Pre-season football is a fickle sports writer's wet dream (yes, I realize fickle sports writer is a tad redundant)

Of all sports, football is definitely my favorite. I prefer college to pro ball, but will still watch NFL football most Sundays and Mondays during the course of the season. Rarely do I ever watch pre-season football, however. I've said for a while that the only purpose for pre-season games is to see which 5-10 players will complete the roster at the start of the season. While that's going on, coaches and owners pray to the football gods that their star player(s) don't get hurt in the process. As a fan of football, but not necessarily any particular team, there really is no point for me to watch pre-season games. The games are next to meaningless (unless a key player gets hurt). With all the substituting that occurs, it's difficult for most teams to find a rhythm suitable for a regular season game. One would be more prone to find this in practice than at a pre-season game, because all the first-teamers will be on the field together and on the same page with things. With all the substituting of rookies and free agent pick-ups that goes on through a pre-season game, it can be quite difficult for all eleven guys in the huddle to be on the same wavelength.

Sports writers are on a different page than me (and most fans, I believe) with regard to pre-season football. They want to be fickle, hyperbolic and make it as if the third pre-season game for a team is as critical as the AFC Championship. After Peyton Manning went without throwing a touchdown pass in each of the Denver Broncos' first two pre-season games, these writers were asking, "What's wrong with Peyton Manning?" Eh, nothing. The guy didn't play a great deal and had to contend with all the other distractions of pre-season games which I mentioned earlier. New York Jets' quarterback, Mark Sanchez, hasn't played great in the pre-season and writers are already saying there may be a quarterback controversy for the team, even though back-up, Tim Tebow, only completed 4 of 14 passes in his most recent pre-season effort. Rookie Indianapolis Colts' quarterback, Andrew Luck, has impressed sport writers this pre-season, so much so that the guy is already being heralded the next Peyton Manning - based on his pre-season games. While I've heard some players and coaches say, "It's not what you can do in the regular season. It's what you can do in the playoffs." I've never head someone say, "It's not what you can do in the regular season or playoffs. It's what you can do in the pre-season."

Sports writers are known to be more fickle than George Michael is homosexual, yet even in mentally preparing myself for this before reading an article of theirs or hearing them speak, I'm flabbergasted by the ridiculous levels of fickleness and hyperbole that I witness. Yes, if we go by sports writers' logic, the teams whom met in the Super Bowl last year - the New York Giants and New England Patriots - should be mighty worried about their teams' chances this year, as both teams are 1-2. Aaron Rodgers and the Green Bay Packers are 1-2 as well. Who's the team we should all be on the lookout for? The 3-0 Seattle Seahawks! They've outscored their three pre-season opponents by an astounding 60 points! Super Bowl, here we come! Nevermind the fact that Seattle finished the season 7-9 a year ago and will be starting a rookie - Russell Wilson - at quarterback at the start of the season.

I realize there isn't a great deal to talk about right now in the world of football (until Thursday, which college football kicks off) and that sports writers are pretty excited about the coming season, so much so that they want to talk about it, even though there's not a great deal to talk about. I can understand that. However, there really isn't a need to start too many soap operas before the league's first actual regular season game. Just try to sit back, relax, watch the countdown clock to the first regular season game and watch "The Young and the Restless" marathons to prep you for the NFL regular season and playoffs.

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"

The Kind-Hearted Smart Aleck

Search This Blog