Skip to main content

Posts

Showing posts with the label talking heads

Admit it, ESPN Saban-homers, you were wrong!

I found it utterly hilarious to listen to the ESPN talking heads discussing the college football national championship game from last night. It's as if they were all involved in a you-got-it-more-wrong-than-I-did shouting match. "You picked Alabama!" "Oh yeah?!? Well, you picked them by 50!" "At least I knew who Trevor Lawrence was!" "I said Lawrence was a better quarterback than Tua!" "Oh, no you didn't! You never even uttered his name!" Then there were "experts" who went the denial route, saying, "I still can't believe it happened. I'm stunned. I woke up today and thought, 'Was I dreaming?'" Just admit it, you drank the Nick Saban/Alabama Kool-Aid and were wrong, as Donald Trump would say, "bigly!" I admit, before bowl season began, I thought Alabama was going to win the title. After watching the semifinal games between the Tide and Oklahoma, as well as Notre Dame a...

GOP: "We want our country back!"

It seems like everywhere I go, I'll see at least one bumper sticker or hear at least one person say, "We want our country back!" These people are typically conservative Republicans. Whenever I see or hear this, three questions immediately spring to mind: 1) Is this a regular occurrence for people on the opposite side of the political spectrum as the president?, 2) How far back do they want to go exactly?, and 3) Would they rather alter the phrase to, "We want to change our country's direction"? I think it would be perfectly understandable for Republicans to not be fully on board with a Democratic president's policies just as it would be perfectly understandable for Democrats to not be fully on board with a Republican president's policies. It's also understandable that, due to this, these disgruntled voters would want a change in direction in the Oval Office, and with that, the policies leading this country forward. However, the phrasing of ...

Why Mike Greenberg and company are wrong about the Odell Beckham, Jr. catch not being the greatest ever

If you're a football fan, chances are you saw the incredible catch New York Giants rookie wideout Odell Beckham, Jr. made on Sunday night against the Dallas Cowboys. If not, you can watch it here (again and again and again): http://www.businessinsider.com/odell-beckham-jr-giants-greatest-catch-ever-2014-11 Right after the catch took place, NBC announcer and former NFL wide receiver Chris Collinsworth said, "That may be the greatest catch I've ever seen." So, of course, over the past 36 hours, ESPN talking heads have debated, "Is it the greatest catch ever?" and some, including Mike Greenberg, appear to be off in their analysis. Co-host of Mike & Mike , Mike Greenberg, said the Beckham catch didn't even belong in the top 5 of best catches ever. His top 5 were comprised of big catches in Super Bowls. There's a difference between greatest catch and biggest catch. Odell Beckham, Jr.'s three-fingered catch can never be classified as one ...

The playoff committee is right to not think much of the Big Ten

Earlier today, it appeared as if some ESPN commentators thought the playoff committee wasn't showing the Big Ten enough respect with their latest rankings. On Tuesday night, the committee released their second batch of top 25 rankings, which included the following Big Ten teams: 8. Michigan State (7-1) 13. Nebraska (8-1) 14. Ohio State (7-1) 25. Wisconsin (6-2) Michigan State was leapfrogged by Kansas State on Tuesday, Nebraska and Ohio State are behind two-loss Mississippi, and outside of Duke, the Cornhuskers and Buckeyes are the lowest ranked of the one-loss teams. So, do the ESPN talking heads have a point or is the playoff committee right in not giving the Big Ten as much respect as most other major conferences? Well, I'm sorry to disappoint the ESPN "analysts," but there's a very good reason why the playoff committee isn't displaying much respect for the Big Ten conference; they're a power 5 worst 5-11 against the other four major confere...

NFL Hot Topics (on the field)

Over the past 24 hours or so, I've heard a great deal of talk on ESPN about the following topics in the NFL world (besides Adrian Peterson, Greg Hardy, and Ray Rice) and thought I'd chime in, because I've had to shake my head a great deal at some of the ESPN talking heads. 1) "Was Seattle exposed?" Uh, no... The defending Super Bowl champion Seattle Seahawks were not "exposed" due to a 30-21 road loss to the San Diego Chargers. The fact of the matter is, while Seattle has been nearly unbeatable at home the past 2+ years (16-1 to this point, 18-1 including the playoffs), they have been a good, but not great road team. Over that same time-frame, Seattle is 9-8 on the road (10-9 including the playoffs). So, no, in a road game where veterans Philip Rivers and Antonio Gates played about as close to perfection as a quarterback and tight end can, and still being in the game until close to the very end, does not mean Seattle was exposed - not by a long shot....

A closer look at the ABC/Washington Post poll

As seems to so often be the case, the 24-hour news media seems to be obsessing over a couple of components of the new ABC/Washington Post poll, and I'm here to say, unless this becomes a trend, it's being blown out of proportion. The two components I'm talking about are with regard to President Obama's approval rating and also whether or not voters want to see Democrats or Republicans in charge of Congress following the upcoming midterms. According to this poll, President Obama is at a net -11 approval rating (41% approving, 52% disapproving). Also, according to this poll, Republicans are at a +14 (53-39) when asked if voters would rather see them or Democrats be in control of Congress after the midterm elections. However, like I said, unless these numbers become a trend, I think they're getting blown out of proportion - due to other recent polls, as well as some other numbers within the same ABC/Washington Post poll. According to Real Clear Politics, Democr...

Some people understand satire about as well as Fox News viewers understand facts

So, did you hear? Satirist Stephen Colbert - host of the Comedy Central show The Colbert Report - got heavily criticized by the media over the weekend due to a tweet he didn't post. I know - crazy, right? What happened was on Thursday night, someone involved with the show, tweeted the following message: "I am willing to show #Asian community I care by introducing the Ching-Chong Ding-Dong Foundation for Sensitivity to Orientals or Whatever." Whomever posted the tweet left the message void of any context, so understandably, some in the Asian community got offended. When conservative talking heads saw this, they jumped on the bandwagon, and before we knew it, #CancelColbert was trending on Twitter. However, if one were to view the before-mentioned punchline surrounded by the proper context, it seems painfully clear that Stephen Colbert and his writers weren't attempting to offend anyone in the Asian community. What they were doing was attempting to satirize Wash...

For all those defending Jim Schwartz's fake field goal...

It amazes me that so many ESPN talking heads are defending Detroit Lions head coach Jim Schwartz's fake field goal in the Lions 37-27 loss to the Pittsburgh Steelers on Sunday afternoon. While listening to the ESPN programs Around the Horn and Pardon the Interruption  yesterday, the verdict was nearly unanimous - Jim Schwartz was aggressive, playing to win the game, and in essence, made the right call. I get it. A lot of sports enthusiasts like seeing aggressive play-calling. Even if a team is facing a 4th-and-27 from their own 8-yard line, I'll hear hometown homers yell out, "Go for it!" However, while these out-of-the-ordinary play-calls might be good for sports talk radio, that doesn't make them good calls. I'm a numbers geek through and through, and this is even true when it comes to football. I can remember being at a bar for an Ohio State/Northwestern game about a month or so ago. The Buckeyes, whom had trailed almost all game, were about to face ...

Conservatives respond to President Obama's Trayvon Martin speech

One has to love the comments made by conservative talking heads in light of President Obama's speech this past weekend regarding Trayvon Martin's death Here now are some of those very comments, along with my responses to them: Fox News' Todd Starnes: "Obama's comments today justify what I said on Hannity earlier this week. He truly is trying to tear our country apart." By admitting there's racism in this country? Was Martin Luther King trying to tear the country apart also with his "I have a dream" speech? Conservative blogger Dan Riehl: "If you ever had any doubts, Obama is the first Racist in Chief" Yes, Congressional Republicans have continually been trying to make voting rights more difficult to come by for minorities, yet President Obama is the racist for simply discussing the topic. Breitbart.com editor-in-chief Ben Shapiro: "Obama helped ignite this ginned up racial melee by saying his son would look like...

Robert Morris' upset of Kentucky is being overblown

In the 1st-round of the NIT, last year's national champion - Kentucky - fell to Robert Morris by the final score of 59-57 last night, and it's being hailed by some talking heads in the media as one of the biggest upsets in the history of college basketball. I'm sorry, but that's absurd. For those that don't know about the NIT, many jokingly say it stands for the Not Invited Tournament. The NCAA Tournament selects the 68 best teams to play in a single-elimination tournament. There are four play-in-type games to condense the field to 64 teams when the tournament really gets underway. The next "best" batch of 32 teams play in a similar-style single-elimination tournament by the name of the NIT. So, teams ranked between 69 and 100 play in the NIT. These are teams whom showcased they were better-than-average, but not good enough to get invited to the NCAA Tournament. Given that, Kentucky's loss to Robert Morris last night, while sure, it was an upset, w...

Skeet-Shooting-Gate

Not long after President Obama mentioned that he goes skeet shooting rather regularly when at Camp David and the White House released a photo of the president skeet shooting were multiple conspiracies born via right-wing media outlets. What were some of these conspiracy theories? Allow me to share them with you... Michael Harlin, writer for The American Thinker (obviously that's not the case, but anyway...), had the following to say - "Now, what's wrong with the president's picture? First the weapon is nearly level to the ground. Can't be skeet shooting, nor likely trap either." Yes, because with tensions near and far to worry about, the first thing on President Obama's mind is to photoshop a picture of him skeet shooting or to lie about skeet shooting. President's priority list is as follows: 1) Improve the economy 2) End the war in Afghanistan 3) Convince the country he goes skeet shooting while at Camp David Mr. Harlin had more to say a...

Sportswriters' projection regarding Manti Te'o

Every time a sportswriter or talking head criticizes Manti Te'o for being gullible, I have to laugh. Who was it again that bought into and reported the story over and over again to millions of people without doing an ounce of research? Rumor has it that ESPN has a fake girlfriend of its own - her name is journalism. Tim Tebow has been demoted to a friend with benefits.

NFL commentators' fickleness and hyperbole

Ah, how I long for it around this time every year - sports writers and commentators showing their fickle and hyperbolic ways. The NFL is unlike any other professional sport, because unlike in baseball, basketball or hockey, where multiple games are played every week and it's difficult to make mention of them all in daily (or weekly) columns or show segments, every team plays one game per week (with the occasional bye). This gives these sports writers and commentators all week long to talk about the weekend's game(s) and speculate about what will happen in the following week and weeks after that. We're only two weeks into the NFL season, yet I've heard the following questions or comments mentioned by such individuals: "Are the Saints done?"/"The Saints are done!" "Have the Patriots lost it?"/"Have teams figured out the Patriots offense?" "Are the 49ers the best team?"/"Are the 49ers destined for the Super Bow...

I think it would be pretty stupid for Romney to bring up Reverend Jeremiah Wright

In recent days, more and more Republican talking heads have come out in saying that Republican presidential candidate, Mitt Romney, should attack Barack Obama with regard to his ties to Reverend Jeremiah Wright. Personally, I feel this would be a mistake by the Romney campaign. Yes, I will be voting for the incumbent president, but I'm not saying this because I think attacking him on Wright will hinder his chances any. ...quite the contrary actually... Why do I feel this way? First off, Jeremiah Wright is old news. The far-right attempted to attack Obama in this way four years ago and guess what? It didn't work. Last I heard, Obama is the president. So it's not going to help them any to give this worn strategy another try. Secondly and probably most importantly, if Romney goes after Obama due to Reverend Wright, this puts his being a Mormon in play as well. I've said time and time again I don't think that people should factor Romney's religious beliefs into ...

I actually feel bad for moderate Republicans in Congress/running for president

I am by no means a Republican, far from it. I'd probably refer to myself as a liberal independent, who tends to vote for the Democratic candidates. However, in saying that, I still feel bad for moderate to liberal Republicans in the House, Senate and/or those running for the oval office. After the GOP sold themselves to the Evangelical community and conservative radio along with Fox News hit the airwaves the party has become progressively more conservative (progressively more conservative sounds wrong, yet makes me chuckle, so I'll stick with it). Look back through the history of the Republican Party - Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower, Ronald Reagan, etc. These presidents would not have fit in with the Republican Party of today. It humors me to hear so many high-powered members of the party claim that Ronald Reagan was the greatest president in the history of this country and treat him like their role model, because if they look at his policies, what he d...