GM,
It’s frightening to know that Al Davis has job security despite his dreadful incompetence, while Rush Limbaugh may be prevented from buying a team because of his political views. The fact is, though, that for many mega-successful businessmen, success is due to an utter refusal to reveal potentially unpopular or divisive stances. Hell, ask Michael Jordan or Tiger Woods, who are notorious for refusing to admit they’re Democrats because it would harm their brands. For media personalities, on the other hand, niches make riches, and Rush’s niche is conservative America, which, contrary to what popular television programming would have us believe, is a pretty big segment in this country. Should his bid to own an NFL team be denied just because he votes differently and thinks differently than three-fourths of the players? Reverend Al Sharpton seems to think so. (Scroll halfway down or search "Sharpton".)
In an interview with Anderson Cooper Monday, Sharpton joined former Dolphins running back Mercury Morris to talk about the possibility. While Morris seemed level-headed through much of the interview (and I’ll get to his absurdity later), Sharpton suggested that Rush’s attempt at ownership should immediately be squashed simply because of his past comments about Donovan McNabb, Michael Vick (scroll down to Story #8), and the league in general.
Morris was reasonable--saying he had every right to buy the team but that it may be unwise because of his reputation--until he arrived at this:
We have got a president now who is the quarterback. And I think that that's what's bothering Limbaugh the most, is that the guy who is calling the shots here in this country is a black man.
And, so, how can I have some power? Well, let me buy some -- some people, and then I can put who I want in there, rather than who's the best person there.
If you think Rush is a racist, fine, although his McNabb remarks weren’t racist; rather, they accused the sports media of being racist. But surely he’s not so racist that he would burn through his own money and reputation to ruin a franchise so that white players can see more playing time. If that is the case, I highly suggest he first consult Larry Bird.
-JW
JW,
I saw the segment you linked us to live, and I'm now ready to declare that I support anything that allows former NFL players to talk politics with Anderson Cooper and Al Sharpton. So what if CNN's journalistic standards are losing ground to Kent Brockman at this point? This is television we're talking about, and I couldn't have been more enthralled if the participants had been juggling pies.
After all, the Limbaugh story has spent the past week engendering that strange mix of careerism and self-righteousness peculiar to television and newspaper personalities during an invented crisis. Anderson Cooper was at his faux-compassionate best; Kevin Blackistone strung together several complete sentences; and Jason Whitlock broke out the hyperbole like it was going bad in his refrigerator. Add to that Mercury Morris's unintentional exploration of the political insensitivity of sports "ownership" and you've got my favorite story of the year.
What you've also got, of course, is a story that exposes the laughable hypocrisy of the people who run the American media establishment. While you're right about Jordan and Woods, surely you've noticed that Keith Olbermann has done quite well on NBC's pre-game show despite a niche every bit as intricately defined as Rush's and potentially as overbearing. This is the guy, don't forget, who called television's 24 a right-wing plot to breed intolerance of Arabs. (He's right, by the way, in that I'm pronouncing it A-rabs in my head and giggling.) This is the guy who refers to the "irrational" Right on one program and calls the Right's favorite game on another. Simply put, he's a double agent, just like Limbaugh. To the extent that the men and women in charge overlook him, they do so because they spend long stretches of time having forgotten that conservatives even exist. That we're not all in agreement.
It seems clear at this point that Limbaugh's not going to get his team, and in the end, the real victims of this debacle are the people of St. Louis. After all, they were very close to putting the team in the hands of someone who actually cares about football. So what if those hands are a little dirty? Last I checked, the wins still count.
-GM
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Monday, October 12, 2009
Perverse Entertainment
JW,
On January 6th, 2007, my beloved Kansas City Chiefs played the Indianapolis Colts for forty-one playoff minutes before making a first down. Their final line? Forty-four rushing yards, seven first downs, and 126 yards of total offense against a defense for whom "porous" would have been a compliment. I'm bringing this up to let you know that I thought I'd seen everything as far as football incompetence is concerned. The Chiefs snuck into the playoffs that year (needing and getting a Detroit win over Dallas and a San Francisco win over Denver, in addition to their own win), and they played like a team that didn't belong. That day was an embarrassment, and in a lot of ways I'm still getting over it.
Happily, I took a big step in the right direction yesterday when I watched (yes, watched) the Buffalo Bills host the Cleveland Browns in what has to be the worst football game ever played, on any level. Though the stats are agonizing (193 offensive yards for the winning Browns; sixteen combined punts; thirty percent combined third-down efficiency), it's this number that really stands out: two for seventeen. That's Derek Anderson's passing line. That's the winning quarterback. At this point, it's not just the NFL that wishes it could take back Anderson's 2008 Pro Bowl appearance. Hawaii itself is pissed off.
But hey, talk about a healing experience! Watching passes swirl in the wind, watching Jamal Lewis contribute meaningfully to a professional football team, I couldn't help but come a little closer to forgiving my Chiefs (though Herm Edwards can never be forgiven, that touchdown-hating bastard). Unless Trent Edwards' parents live in, say, Topeka, I may have been the only person outside of New York and Ohio who watched this game. Let me tell you, though. It was well worth it.
-GM
GM,
I've watched as much football as anybody over the last 10 years, and I've seen some horrible stuff. A high school game tied 0-0 at the end of regulation. An onside kick literally go backwards. I was present when Auburn beat Mississippi State 3-2 last year. It's always a little funnier when it happens in the NFL, though. After all, these guys are getting paid heftily to entertain us. Ironically, to the fans who know the league best, there's a large entertainment value to total incompetence. And let's not pretend yesterday's Bills/Browns showdown was some sort of defensive exhibition. It takes skill, timing, and chemistry to make an offense work--more so than for a defense--and neither of these teams have any of those attributes.
Personally, I had to decide if I wanted to dedicate my space today to telling you why Alabama deserved to jump Texas in both polls (obvious, although the coaches stubbornly kept Texas at No. 2), discussing the Denver Broncos' 5-0 start (unfathomable), or filling today's section with more embarrassment from the NFL (what I'll actually do). Get ready for the most amazing QB statistics you've ever seen in your life. They belong to JaMarcus Russell... through five games, all of which he's started.
51-for-121 (42 percent), 606 yards, 4 interceptions, 1 touchdown
Yet he and his 47.1 QB rating continue to take the field every week. Do you remember when this guy signed? He took forever to do so, holding out for more money while we rolled our eyes knowing he'd be a huge bust. On the field, he looks clueless, overweight, and apathetic. Nothing about him says "NFL quarterback." Everything says "Raider."
Yesterday against the Giants, Russell had (by far) his best game of the season statistically. He was 8-for-13 with no interceptions. Think about this, though. The Raiders were down 28-0 in the second quarter, and Russell threw only 13 passes?! The way I see it, that's Tom Cable making a statement to Al Davis:
"We will never come from behind with this guy under center, so let me play a real quarterback, or this is what you'll see--a losing team milking the clock with predictable running plays."
From the owner to the coaching staff to the face of the franchise to the fans, the Raiders are a joke. Hey, at least it's a funny one. I once flew to Miami to watch the Dolphins beat the Raiders the year Oakland went to the Super Bowl. As I walked through the airport afterward, I noticed that the dejected fans continued to wear their gear for the returning flight! Imagine these guys moping down a terminal.
-JW
On January 6th, 2007, my beloved Kansas City Chiefs played the Indianapolis Colts for forty-one playoff minutes before making a first down. Their final line? Forty-four rushing yards, seven first downs, and 126 yards of total offense against a defense for whom "porous" would have been a compliment. I'm bringing this up to let you know that I thought I'd seen everything as far as football incompetence is concerned. The Chiefs snuck into the playoffs that year (needing and getting a Detroit win over Dallas and a San Francisco win over Denver, in addition to their own win), and they played like a team that didn't belong. That day was an embarrassment, and in a lot of ways I'm still getting over it.
Happily, I took a big step in the right direction yesterday when I watched (yes, watched) the Buffalo Bills host the Cleveland Browns in what has to be the worst football game ever played, on any level. Though the stats are agonizing (193 offensive yards for the winning Browns; sixteen combined punts; thirty percent combined third-down efficiency), it's this number that really stands out: two for seventeen. That's Derek Anderson's passing line. That's the winning quarterback. At this point, it's not just the NFL that wishes it could take back Anderson's 2008 Pro Bowl appearance. Hawaii itself is pissed off.
But hey, talk about a healing experience! Watching passes swirl in the wind, watching Jamal Lewis contribute meaningfully to a professional football team, I couldn't help but come a little closer to forgiving my Chiefs (though Herm Edwards can never be forgiven, that touchdown-hating bastard). Unless Trent Edwards' parents live in, say, Topeka, I may have been the only person outside of New York and Ohio who watched this game. Let me tell you, though. It was well worth it.
-GM
GM,
I've watched as much football as anybody over the last 10 years, and I've seen some horrible stuff. A high school game tied 0-0 at the end of regulation. An onside kick literally go backwards. I was present when Auburn beat Mississippi State 3-2 last year. It's always a little funnier when it happens in the NFL, though. After all, these guys are getting paid heftily to entertain us. Ironically, to the fans who know the league best, there's a large entertainment value to total incompetence. And let's not pretend yesterday's Bills/Browns showdown was some sort of defensive exhibition. It takes skill, timing, and chemistry to make an offense work--more so than for a defense--and neither of these teams have any of those attributes.
Personally, I had to decide if I wanted to dedicate my space today to telling you why Alabama deserved to jump Texas in both polls (obvious, although the coaches stubbornly kept Texas at No. 2), discussing the Denver Broncos' 5-0 start (unfathomable), or filling today's section with more embarrassment from the NFL (what I'll actually do). Get ready for the most amazing QB statistics you've ever seen in your life. They belong to JaMarcus Russell... through five games, all of which he's started.
51-for-121 (42 percent), 606 yards, 4 interceptions, 1 touchdown
Yet he and his 47.1 QB rating continue to take the field every week. Do you remember when this guy signed? He took forever to do so, holding out for more money while we rolled our eyes knowing he'd be a huge bust. On the field, he looks clueless, overweight, and apathetic. Nothing about him says "NFL quarterback." Everything says "Raider."
Yesterday against the Giants, Russell had (by far) his best game of the season statistically. He was 8-for-13 with no interceptions. Think about this, though. The Raiders were down 28-0 in the second quarter, and Russell threw only 13 passes?! The way I see it, that's Tom Cable making a statement to Al Davis:
"We will never come from behind with this guy under center, so let me play a real quarterback, or this is what you'll see--a losing team milking the clock with predictable running plays."
From the owner to the coaching staff to the face of the franchise to the fans, the Raiders are a joke. Hey, at least it's a funny one. I once flew to Miami to watch the Dolphins beat the Raiders the year Oakland went to the Super Bowl. As I walked through the airport afterward, I noticed that the dejected fans continued to wear their gear for the returning flight! Imagine these guys moping down a terminal.
-JW
Friday, October 9, 2009
Special Report: The Obama Nobel Peace Prize
Here at Smarter Than Y'all, we're particularly attuned to moments of cultural (and multi-cultural) insanity. Hence the Wal-Mart jibes and the complaints about vehicular scrotum. You can imagine our glee, then, at waking up this morning to the news that Barack Obama has won the Nobel Peace Prize, thus entering the proud company of an anti-semite, a beaurocratic stooge, and a terrorist. And that's just the last fifteen years! They didn't give out the prize between 1939 and 1943, but if they had, you can bet that one of them would have gone to Hitler.
Though Obama's "prize" (1.4 million dollars and a citation that half the world views as fraudulent on its best day) is stupid for a number of reasons, chief among them has to be the misplaced idealism and political symbolism that informed the council's decision. Consider the New York Times' take on the award--a take which, as usual, manages to combine startling canniness with breathless naivete:
In one sense, the award was a rebuke to the foreign policies of Mr. Obama’s predecessor, George W. Bush, some of which the president has sought to overturn. Mr. Obama made repairing the fractured relations between the United States and the rest of the world a major theme of his campaign for the presidency. Since taking office as president he has pursued a range of policies intended to fulfill that goal. He has vowed to pursue a world without nuclear weapons, as he did in a speech in Prague earlier this year; reached out to the Muslim world, delivering a major speech in Cairo in June; and sought to restart peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians.
While a complete explication would involve more time than we're willing to commit, please note that although the Times has Obama "seeking," "making priorities," "pursuing," "intending,"
"vowing," "reaching out," and "seeking" (yet again), it doesn't have him achieving much of anything. Furthermore, the goals in question are patently unachievable. Or so sayeth history. A world without nuclear weapons? Peace in Israel? A permanent, meaningful repairing of America's "fractured" relations? Fool's gold, all of them. The province of poets, not presidents.
Only half a day into the story, commentators are already asserting that the Nobel committee's citation reads more like "a wish list" than a list of achievements. Those hoping Obama will decline the award, however, quite clearly fail to know our president.
-GM and JW
Though Obama's "prize" (1.4 million dollars and a citation that half the world views as fraudulent on its best day) is stupid for a number of reasons, chief among them has to be the misplaced idealism and political symbolism that informed the council's decision. Consider the New York Times' take on the award--a take which, as usual, manages to combine startling canniness with breathless naivete:
In one sense, the award was a rebuke to the foreign policies of Mr. Obama’s predecessor, George W. Bush, some of which the president has sought to overturn. Mr. Obama made repairing the fractured relations between the United States and the rest of the world a major theme of his campaign for the presidency. Since taking office as president he has pursued a range of policies intended to fulfill that goal. He has vowed to pursue a world without nuclear weapons, as he did in a speech in Prague earlier this year; reached out to the Muslim world, delivering a major speech in Cairo in June; and sought to restart peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians.
While a complete explication would involve more time than we're willing to commit, please note that although the Times has Obama "seeking," "making priorities," "pursuing," "intending,"
"vowing," "reaching out," and "seeking" (yet again), it doesn't have him achieving much of anything. Furthermore, the goals in question are patently unachievable. Or so sayeth history. A world without nuclear weapons? Peace in Israel? A permanent, meaningful repairing of America's "fractured" relations? Fool's gold, all of them. The province of poets, not presidents.
Only half a day into the story, commentators are already asserting that the Nobel committee's citation reads more like "a wish list" than a list of achievements. Those hoping Obama will decline the award, however, quite clearly fail to know our president.
-GM and JW
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
Even More Trouble In the Aisles
GM,
Maybe it’s time for a lighter note—a Wal-Mart note. Making my first trip to the white-trash embassy since my last entry about it, I personally witnessed a woman in her 70s use the self checkout lane last night. My initial admiration of her courage to confront technology soon dissolved when I saw her scan, bag, swipe her debit card, enter the PIN, and pocket the receipt for each item in her cart. Needless to say, my fascination with this complete confusion of the system ended when she made it to the fruit; even multiples were separated (I now know the product code for oranges). As you may imagine, the pace at which she went wouldn’t have satisfied me even if she understood the concept completely. You also won’t be surprised to hear that the lone customer service representative was content to sit and watch as the Waltons’ money and my patience were lost transaction by transaction. I’m convinced that the self-checkout lane is the single greatest separator of the wheat from the chaff in this 21st-century society.
Then again, in a world where technology has us handcuffed to our phones, where human resource departments add to the complexity and ambiguity of application processes just to lower the number of Internet applicants, where the University of Colorado ruins it for everybody, where male-enhancement-pill advertisements run so rampant that I wonder if everyone else is getting an unfair advantage, maybe it’s time to show some understanding for a lack of understanding. (Told you today would be lighthearted!) Wal-Mart granny isn't so bad compared to these offenders.
-JW
JW,
Perhaps because I'm still staggering from the news that M. C. Hammer was at least partially responsible for Michael Crabtree's new deal with the San Francisco 49ers, I can't get too worked up about your newest Wal-Mart story (though your oldest one still gives me fits). Or perhaps it's the fact that 43-year-old blogger Penelope Trunk used Twitter earlier this week to announce her miscarriage-in-progress. (Here's the story: The It's-A-Good-Thing-Because-Abortion-Waits-Are-So-Long-In-Wisconsin moment near the end is especially charming.) In either case, don't get mad if I refrain from outrage at the technological cluelessness of the elderly. I'm not ashamed to admit that those self-checkouts slow me down, too.
The Wal-Mart employee who stood watching, on the other hand, is deserving of some fairly serious ire. I'll go so far as to call him (it was a white male, right?) a representation of much of what ails us as a society. What kind of person--and I mean this very seriously--would sit by and watch wanton destruction (of time and money, unintentional or not) without attempting to intervene? What deeply ingrained cultural flaw (Is it anger? Is it resentment?) allows such behavior?
If there's a lesson here, it's that those folks who complain about Wal-Mart's mistreatment of its employees must rarely shop there. Otherwise they'd see that mistreatment is sometimes called for.
-GM
Maybe it’s time for a lighter note—a Wal-Mart note. Making my first trip to the white-trash embassy since my last entry about it, I personally witnessed a woman in her 70s use the self checkout lane last night. My initial admiration of her courage to confront technology soon dissolved when I saw her scan, bag, swipe her debit card, enter the PIN, and pocket the receipt for each item in her cart. Needless to say, my fascination with this complete confusion of the system ended when she made it to the fruit; even multiples were separated (I now know the product code for oranges). As you may imagine, the pace at which she went wouldn’t have satisfied me even if she understood the concept completely. You also won’t be surprised to hear that the lone customer service representative was content to sit and watch as the Waltons’ money and my patience were lost transaction by transaction. I’m convinced that the self-checkout lane is the single greatest separator of the wheat from the chaff in this 21st-century society.
Then again, in a world where technology has us handcuffed to our phones, where human resource departments add to the complexity and ambiguity of application processes just to lower the number of Internet applicants, where the University of Colorado ruins it for everybody, where male-enhancement-pill advertisements run so rampant that I wonder if everyone else is getting an unfair advantage, maybe it’s time to show some understanding for a lack of understanding. (Told you today would be lighthearted!) Wal-Mart granny isn't so bad compared to these offenders.
-JW
JW,
Perhaps because I'm still staggering from the news that M. C. Hammer was at least partially responsible for Michael Crabtree's new deal with the San Francisco 49ers, I can't get too worked up about your newest Wal-Mart story (though your oldest one still gives me fits). Or perhaps it's the fact that 43-year-old blogger Penelope Trunk used Twitter earlier this week to announce her miscarriage-in-progress. (Here's the story: The It's-A-Good-Thing-Because-Abortion-Waits-Are-So-Long-In-Wisconsin moment near the end is especially charming.) In either case, don't get mad if I refrain from outrage at the technological cluelessness of the elderly. I'm not ashamed to admit that those self-checkouts slow me down, too.
The Wal-Mart employee who stood watching, on the other hand, is deserving of some fairly serious ire. I'll go so far as to call him (it was a white male, right?) a representation of much of what ails us as a society. What kind of person--and I mean this very seriously--would sit by and watch wanton destruction (of time and money, unintentional or not) without attempting to intervene? What deeply ingrained cultural flaw (Is it anger? Is it resentment?) allows such behavior?
If there's a lesson here, it's that those folks who complain about Wal-Mart's mistreatment of its employees must rarely shop there. Otherwise they'd see that mistreatment is sometimes called for.
-GM
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Inevitable USC Ascent Begins, Nation Mourns Loss of Soul
JW,
I came across a fantastic Commercial Appeal article this morning about the woefully unwatched Memphis Grizzlies' approach to marketing the '09-'10 season. The headline? "Ball In Fans' Court." I am not making this up.
It got me me thinking, though. In what other sports-related realms are fans asked to sacrifice logic and their desire for a good product so that the inexplicable yearnings of a privileged few can be satisfied? The answer, of course, is college football, whose corrupt, common sense-defying ranking scheme can only be defended by the old and petulant. Take, for example, the recent comments of University of Nebraska Chancellor Harvey Perlman. Asked why university chancellors are against forming a playoff system, Perlman replied, "First, we don't want to."
First, we don't want to?! Not even and, but first? Where on earth--I'm seriously asking--do they find these people?
And where on earth, I'm curious to know, is it okay to rank one-loss USC four slots ahead of one-loss Miami, whose impenetrable schedule thus far is the most difficult season-opening stretch I've ever seen? From whence doth this USC bias spring?
JW, I'm leaving you the bulk of the work today, so come out with guns blazing. What in the world is the Trojan-controlled media thinking?
-GM
GM,
Perlman's words, "First, we don't want to," remind me of what I would hear growing up when questioning a parental policy--"Because I said so." It's legitimately the truth, but I haven't learned anything new, have I? These profound explanations should be coupled as an explanation for all sorts of ranking absurdities. Take, for example, your own argument.
GM: Voter A, why haven't you moved Miami past USC despite the fact that the Hurricanes have had a much tougher schedule and have a much better loss?
VOTER A: First, we don't want to.
GM: How could USC be comfortably in the top ten two weeks after losing to Washington?!
VOTER A: Because I said so... before the season began, and what I've seen on the field is less relevant.
Let's face it, asking for fairness in college football is like asking for democracy in the Middle East. You don't know which archaic, out of touch authority figure to turn to. In Perlman's defense, the TV personality who wrote that piece clearly has about as much sports knowledge as these guys. The interview must have been frustrating. The unnamed author wrote:
The Utah Utes went undefeated last year yet failed to qualify for a BCS game.
Not only is that false--Utah beat Alabama in the Sugar Bowl, a BCS game--a similar, truer statement is repeated later and needlessly attributed to a source:
Utah officials said (the Utes) were kept out of the BCS title game last year, despite going undefeated.
Good thing we know Utah's state officials are aware of obvious, indisputable facts that pertain to their primary state university. Today's headline will read, "Favre: We beat Green Bay, 30 to 23." This could only be the work of Cynthia Izaguirre. Afterward, the battle of incompetence waged on, and the winner was indeterminable:
Perlman said (Utah) was not excluded from the (national championship) game....
Of all the BCS positions in contrast with my own, this seems the most impossible--to pretend Utah actually did play for the national championship! Maybe it's subtly brilliant. Did he actually say that, or did the reporter's confusion about the existence of multiple BCS games somehow inspire this paraphrased interpretation? And why didn't we spend any time on the NFL today? Well...
First, we don't want to.
-JW
I came across a fantastic Commercial Appeal article this morning about the woefully unwatched Memphis Grizzlies' approach to marketing the '09-'10 season. The headline? "Ball In Fans' Court." I am not making this up.
It got me me thinking, though. In what other sports-related realms are fans asked to sacrifice logic and their desire for a good product so that the inexplicable yearnings of a privileged few can be satisfied? The answer, of course, is college football, whose corrupt, common sense-defying ranking scheme can only be defended by the old and petulant. Take, for example, the recent comments of University of Nebraska Chancellor Harvey Perlman. Asked why university chancellors are against forming a playoff system, Perlman replied, "First, we don't want to."
First, we don't want to?! Not even and, but first? Where on earth--I'm seriously asking--do they find these people?
And where on earth, I'm curious to know, is it okay to rank one-loss USC four slots ahead of one-loss Miami, whose impenetrable schedule thus far is the most difficult season-opening stretch I've ever seen? From whence doth this USC bias spring?
JW, I'm leaving you the bulk of the work today, so come out with guns blazing. What in the world is the Trojan-controlled media thinking?
-GM
GM,
Perlman's words, "First, we don't want to," remind me of what I would hear growing up when questioning a parental policy--"Because I said so." It's legitimately the truth, but I haven't learned anything new, have I? These profound explanations should be coupled as an explanation for all sorts of ranking absurdities. Take, for example, your own argument.
GM: Voter A, why haven't you moved Miami past USC despite the fact that the Hurricanes have had a much tougher schedule and have a much better loss?
VOTER A: First, we don't want to.
GM: How could USC be comfortably in the top ten two weeks after losing to Washington?!
VOTER A: Because I said so... before the season began, and what I've seen on the field is less relevant.
Let's face it, asking for fairness in college football is like asking for democracy in the Middle East. You don't know which archaic, out of touch authority figure to turn to. In Perlman's defense, the TV personality who wrote that piece clearly has about as much sports knowledge as these guys. The interview must have been frustrating. The unnamed author wrote:
The Utah Utes went undefeated last year yet failed to qualify for a BCS game.
Not only is that false--Utah beat Alabama in the Sugar Bowl, a BCS game--a similar, truer statement is repeated later and needlessly attributed to a source:
Utah officials said (the Utes) were kept out of the BCS title game last year, despite going undefeated.
Good thing we know Utah's state officials are aware of obvious, indisputable facts that pertain to their primary state university. Today's headline will read, "Favre: We beat Green Bay, 30 to 23." This could only be the work of Cynthia Izaguirre. Afterward, the battle of incompetence waged on, and the winner was indeterminable:
Perlman said (Utah) was not excluded from the (national championship) game....
Of all the BCS positions in contrast with my own, this seems the most impossible--to pretend Utah actually did play for the national championship! Maybe it's subtly brilliant. Did he actually say that, or did the reporter's confusion about the existence of multiple BCS games somehow inspire this paraphrased interpretation? And why didn't we spend any time on the NFL today? Well...
First, we don't want to.
-JW
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
