ball in the end zone for a touchdown as every other team in the NFL not coached by Andy Reid would have done. This is a Hall of Fame quarterback and he really doesn't know the situation here? Also, shame on you Joe Buck for not telling him, “Hey Troy you sound like an idiot here.” It was one of the craziest rants I’ve heard in recent memory and even after the Giants scored the touchdown, he was still surprised they didn’t run.

I guess this is the kind of coverage we get from announcers making millions of dollars a year. I think they purposely put nearly retarded broadcasters alongside Joe Buck so he seems intelligent and knowledgable about the games he covers. Come on Fox we deserve better analysis than this.

J.A. Adande does not know what the word cancer means

I've been wanting to write about the Charlie Villaneuva Kevin Garnett feud that occurred last week but there is so much stupidity involved in this story it has been difficult. To summarize the story, Charlie Villaneuva posted on Twitter that Garnett said he looked like a cancer patient. Garnett responded and said that he told Villaneuva he was a cancer to his team and the NBA, not a cancer patient. My brief opinion on this is Charlie Villaneuva is a big overpaid baby who should have never taken Garnett's “cancer” comments so seriously. Besides, Villaneuva is a cancer and looks like he has cancer so there is no story here or any disrespect to cancer patients because who'd honestly do that?

The topic of this article is related to this event and looks at a short article titled "Time to rid the sports lexicon of 'cancer.'" (It can be found here here.) In it, just as the title suggests, author J.A. Adande argues that this Villaneuva Garnett incident should be a sign that we need to take the word cancer out of anything that's not regarding the the actual disease or the zodiac sign. Why you might ask? Because the other common use of the word cancer that has nothing to do with disease and is offensive to those with the disease. Let Adande explain.

We use cancer in the most casual ways. Locker room cancer, clubhouse cancer, on and on, as if anything an athlete does to disrupt team harmony is the equivalent of mutating cells that attack bodies from within and take the lives of our loved ones.

No, we use cancer in the “most casual ways” because it has multiple definitions. One of those definitions happens to be, “something evil or malignant that spreads destructively.”(Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary) You are taking the medical term and saying another use of it is offensive to those with the disease? How? It gets worse.

I typed "Terrell Owens cancer" into Google's search engine and received 165,000 hits. I didn't have the time to go through all of them, but I'm pretty sure none referenced a diagnosis of the disease or a visit to a children's hospital. Shouldn't Owens take offense? As bad a teammate as he's been at times, he's never killed anyone. More importantly, we should be offended by constant misuse of such a serious word.

This is probably because they were using the definition of the word that is not associated with the medical term. We know he's never killed anyone, but he's a dick and thus cancer to his team. This is a correct definition that nobody should take offense to. You appear to be the only one who has a problem with it.

So let's drop "cancer" from the sports lexicon -- unless the topic is the zodiac sign. Can you just imagine Garnett yelling, "You embody the worst aspects of a Cancer; you let your emotions override rational judgment"?

So let me get this straight, you only recognize a couple definitions of the word cancer? You find one definition to be offensive to people who have the disease even though it has nothing to do it besides having the same name. What is wrong with you? Did you go to school?

Also, no, I cannot imagine Garnett yelling that, because it would be a retarded thing to yell. I don't even have anything else to say. J.A. Adande, this has to be the stupidest thing I've ever read and has nothing to do with sports. You can continue to think that the type of cancer that is associated with Terrell Owens as a teammate is the same as a life ending disease, but it's not, and you're the only one who thinks it is.