Blog For Free!
Archives
Home
2008 November
2008 July
2008 June
2008 April
2008 January
2007 December
2007 November
2007 October
2007 September
2007 August
2007 July
2007 June
2007 May
2007 April
2007 March
2007 February
2007 January
2006 December
2006 November
2006 October
2006 September
2006 August
2006 July
2006 June
2006 May
2006 April
2006 March
2006 February
2005 October
2005 September
2005 August
2005 July
2005 June
2005 May
2005 April
2005 March
2005 February
2005 January
2004 December
2004 November
2004 October
2004 September
2004 August
2004 July
tBlog
My Profile
Send tMail
My tFriends
My Images
Sponsored
Blog
|
| Trash Talking |
| 01.31.05 (11:21 am) [edit] |
|
So Eagles third string receiver Freddie Mitchell and Patriots Safety Rodney Harrison have engaged in a war of words. Mitchell got it started last week by saying he can't name any of the Patriots defensive backs but Rodney Harrison, and that he "had something" for Rodney Harrison in the Super Bowl.
I can't really find much fault with the statement other than telling one of the dirtiest players in the game in Rodney Harrison that you "got something" for him. That's just asking for a poke in the eye or a stepped on ankle. The only other Patriot DB I can name is Troy Brown and that's just because he's a receiver pressed into the role of corner back since the rest of the Patriots secondary is injured. There's just a bunch of "Who-Dats" filling in. I'm sure you'll hear their names come Sunday. Harrison, of course, has responded.
Now, it'd be one thing if Eagles receiver Terrell Owens was talking trash. People may hate the guy and the way he acts, but he backs up what he says. I don't like him, but I haven't seen many people shut him down this year. But Freddie Mitchell? Freddie, if you'll indulge me for a moment...You are the third receiver on the Eagles. The only reason you're even STARTING this game is because the BEST option at receiver on your team is injured. You finished the season with a whopping 22 receptions and 377 yards IN SIXTEEN GAMES. You didn't even finish third on your team in receiving. You were tied for fourth in yards, and only caught 2 of your team's 32 passing scores. You're 22nd in receiving yards IN THE PLAYOFFS, and most of the people ahead of you didn't even play in a game last week. If Owens somehow plays next week, you'll be on the bench. You're a fill-in, and you're talking trash to the world-champs. Go win a Super Bowl, and maybe next year you can talk some smack.
That said, Go Eagles!
|
|
|
| |
| Super Bowl Prediction |
| 01.28.05 (11:27 am) [edit] |
Alright. I'm going to make my Super Bowl prediction. I'm using a specialized formula I've developed for fantasy football. What I do is compare some numbers and base my starting line up off these numbers. It works fairly well. In the six years I've been playing fantasy football, I've won two championships, and finished third or higher in my league four out of six years.
According to my calculations (blavin!), the Eagles should have about 331 yards of total offense and 21 points. The Patriots should have 339 yards of total offense and 22 points.
Now we have to throw in the intricacies of the game and look at passing, rushing, sacks and turnovers.
The Patriots should rush for 126 yards and the Eagles should have about 100 yards.
The Patriots should pass for about 212 yards, and the Eagles should throw for about 230 yards.
The Eagles should be sacked 3 times and have 1-2 turnovers. The Patriots should be sacked twice and give the ball away 1-2 times as well.
I don't see anything here that would make me want to alter the final score by much. The teams are fairly even in most categories, with the Eagles being more successful through the air and the Patriots more successful on the ground. Final prediction is:
New England 27 - Philadelphia 24
New England wins on a last second field goal by Adam Vinatieri.
Next week: Sega's NFL 2K5 predicts the Super Bowl Final Score...With High Lights!
It'll be the Eagles vs. the Patriots at Alltel Stadium. I'll set it up with the correct starting time and be sure the rosters are up to date.
|
|
|
| |
| NFL Videogames |
| 01.27.05 (3:25 pm) [edit] |
I'm an NFL fan. I love professional football. For me, Sundays are all about football. I'm one of the few people who believe the Super Bowl should be held the Sunday following the Conference Championships simply because I don't want to have to sit through Sunday with no football. (Thankfully, I'm a NASCAR fan too, so my Sundays without a major sporting even are few and far between. The Daytona 500 is held just a few weeks after the Super Bowl.)
That said, I am also a huge videogame fan. Some might call me a gamer. I like them all, racing, football, action, fighting...you name the genre and I usually own the best games of that particular genre (Well, except baseball. There are just some things I won't lower myself to.) Recently there has been a MAJOR development in the videogame world that few outside of those involved in said world are unaware of. The NFL and Electronic Arts ("EA" - makers of some damn fine games) have inked a deal that grants EA the exclusive rights to make videogames using NFL teams, players, stadiums, etc. While other game developers may make a football game, that game cannot use anything having to do with the NFL. The deal is set to expire in 5 years, where the license will either expire, EA can continue to pay for its exclusive rights, or another developer can swoop in a buy the rights...if they have the cash. Here's the problem. In the world of videogames, EA is the 800 lb. gorilla. And not the 800 lb. gorilla that Ford's F150 (the most popular pick-up truck in the US) is to the pick-up world. There are other full-size pick-ups from Chevy, Dodge, etc. that can ALMOST, but not quite, hold their own. NO ONE can compete monetarily with EA. The only other game developers that maybe could compete would be Microsoft or Sony. Both also manufacture game consoles, so it's in their best interest that as many games are sold as possible. More developers = more games, so it's unlikely that either would bid to compete with EA.
Additionally, with videogames striving to be as realistic as possible, in 2010 EA will have had a 5 year head start on any company that would like to try and produce and NFL game. Digitally mapping player faces, team logos, uniforms, stadiums and the like costs money. LOTS of money. It is unlikely any game developer would be willing to spend the money on this type of game development with the possibility that EA could just swoop in and snatch away the rights again at the first sign of competition. All that development goes back down the toilet. It is unlikely that anyone will want to make an NFL game in five years. So in a fairly shrewd move, EA has basically secured exclusive rights to make NFL videogames for the forseable future. EA has reportedly paid about $300 million for the five year deal. After the five years, they will probably be able to pay $20 bucks for it if they want, because I doubt anyone else will be willing to engage in a bidding war with the videogame giant.
The most important result of this decision, I fear, is the lack of competion bred by this deal. There has always been fairly heady competition for the EA's Madden franchise. Back in the Super Nintendo days, Madden was king, but there were many other options. Later on, Madden had competition from 989 Sports NFL Gameday series. In the late 1990's Gameday was superior to Madden. Gameday '98 even used polygonal characters while Madden 98 still used sprites (for non-gamers out there, this would be the difference between holding a real Coke can and a picture of a Coke can.) EA quickly realized it would have to vastly improve its games to remain competetive. And it did, Madden prospered while the Gameday franchise ultimately failed. Most recently, Madden's competion came from Sega's ESPN NFL 2K franchise. Madden remained ahead of the 2K series until 2004. In a major move, NFL 2K5 was released at a price of $19.99. Madden has always sold at the "premium" price, which was around $49.99 last year. To top it off, NFL 2K5 was as good as (and some, myself included, would argue "BETTER.") It stole pretty good chunk of Madden's thunder. Madden was released at the $49.99 price in September, but as early as November the price was dropped to match NFL 2K5's. Because of the new deal, Madden can retail at whatever price the market will bear, there will be no competition. EA can make Madden as good as or as bad as they want, because there will be no competition. And don't think that an NFL game WON'T sell if it sucks. If you made a turd and slapped on some fancy NFL wrapping, it will sell. Especially if it is the only turd available. Another game company could choose to make a football game based on fictional teams, but even if this game was VASTLY superior to whatever Madden game was out, I doubt it would outsell. It's all about the packaging. If you have two games on a shelf, one game labled "Sega Football 2K7," with a generic guy in helmet and shoulder pads and with game reviewers honestly saying "HOLY FUCKING SHIT! THIS IS THE GREATEST FUCKING GAME...EVER! DAMMIT! EVER!!!!!", and one labled in big bold letters "EA SPORTS MADDEN NFL 2007," with a big photo of whatever asshole NFL player is all the rage at the time and that little holographinc NFL shield that identifies "OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE NFL"...Let's just say that the "greatest game ever!" wouldn't stand a chance.
I'm not boycotting EA or the NFL or anything stupid like that. EA just did what was good for business, and the NFL just did what they THOUGHT was good for business. I don't think they considered the long-term consequences of the deal. Like I said earlier, in five years it's doubtful ANYONE will want to compete with EA, so EA will be able to pay whatever they want to renew the license. The NFL will not be able to argue, because they will run the risk of not having ANY NFL game on the market, and they would be losing that revenue. I won't be buying any Madden games, though. At least until they drop the price. Even then, I'll probably do what I sometimes do and buy it used (I did buy ESPN 2K5 new, BECAUSE of the $19.99 price which was reduced to a sale price of $16.35 at Target the week it was released. Take that, EA.)
There is a hard and fast rule in my house that I do not pay more than $19.99 for a game unless 1) it's hard to find and I JUST HAVE TO HAVE IT, or 2) it has "Grand Theft Auto" in the title (Don't know why, but I just love dustin' cops and smackin' hookers around.) I won't even pay full price for my favorite video game series, Metal Gear Solid. Every one of my MGS games has the "Greatest Hits" label applied, signifying that I paid the $19.99 price. I didn't buy Madden this year until the price was reduced to $19.99. Now, EA can keep the price at whatever the premuim price is until they release the next version a year later. There will be no competition. And that pisses me off.
Sega NFL 2K5, R.I.P. You were a better alternative to Madden, and I thank the guys over at Visual Concepts for that. I think another fellow game put it best when he said "We just lived throught the golden age of football games, and didn't even realize it."
|
|
|
| |
| Random Schtuff |
| 01.26.05 (3:26 pm) [edit] |
Okay, so no Super Bowl info today. There's been a conspicuous lack of hype leading up to this one. Maybe because everyone else is tired of the Patriots, too. They are not exactly a large market team like the Cowboys, Dolphins, 49ers, etc. I still hate them, though.
So, you may or may not have heard that Ted Turner blasted Fox News calling them a wing of the Bush Administration. He said that Fox News may be the largest news network (a fact I question, I'd like to see the number of personnel Fox News has to, say, CNN, which has been in the business for 20 some odd years, and define "largest," Ted), but it isn't the best. He drew an analogy by pointing out that Adolph Hitler got the most votes when he was elected to run Germany.
Quick history lesson for you, Ted. Hitler was NEVER elected to office. The Nazi party was one of the largest parties represented in the Reichstag, but due to a large number of economic and other factors, the German government was in disarray and no party was able to garner any support. In 1932 Adolph Hitler was offered a cabinet position under German President Paul von Hindenburg. Hitler held out for the position of Chancellor, but it went instead to Kurt von Schleicher. Schliecher resigned in January of 1933. Hindenburg nominated Hitler for the position, and he took office in January of 1933. The German government eventually collapsed, with Hitler emerging as the dictator of Germany. Hitler never received one vote from the German people before assuming that role.
Just goes to show that when liberal tarheads are on the ropes, they always resort to the old "Well, you're a Nazi!" routine.
|
|
|
| |
| The Super Bowl |
| 01.24.05 (10:43 am) [edit] |
|
Die Superschüssel, La Ciotola Eccellente, A Bacia Super, El Tazon de Fuente Estupendo.
No matter how you say it, the most important event in sports is coming. Why is it the most important event? I don't really know.
Is it the throng of home team fans shouting down the challenger who has invaded their home turf? Nope, the only way the public can buy tickets are to submit your name for a lottery. If your name is drawn you "win" the opportunity to purchase the two tickets. The submission deadline is June 1 the year before the Super Bowl, so the drawing occurs before the actual season has even started! Most of the other tickets go to the two teams and corporate big wigs. Nope, no throngs of fans supporting one team or the other.
Maybe its the promise of adverse weather. After all, nothing is better than a football in late January-early February. What? The games are always held in fair weather stadiums or indoors so weather won't be a factor?
Maybe it's the close competition of the two BEST teams in the league squaring off? Nope, of the 39 Super Bowls so far, only 12 have been decided by a TD or less. Of those 12, only 10 could really be described as "exciting."
So why is the Super Bowl such a big deal? I don't really know. Usually, my blog is dedicated to politics and such, but the Super Bowl is a big deal to me, so the next few days we're going to be talking about it. My favorite moments, fun facts, etc.
Today, though, I'm going to be giving all you gamblers out there a tip. If you're a betting man, bet on the Patriots. I'm not telling you this because I have some inside tip, or some deep knowledge of the game (I like to think I do, but that's got nothing to do with this.) "So why bet on the Patriots?" Because I'm rooting against them. I'm sick of them. I'm tired of hearing that they're "just a bunch of blue-collar/underrated/ha rd-working guys." I'm tired of hearing that Tom Brady is "the most underrated QB in the NFL" despite the fact that he has two Super Bowl MVPs. I'm tired of hearing that Corey Dillon was really just wanted to win in the playoffs, and that was the reason for his being disgruntled in Cincinatti and wanting out. You know what, Barry Sanders NEVER played for a winner, but he never bitched about it. He just went out every Sunday and made grown men look like children. Corey, there's more to being a winner in the NFL than just winning games. I'm tired of seeing a bunch of cheap-shot artists and trash talkers like Tedy Bruschi and Rodney Hampton having success. (As a lifelong Broncos fan, I know you're still a punk, Rodney.) I'm just generally sick and tired of the Patriots. But I digress...
On to why, if you're going to bet on the Super Bowl, you should bet on the Patriots. It's because I'm pulling against them. My track record for who I want to win speaks for itself. Going back to Super Bowl XX, which is the very first NFL game I ever watched, and is responsible for my freakish addiction to NFL football, here is the team I pulled for and the final outcome.
XX: Bears. Won over the Patriots, 46-10. Not bad for a beginner
XXI: Broncos. Lost to the Giants, 39-20. Okay, 1-1
XXII: Broncos. Lost to the Redskins, 42-10.
XXIII: Bengals. Lost to the 49ers, 20-16. Only last-second heroics from the great Joe Montana kept me from being 2-2. Great game.
XXIV: Broncos. Lost to the 49ers, 55-10.
XXV: Bills. Lost to the Giants, 20-19. This game is synonomous with two words..."Wide Right!" Arrrgh! Another great game.
XXVI: Redskins. Won over the Bills, 37-24.
XXVII: Bills. Lost to the Cowboys,52-17.
XXVIII: Bills. Lost to the Cowboys (AGAIN!), 30-13.
XXIX: Chargers. Lost to the 49ers, 36-49.
XXX: Steelers. Lost to the Cowboys, 27-17.
XXXI: Packers. Beat the Patriots, 35-21.
XXXII: Broncos. Beat the Packers, 31-24. Greatest...Super Bowl...Ever!
XXXIII: Broncos. Beat the lowly Falcons, 34-19. SECOND...Greatest...!
XXXIV: Rams. Beat the Titans, 23-16. What a finish! Are things turning around for me?
XXXV: Giants. Nope. Lost to the Ravens, 34-7.
XXXVI: Rams. Lost to the Patriots, 20-17.
XXXVII: Didn't give a shit. Broncos fans hate the Raiders. I also hate Tampa Bay.
XXXVIII: Panthers. Lost to the Patriots, 32-29.
So, in the 19 Super Bowls we've had, I've pulled for the winner six times, two times the winner was the Broncos. I'm pulling against the Patriots this year, so place your bets.
|
|
|
| |
| What's good for the goose...?? |
| 01.20.05 (5:19 pm) [edit] |
A body guard of liberal uber-pussy Michael Moore was arrested today for carrying a firearm in the state of New York without a New York license. The bodyguard produced his licenses for the states of Florida and California, but did not have a New York license.
Funny, ain't it? The man who brought us "Bowling for Columbine" where he used tricky editing and falsehoods (which you can read about here) to "expose" American's Gun Culture now feels it's necessary to hire armed body guards.
Hey, fatass, did you know that if the NRA (a group you so lovingly describe as a bunch of whackos) your poor body guard, employed by Gavid de Becker & Associates, would not have been arrested? That's right! The NRA is in favor of legislation that requires states to honor Concealed Carry Permits issued by other states. That way, if your a law enforcement or security professional, you don't have to jump through hoops to obtain permits from the states that don't accept out-or-state permits. Why don't you do an expose' about fucktard liberals that don't practice what they preach?
See:
Rosie O'Donnell
Why is it okay for you to HIRE someone to protect you with a firearm? Why is it not okay for me to protect myself and my family with a firearm if I want? It can't be that your just one of those evil capitalist pigs that puts out a product (Bowling for Columbine, Stupid White Men, Dude-Where's My Country) for the sake of making money, can it? NAH!
|
|
|
| |
| Sports related Crap |
| 01.19.05 (11:00 am) [edit] |
|
Wow! What a long break. I promise to be more diligent in posting for my loyal readers. (all 1 of you.)
Today I want to talk about sports, specifically, Major League Baseball. Even more specific, I want to talk about Roger Clemens. The Rocket. It seems ol' Roger is asking for $22 million to play this season. $17.5 million is the largest single season salary so far, and that belongs to Pedro Martinez. (FYI, the Astros are offering Clemons $13.5 million. Clemens made about $5 million last season.) There is some speculation that Clemens is asking for such a large amount because he doesn't want to play this year and knows the Astros won't be able to offer him that amount. That way, when he doesn't play this season, he can't be called a "quitter," he can just say they didn't want to pay him what he wanted. Just for fun, I ran some numbers on Roger with a $22 million salary.
Roger Clemens has enjoyed a 20 year career in baseball, with a 328-164 record. I thought I'd go back and look at the 2000-2004 seasons, and see what the Astros would be buying for 20 Mil.
Clemens has averaged 32 starts per season over the last five, so the Astros would be paying $687,500.00 per start.
He has averaged 16 wins per season (compared to 6 losses), or $1,375,000 per win.
At an average of 206 Innings Pitched, he would earn $106,848.00 per inning.
Averaging 200.2 strike outs per season, he would earn $109,890.11 per strike out.
But wait! Houston's in the American League, so Clemens would have to bat as well! Clemens has only had to bat over the last 9 seasons.
**Clemens has 92 career at bats, with 72 coming in 2004, so this will skew the numbers a bit.**
Averaging 8 at bats per season, he would be earning $2,750,000 per at bat.
Clemens has scored 3 career runs (.33 runs per season), so odds are he wouldn't even score to earn his $22,000,000.
Averaging 1.78 hits per season (lets round it up to 2), he'd earn $11,000,000 PER HIT! (MLB's hits leader for 2004, Ichiro Suzuki, would have earned $2,882,000,000 at that rate. Almost $3 Billion!)
Now, don't get me wrong. Roger Clemens is a great pitcher. He is the winningest active pitcher in baseball with 328 wins. (Cy Young, the all time winningest pitcher, has won 511 games. Averaging 16.4 wins per season, Clemens would have to pitch another 12 years to break that record.)
He is second all-time in career strike-outs with 4,317 (Nolan Ryan, the leader and, IMO, the greatest of all time, has 5,714. Averaging 215.85 per season, he'd have to pitch another 7 season to break that record.)
However, in today's Major League Baseball, when a starting pitcher only comes to work (i.e. plays in a game) 30 times a season, when at least HALF a team's roster is dedicated to pitching (there are about 40 players on each team, and usually around 20 are pitchers)...is a pitcher who's only going to win you 20 or so games in a GOOD season (Make that GREAT season), worth $22,000,000? I guess the Astros will answer that question.
|
|
|
| |
|
WARNING!!
May contain prejudiced, offensive, right-wing, sexist, homophobic, redneck, or other generally offensive language. Not suitable for children under the age of 3. If you are easily offended, like to point out grammatical or spelling errors, or are just generally disagreeable, go away.
LINKS
Addicted to Plastic - my toy collecting blog, also useless
Well, That's Just Prime! My weekly web comic, updated promptly on Friday-ish
Nealz Nuze
The MullBlog
Radio Gawds
Chuck Norris CAN divide by zero
|
