Shaquille O'Neal is at it again. After showing some improvement in the area of freethrow shooting (he actually hit 11 in a row over the course of two games and is shooting like 69% over his last 100 chucks [which for him is a molten lava hot streak]) Shaquille gave himself yet another nickname, Shaqovic. His reasoning for his latest nickname is that all of the best shooters in the NBA have a last name that ends with "vich"(Stojakovic, Radmanovic, Vujacic, etc.).
I have to admit that the big fella is funny and often times very creative when it comes to giving himself nicknames. Over the years he has dubbed himself "Shaq," "The Diesel," "Shaq Fu," "The Big Aristotle," "The Big Daddy," "Superman," "The Big Agave," "The Big Cactus," "The Big Shaqtus," "The Big Galactus," "Wilt Chamberneezy," "The Big Baryshnikov," "The Real Deal," and "Dr. Shaq" (after earning his MBA). His back yard at his Miami mansion had a water slide and a tiki-bar and so he named it Shaqapulco.
SportsCenter ran a story on this last week and asked viewers to come up with their own nicknames for Shaq. All I can say is that the list was lame as lame can be and for this reason I started thinking of my own nicknames for the great Shaquille O'Neal.
Friday, January 16, 2009
Shaq Nicknames
Posted by Jim at 2:53 PM 3 comments
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Who is the best NFL player you've ever seen?
Who is the best NFL player you've ever seen? I ask this question because every national radio show I listen to this week is debating whether or not Larry Fitzgerald is now the best receiver in the NFL. I say yes, but it got me thinking about who would be the best NFL player I have ever seen. I'm relatively young, so my history doesn't go back to guys like Jim Brown, Gale Sayers, Roger Staubach, etc., but I have seen Joe Montana, John Elway, Walter Payton, Emmitt Smith, Jerry Rice, Lawrence Taylor, and Ronnie Lott. But none of those guys would get my vote because Barry Sanders is the best football player I have ever seen. As icing on the cake, he was also the best player I ever used on Tecmo Super Bowl too (with apologies to Bo Jackson and QB-Eagles, who both contend for that crown). If anyone reading this has seen Jim Brown, please post who you think is better and why, because I can't imagine a better back than Barry.
I used to look forward to Thanksgiving day just so I could watch Barry Sanders play football. The Lions weren't on television too often (especially since the market I live in plays mostly the Broncos and 49ers) and I always expected something amazing. Barry had a way of making people look stupid that I've never seen anyone else come close to, other than maybe Reggie Bush in college. Barry never rushed for under 1,100 yards in a season and averaged over 1,500 yards per season. His lowest season total (1,115) came when he missed the last 5 games with an injury.
He had 14 straight games of 100+ yards in 1997, an NFL record. He fumbled only 41 times in his career - only once per 83 touches (for a reference point, Jim Brown fumbled once every 43 touches). Barry played on a crappy team and he was the only weapon; he didn't have an Aikman or Irvin to distract the defense. And he still did stuff like this:
The quality isn't great, but you get the point. If you want more check this one out (notice the crazy juke on 51 in the second one). He could stop on a dime, break ankles, and spin at full speed. He had defenders looking foolish and leaving their straps on the field on a regular basis. I'm not saying Barry Sanders is the best football player of all time, but he is the best I've ever seen. What's your take?
Posted by Taylor at 11:48 AM 4 comments
Monday, January 12, 2009
The BCS is Awesome.
I mean it. I know Boyd says poo on the BCS, but come on, it's awesome. What other sport has you pissing and moaning about who deserves to be called the best days (and probably weeks) after the final game was played? I don't remember anyone talking about how the Patriots should have actually been the NFL champs, or the Lakers as the NBA champs. This is what makes the BCS so great: it is consistently debated and no one ever stops talking about it.
Utah and Texas fans are up in arms right now because they got "screwed by the BCS." If college football had a plus-1 (as everyone seems to be pimping right now) the Utes wouldn't have even gotten in. So, a full playoff would be great. But how many teams? 8? 12? 16? There is always going to be some complaint in college football, so why not let the complaining be about the BCS and who gets hosed every year? It makes for great debate. I can sit around with my friends and debate the BCS for hours. With a playoff, it would be something like this: Well, I figured Florida would win and they did. Captivating. I'd rather debate what would happen if Utah played Florida or USC than discuss who just won a playoff. For my money, the BCS gives us something extra to talk about, something to get irate about.
Everyone wants some kind of a playoff, but how often does the best team win a single-elimination playoff? Was Kansas truly the best team in college basketball last year? Were the Giants really the best team in the NFL? Does anyone really think the Cardinals, Eagles, Ravens or Steelers is the best team in the league this season? Mostly just their own fans. The NBA and MLB both do it right - a series. You can't really make the argument that the Celtics weren't the best team in the NBA last year because they had to go through 4 series' in order to win the trophy. But, the Giants as the best team in the NFL last year after the season the Patriots had? No - the sun shines on every dog's a$ at least once. The G men played their best game of the season when it mattered. It doesn't mean they were the best team in the NFL, but they were crowned champions. In a 7-game series, the Pats win in 6 max. But without it, the 10-6 Giants get the crown. But at least they had to go through a playoff, right?
If a college football playoff could be done that included at least 8 teams, it would be awesome. I can only assume the ratings would be through the roof. But how do you decide who gets in? Each of the BCS conferences get one team in and the other two are at-large? If that's the case this year, then eligible for the two at-large spots would be Utah (12-0), Alabama (12-1), Texas (11-1), The Ohio State (10-2), Boise State (12-0), and Texas Tech (11-1). Who do you leave out? Or do you just put in the top 8 teams regardless (not irregardless) of conference affiliation? Personally, I think that would be awesome, but current BCS conferences would throw a hissy fit and Notre Dame would find some way to buy themselves a guaranteed spot using NBC's money. But would a playoff like this (or any kind) put a damper on the regular season? That's what all these college football experts keep saying - the BCS makes the regular season mean something. Would a playoff change that? Would it become like college basketball, where only the die-hard fans pay attention before the tourney starts, or would it increase in popularity and build on the already growing fan base?
The point is, nothing in college football is ever going to work. Maybe they should go half an NCAA basketball tournament - a 32 (.5) team playoff. At least that way the only team whining would be #33, and no one gives a deuce about them. The BCS allows the controversy that is college football to be put on display all season long, most especially for one week in early January for everyone to watch. It's not perfect, but it sure makes for some good debate. The BCS is awesome.
Posted by Taylor at 11:12 PM 4 comments
Friday, January 9, 2009
To BCS or not to BCS? That is the Question.
So the NCAA College Football season is over, the Bowls have been played out, and the Poll votes have been cast. Now that it's all over, I have to tell you, I'm a little disappointed with the results. Florida beat Oklahoma 24-14 in a sloppy, boring BCS Championship game last night, and only 16 voters had the sack to vote Utah #1 in the AP poll this morning after they dominated Alabama, who held the nation's top ranking for most of the season, 31-17 in the Sugar Bowl last week. I find this whole BCS mess very sad and I'll tell you why.
Posted by Jim at 8:11 AM 0 comments
Monday, January 5, 2009
Predictions for 2009
By the end of the week we should have this site revamped because we are expanding a bit. Of course we want to thank everyone who has kept up with us so far and we hope you keep coming to see what we have to spew at you next.
Everyone seems to make New Year’s resolutions when the calendar flips to January. I made a couple this year, but my prediction is that I won’t accomplish any of them for more than a month. So instead of making a New Year’s resolution post, here are some predictions for 2009. Most of them are predictions, but some of them are things that I just want to happen. As always, feel free to add what you expect to see.
Brett Farve will retire. Please.
Now that I have my required anti-Farve comment out of the way, 2009 will also bring the following:
The BCS will screw someone next year, just like it did to Texas and Utah this year.
Joe Paterno will make it through the entire year. Not just his job, but his life too.
The Utah Utes will finish third in the Mountain West in football, as they are typically accustomed to under Kyle Whittingham.
If Tim Tebow decides to stay in school, the Gators will go undefeated next season and Tebow will win his second Heisman trophy.
An important college football trend will continue: players will continue to hold up four fingers to let people know when the fourth quarter is beginning. We lay people appreciate that.
The Detroit Lions will show marked improvement by going 3-13 next season. Just for the record, I was on the bandwagon for the Lions unblemished season pretty early on this season. I knew they could do it.
Reggie Bush will again not reach 1,000 yards rushing.
The Seattle Seahawks will return to their rightful place as perennial NFC West champs.
The Cowboys will implode and TO will light the fuse.
The New York Yankees will make the playoffs only to lose in the first round.
The New York Mets will make the playoffs only to lose in the first round.
North Carolina will not win the NCAA basketball championship this year. I’m not sure who will win it, but it won’t be UNC. Or Duke.
Stephen Curry will hang 50 on someone.
The Boston Celtics will beat the Lakers in the NBA Finals. Again. It’ll go 7 this time, but Boston will pull it out. Again. (unlike on Christmas, when the Lakers defeated the Celtics. Jim has mentioned this in past posts, so I'll leave it at that...)
I will finally admit that LeBron James is better than Kobe Bryant. I still can’t do it yet.
Jim and Boyd will continue to be firmly planted on Paul Pierce’s jockstrap.
Posted by Taylor at 11:01 PM 1 comments
Friday, January 2, 2009
New Year's Resolutions
Every year at this time people all over the world decide to put their collective foot down and make some changes in their sad lives. The New Year's Resolution is something to which each of us have fallen victim over the years. I myself have purchased the Torso Tiger, the Ab Roller, the Torso Tornado, and that one ab thingy that you attach to your abs and turn on the electricity and it makes your abs contract while you watch TV and eat nachos, which by the way did NOT work (that Bruce Lee was full of shit, man). How many of us have made the resolution to lose 20 or 30 pounds only to reach the end of the next year with an extra 10 pounds to add to our goal? A wise man once defined insanity as doing the same thing over and over again but expecting different results, so why do we put ourselves through this nonsense year after year? I suppose we all need a little hope in our lives, even if most of the time it is a fool's hope.
Posted by Jim at 10:07 AM 2 comments