FIRE JOE MORGAN

Stuck in the airport on the way back from Branson. Bored bored bored. Mrs. Tremendous is re-reading The Secret, so I break out the ol' laptop and see that we just hit 1000 posts! Nice work, us. Then I lope around the internets and do some reading, and I think to myself: For FJM Post #1001, instead of attacking another old hack who still thinks it's inexplicable that the White Sox are playing .440 ball, how about breaking down a jokey, Page 2 Scoop Jackson article on why Tennis is better than College Football?

Nice little change of pace. No facts to analyze, no stats -- just Scoop's good old fashioned weird opinions, and the bloggers who love them.

Let me first say that I like both college football and tennis. I have never thought to compare the two, mainly because why would you ever compare the two? Clearly Scoop has a bee in his bonnet, though, so let's take a look-see at some of his reasons.

Despite what everyone else may tell you, here are 25 reasons why tennis is better than college football:

I'm glad he's doing this. Everyone -- and I mean everyone -- has been talking my ear off recently about how college football is better than tennis. I can't get people to fucking shut up about how college football is better than tennis. Even in Branson, I couldn't swing a cat at a Kirby Vanburch show without hitting some dude who was prattling on about "Oh, college football is so great" and "college football is soooo much better than tennis," and whatnot. I can't wait to send this article to everyone I know, so they will all stop talking about how college football is better than tennis.

1. Because even though she lost this weekend, Maria Sharapova didn't go out like Notre Dame.

We are already in trouble in terms of variable comparison here. I think for a Page 2 article, it would have actually been a good opening gambit to just write: 1. Maria Sharapova. That would have been...something. A cheap, appeal-to-idiot-dudes something, but something. Comparing Sharapova's U.S. open loss to Notre Dame's loss...as a reason tennis is better than college football...?...?...?

2. Because, right now, Ohio State versus Michigan cannot come close to Federer versus Nadal.

Perhaps not. But you should have used like Florida-Florida State, since bringing up Michigan reminds one that one might counter this point by saying that nothing in tennis comes close to Appalachian State beating Michigan in the Big House on a blocked field goal after a 46-yard hail mary to get Michigan into field goal range with 6 seconds left.

4. Ana Ivanovic.

And see now you go ahead and do the thing where you just type the name of a hot lady. Sigh.

5. No player in college football has fathers like Venus and Serena Williams or Marion Bartoli.

I don't know what Marion Bartoli's father is like, but do you really want to celebrate Richard Williams? He did a lot of amazing things for his daughters, but he's also a little loopy, I think. Remember when Venus was booed at Indian Wells for bailing on a match with Serena, and Richard Williams said: "It's the worst act of prejudice I've seen since they killed Martin Luther King"? I'm positive that the Williams family has encountered their share of racism, but that seems insulting to a lot of people who have suffered actual brutal acts of racism.

Although, what do I know -- maybe a mild smattering of boos at a tennis tournament is the second-worst act of racism in the last 40 or so years, next to that horrifying murder. Whatever. The point is, tennis is better than college football.

6. Because no coach is bigger than the player or the program.

Why is this good or bad for either sport?

7. Because as cute as Ian Johnson and Chrissy Popadics' story is, they'll never match Andre Agassi and Steffi Graf's.

Here I'm just going to have to straight-up call bullshit. Johnson and Popadics, you'll remember, are the Boise State football player and cheerleader, respectively, who got engaged on national TV when Johnson, basking in the glow of his winning score in the Broncos' insane overtime fumblerooski-laden Statue-of-Liberty-Play riddled 43-42 victory over Oklahoma in the Fiesta Bowl, dropped to one knee and popped the question. It was the most hilariously wonderful and American and college-y thing I have ever seen. (They later received death threats due to the fact that Johnson is black and Popadics is white, and persevered, ["You take it for what it is — the less educated, the less willing to change," said Johnson, level-headedly] which makes me love them even more.)

Anyway, that's their story.

Graf and Agassi were two famous multi-millionaire tennis players who met after they both won a tournament and got married, and they have cute kids, and it's very nice. That's their story. How is that better than proposing on TV right after you score a touchdown to upset a massive powerhouse and win the Fiesta Bowl and finish a 13-0 season?

8. Because they don't name college football stadiums after jazz icons (Louis Armstrong), AIDS and human rights activists (Arthur Ashe) or world-class, world-changing feminists (Billie Jean King).

It maybe should be noted that Ashe and King were also...tennis players. Which maybe is also a reason they named tennis stadiums after them. And Armstrong lived near the site of the stadium. It's not like when they build a new Centre Court at Wimbledon they'll name it "John Lennon Stadium" just because he was a cool dude who was pro-peace. And I'm not the guy to ask -- and too lazy to research -- but I'd bet some of the people that college football stadiums were named after were decent people.

9. Because the NCAA would never invite eight "wild card" teams to play in their "tournament" the way the USTA did with players like John Isner and Donald Young at the Open.

Again, I hate to rewrite your article for you, but the fact that you put "tournament" in quotes indicates that you know that there is no championship "tournament" in college football, and that this is a sore spot for a lot of people, and maybe you could have just said: "Tennis has tournaments to decide its champions," and maybe that would be a stronger argument, since: who the hell are John Isner and Donald Young?

10. Because even though more people will watch Virginia Tech at LSU on Saturday, nothing in that game will match what will happen in the three matches on Super Saturday.

So, the #10 reason that tennis is better than college football, is that the theoretical like "goodness" of three future tennis matches will outweigh the theoretical "goodness" of a future college football game.

Strong. Strong argument.

12. Roger Federer plays tennis and no one in college football is close to being that good.

How might one person playing a team sport display the same talents as one person playing an individual sport? How might one do that, Mr. Scoop, sir, if you please? You know why eggs are better than lucite? Because eggs can be made into omelets and there's nothing involving lucite that is as good as omelets.

13. The on-the-court postmatch interview between Andy Roddick and Justin Gimelstob.

Didn't see it. It sounds amazing, though. Thanks for the excellent description.

15. Because Dick Enberg, John McEnroe and Mary Carillo are better than anyone except the GameDay crew.

So: tennis is better than college football because tennis's announcing A-team is better than any college football booth team except for college football's studio A-team. Take that, college football!

18. Of the next superstars in both sports (Juan Martin del Potro of Argentina and Brian Brohm of Louisville), even if or when Brohm gets picked No. 1 in the 2008 NFL draft, del Potro will have a better career.

Let's count the number of weird assumptions made here in #18.

1. Brian Brohm is the "next superstar" in football.
2. Juan Martin del Potro is the "next superstar" in tennis.
3. There is a logical method one can use to compare the as-yet unplayed careers of football QBs and male tennis players.
4. When that method is applied to Brohm and Juan Martin del Potro, at some point in the future, no matter what happens, it will show that del Potro's career will have been "better" than Brohm's career.

21. No boosters.

Yes. Thank you. Tennis is notoriously calm and nurturing and "move at your own pace"-ish and "whatever's best for you, dear"-ish when it comes to the young people who show world-class promise. No one ever puts undue pressure on young tennis stars. No kids are ever rushed, nor is money ever dangled in front of 12 year-olds, nor are there any like companies or anything who attack barely-pubescent kids with $$$. Huge ad-in, for tennis, here.

22. Because you won't get four football games this season as drama-filled and intense as Ferrer/Nalbandian, Peer/Vaidisova, Santoro/Blake or Wawrinka/Korolev have already played in the first week of this year's Open.

I will take that bet.

23. Because women receive equal pay. (Oops, there are no women in college football.)

Oops! Equal pay was just instituted, like this year, I think, in the slams. Until last year, 2006, the top prize for men at Wimbledon was higher than the top prize for women. Isn't that kind of lazy sexism in 2006 -- in a sport that has been played by both men and women forever -- a worse mark against that sport than the fact that football is a sport played only by men?

That is one tortured, long-ass sentence, but you get what I mean.

24. Because challenging calls and instant replay is less corrupt. (I mean, it's more accurate, more cost-efficient, requires fewer cameras, is less time-consuming and leaves less room for human, alum, corporate, Vegas, referee error.)

There is one thing a replay has to show, in tennis: was the ball in or out? One thing. That's why they can have like lasers that announce it instantly. There are many many other things that refs have to look for in football. Feet in? Possession? Ball over goal line? Guy out of bounds and then came back in? Knee down? Mascot interference? Cheerleaders hot? Mascot hot? Did coach come off sidelines and punch player in face?

25. There may be B.S. in tennis, but not BCS.

Weird. Weird ending.

Post 1002, coming tomorrow: Junior breaks down: Michael Ventre on why Steely Dan's career path is a good metaphor for the rules changes in international basketball.

Labels: branson, college football, food metaphors, kirby vanburch, scoop jackson, tennis

Comes from Scoop Jackson:

And because of that, the come-from-nowhere factor that helps defensive players become stars in the Super Bowl is gone like "Emily's Reasons Why Not."

Read the full article for context. Or -- better -- don't.

(Edited to change "analogy" to "simile.")

Labels: emily's reasons why not, scoop jackson

Notre Dame and the contract to Charlie Weis

When arrogance precedes racism, this is the end result. They act as if they never heard the comments. They act as if whatever was being said or written about the way they handled Ty Willingham's situation didn't apply to them. This is our world, you all should be happy to be living in it. That's their new Knute/NBC motto.

So when the University of Notre Dame extended Charlie Weis' contract to secure his services for 10 years just months after firing a coach who only three years ago was in the same situation with a better record (8-0 after the first eight games for Willingham, 5-2 for Weis at the time of his extension) during his first year, the validation of racism that so many people tossed at the university's feet in the wake of excusing Willingham last December was totally eclipsed by an arrogance unseen in the NCAA since Adolph Rupp and Bear Bryant thought "negroes" couldn't ball.

Yikes. Look, I'm not a huge Notre Dame fan (despite the fact that Mrs. Tremendous went there), and I'd be willing to bet that an all-Catholic university in Indiana has probably had its share of racism problems. As has virtually every institution of learning -- every institution period? -- in the country. (I would here also add that the founding of the University was partly due to the Catholic community seeking to establish a place where they could get a fine education without being discriminated against, hence the whole "Fighting Irish" deal. Neither here nor there.) But I think it's a bit much to just flat-out state that Ty Willingham's firing and Charlie Weis's extension were the products of racism.

Ty Willingham did get off to a very strong start in his first year -- 8-0. But his overall record in three years at ND was 21-15. Bob Davie, who is universally ridiculed and hailed as a massive failure in his three years at Notre Dame, was 21-16. Willingham was a pretty good coach at Stanford, but he was only 44-36-1 in his time there. And his Pac-10 titles came at a time when USC, UCLA, and other traditional powerhouses were pretty weak.

Also, and this is really key, Weis, who came one illegal Bush-push away from beating USC, and who turned Brady Quinn from an average passer to a future #1 overall draft pick, was rumored to be the frontrunner for like fifteen NFL coaching jobs at the end of the year. ND knew they had to do something to ensure that he didn't leave. So they extended him.

But this is a university, not an individual. And although ND athletic director Kevin White is the man in charge, it's not about his making the decisions as much as it is about the institution putting on display a serious complex of superiority. Oh, don't get me wrong, their actions are racist to the core. But their arrogance spoke much louder in this case. Notre Dame could care less about how careless they were. They didn't care how this would make them look in the eyes of African-Americans, or any white liberals who fight for civil rights against actions such as this every day. To ND, anyone not down with their program -- and how they run it -- is meaningless.

"Racist to the core." I don't know, man. That seems insanely strident -- and this is coming from a dude who loves a good strident piece of sports writing. Look -- is anyone in the ND athletic dept. a racist? Maybe. Who knows? But it's not good journalism to just look at two facts -- Willingham let go, Weis extended -- and conclude without any room for debate that it's hard-core racism. And my guess is, when you look at what Weis has done after three years (and yes, I know Willingham recruited the players, etc. etc.), you'll conclude that ND made the right choice.

Labels: notre dame, scoop jackson

That article (see link in post sub) is amazing in a number of ways. One of those ways is that Scoop seems to make points and then immediately contradict them; or else, he presents his arguments so badly that it is hard to see what side of the argument he is on. To wit, re-read this section from Junior's post:

For a target audience of several million that are forced to watch "Being Bobby Brown," in a Neilsen (sic) era when UPN stands for United Plantation of Negroes because it is one of the few networks where you find "quality" African-American programming, the "officialness" of Stephen A.'s hosting a daily sports talk show was bigger than anything Ron Artest or Terrell Owens did to push us a few steps back.

No one is "forced" to watch "Being Bobby Brown." If Scoop wants to comment on the sad state of African-American programming (both that intended for and that created by African-Americans), it might be better to get upset at the actual show than to assert that people are "forced" to watch it. As for the UPN thing...I don't even know what to make of that. And as for the third and final few clauses: it's just a big jumble. I assume what he is trying to say is that in a year when TO and Artest did things that perhaps cast a negative light on the African-American community, S.A. Smith getting a talk show was something that cast a positive light on said community. But to say that it was "bigger" than what they did "to push us a few steps back" is just a poorly-presented mixed metaphor.

Now read this, from the same article:

White Sox not getting the cover of Sports Illustrated

They said it wasn't on purpose. They said it was because of the way the World Series ended (on a Wednesday night) that it was impossible to put them on the cover of the issue. Whatever. Couldn't they have at least put them on the cover the following week?

Fair enough. But he continues.

Didn't the White Sox deserve the cover after their unexpected World Series win? But the slight was indicative of the way the media (and the North Side of Chicago) treated the Sox all along their improbable, impossible ride. From my own doubtful, bandwagon-sensitive column written right after the All-Star Game to Joe Buck's unforgettable omission of African-Americans when he mentioned the variety of cultures, races and nationalities that filled the South Side minutes after the Game 4 victory, the treatment of the White Sox shocking the world was similar to Toccara's treatment on "America's Next Top Model." Foul.

Two quick things:

1. Joe Buck's "unforgettable" omission? Does anyone really think Joe Buck intentionally or unintentionally meant to slight African-Americans? The story of the ChiSox, ethno-culturo-nationally speaking, was that they had guys from like fifteen countries. I'm sure that's what Joe was trying to highlight.

2. I don't know who Toccara is, but if you hate UPN so much, and think that it is indicative of some kind of problem in the African-American community, you probably shouldn't, immediately after stating that you have this problem, make an obscure and cozy reference to a UPN show, which reference clearly indicates that you are a huge fan.

Because after giving the Braves (1995), the Yankees (1996, 1998-2000), the Marlins (1997, 2003), the Angels (2002), the Diamondbacks (2001), and the Red Sox (2004, and they got the cover of Time too) the cover of the bible of sports magazines, they decided a non-playoff Monday night football game featuring Peyton Manning and Tom Brady was a bigger story. A more important story.

Okay. I get your point. I think it was a mistake too. In no way, shape, or form was it one of the "most important sports stories of the year," as Scoop claims, but I think it was a mistake. We're agreed. What's that? One more thing?

The sad part is (outside of Chicago), as wrong as SI was, it may have been right.

Um.

Labels: scoop jackson, white sox