Greatest highlight... Seriously?

I'm excited to see that ESPN has put together a "greatest highlight" bracket, to compete highlights across the sports world to determine "the greatest highlight" of all time.

I'm a huge football fan. I wrote a 2+ part blog about Terrell Owens "situation" in Philadelphia prior to his departure. I have successfully debated the NFL being a superior sport to NCAA football on multiple occasions. I love watching football, and would estimate I saw more than 100 football games this season alone, between college and pro, including the playoffs and bowl games. I love football so much, I don't even have the NFL Sunday ticket. Who needs to pay for the Sunday ticket when you don't care what teams your watching? I get at least 7 games a week during the heat of the season, which may or may not include the Redskins (usually not, as I live in Charlotte).

So, I'm excited there are so many football plays as options for the greatest highlight ever.

- The immacculate reception - Franco Harris' reception, which may or may not have touched the ground, during the 1972 AFC Divisional Playoffs against the Oakland Raiders, that was returned for a touchdown, beginning the Steelers Dynasty.
- Hail Flutie - Doug Flutie, quarterback for #10 ranked Boston College, completes a pass to wide receiver Gerard Phelen, in a last second hail mary to beat #8 ranked, reigning national champions, University of Miami (FL).
- WAC comes to play - Boise State uses the hook-and-ladder to tie against Oklahoma University in the 2007 Fiesta Bowl (BCS), but WINS on a statue of liberty play on a 2-pt conversion to WIN (not tie) in overtime.
- "The Play" - Cal-Stanford ends with an over-anxious trombone player eating his mouthpiece after an unlikely kickoff return, involving 4 players and 5 laterals, puts Cal ahead of Stanford (and then QB John Elway) in the final seconds of the game.

Truly a great set of highlights!

But is it a done deal that one of "my" highlights will win? No. Hank Aaron's record-breaking hit. Christian Laetnner hits a last second shot to win Kentucky.


In the "Final Four," three of the four highlights are football highlights:

- Hail Flutie
- Immaculate reception
- WAC comes to play.

What is this insolent fourth highlight!?!? How dare it not pay hommage to the gridiron!?!?!

It's the game-winning goal of the 1980 U.S. Men's Olympic Hockey Team against the USSR in the quarterfinals.

So, I'm a football fan. See above for a detailed brag-fest of my football-love. I recognize, however, that the 1980 Men's Hockey team defeating the Russians (Soviets) in the Olympics is one of the greatest highlights of all time.

But I further recognize that it's more than just a highlight. It was a quintessential Cinderella story, as the soviets hadn't been beaten in 12 years, even stomping the American NHL all-stars in 1979. The Americans went on to beat Finland in the finals to take the gold medal.

But further still, I recognize that the victory over the Soviets was a symbolic victory of Democracy over Communism. In a time where the Soviets were attempting to take over Afghanistan, and the concept of the domino effect still reigned as the model by which U.S. foreign policy operated, the American Hockey team was able to provide hope to a country that was economically struggling and could use a morale boost.

I love football, but I recognize that the U.S. Hockey team defeating the Soviets in the Olympics is hands down the greatest sports highlight of all time, and if any of the other highlight wins the "Greatest Highlight" award, I WILL boycott ESPN, like the U.S. boycotted the 1980 Olympics in Moscow.

At least... until football season...

Why can't the Congress get SOMETHING right? - A sports review.

Roger Clemens spent yesterday on the Hill, talking to Congress, specifically the Senate, about his alleged steroid use. This discussion has been spawned by the Mitchell report, which reported the depth of steroid use within professional baseball, discoverable by an independent investigative team lead by former Senator George Mitchell. Former Senator Mitchell was commissioned by Bud Selig to perform the investigation. A reasonably comprehensive timeline of events prior to 2007 is available here:

http://thesteroidera.blogspot.com/2006/08/baseballs-steroid-era-timeline.html

So that's how your tax dollars were spent on our elected officials yesterday.

BUT WAIT! That's not the ONLY involvement Congress had yesterday in professional sports! Baseball just isn't enough!

Senator Arlen Specter R-PA met with NFL commissioner, Roger Goodell, on the so-called "Spygate" scandal.

A note on Spygate:
In the first game of the 2007 NFL season, the New England Patriots, under coach Bill Belichick, used a video recorder to record/capture opponents', New York Jets, under coach Eric Mangini, defensive signals. Coach Mangini reported this action to the NFL, as there had been a strongly-worded memo sent around the league stating that cheating would not be tolerated in the league during the season. The NFL looked into the allegations, and found that it was true that the Patriots had recorded the signals. Coach Belichick defended himself, saying that he thought the recordings were legal, that he had been involved in video recordings in the past, back to his first year with the Patriots in 2000. The NFL confiscated the tapes as evidence in the case, found them to corroborate the Jets' allegations and Coach Belichick's assertions, and took action against Belichick and the Patriots. Specifically,

- $500,000 fine for Coach Belichick - the maximum allowed under the rules of the NFL
- $250,000 fine for the Patriots
- A 1st-round draft choice (the Patriots DID make the playoffs)

The NFL considered the case closed, and destroyed the evidence tapes.


Now, Senator Specter believes that the tapes had been destroyed prematurely, and wanted to talk to Commissioner Goodell about the destruction of the tapes.

But why Senator Specter? I thought the NFL dealt with the issue?

Well, there IS that issue of the Patriots beating the Philadelphia Eagles in Super Bowl 39. And Senator Specter, allegedly, is an Eagles fan. Surely a United States Senator wouldn't use his power and influence to influence history written 3 years ago, would he?

I just seems to me that our Congressmen and women, should put national and international issues and priorities first. I cannot speak for the voters of Pennsylvania, but I know I didn't elect MY public servants to spend time investigating sports' flaws, when issues like bin Laden, Democracy in Iraq, and violence in Darfur plague our international landscape, and immigration, public health care, and primary education are issues domestically. Evidently, the use of steroids in professional baseball, or the NFL's decision to destroy that are entirely congruent with testimony provided by both accuser and offender rank as important to our elected officials as the violent revolution in Chad.


Or maybe these current events are easy, free, and relevant vehicles for our elected officials to get sound bites aired by the media in an election year...

Movie Critics Suck

Movie critics suck.

It seems like every time a new movie is coming out that I want to see, a movie critic pans it. Then I go see it, and I invariably like it.

Why does this happen? It's either:

a.) The low expectations set by the movie critics causes the movie to otherwise exceed my then set low expecatations.

or,

b.) I know my tastes, and have a well-developed sense of what I like in a movie,

or,

c.) Movie critics suck something awful.

I don't think it's a.), though, because I have seen plenty of movies for which I have never read a critic's review, but still enjoyed it.

I think b.) is true, but it doesn't account for critics NOT liking the movies that I generally like.

Which leads us to c.).

Movie critics suck. They, in no way, provide any insight as to whether or not I should go see a movie. They perhaps have some insight into whether a movie will win some kind of award, but that's only because it is buttplugs like them that determine who will win said awards, anyway. It seems to me that movie critics should be required to be IN the demographic for which a movie is targeted to be allowed to provide a review. What the hell does a man (or woman) in his (or her, respectively) mid-50s or early 60s know about what's funny to a guy in his mid-20s (actually... this week I decidedly crossed into my late-20s)?

Let me give a couple examples from our critic friends at rottentomatoes.com:

South Park: Bigger, Longer, and Uncut - "80 minutes of this boring animated comedy/musical feels so long that it will seriously test any moviegoer's patience!" - I know I had a hard time sitting through it... 3 times in the theatre and roughly 10 times on DVD.

Super Troopers - "A more-miss-than-hit affair, Super Troopers will most likely appeal to those looking for something silly." - Truly profound. And here I thought they were trying to make something to compete with "The English Patient." My bad.

Clerks - "Amateurishly acted, clumsily edited and slapped together out of what looks like surveillance camera footage, the thing bumps along not so much on talent as on audacity." - It's no George Lucas film, that's true. You got all your facts right, but your conclusion was all wrong. I give you an A for effort, but I hope you die in a horrible car accident for your ignorance.

Transformers - "Believable characters are hard to come by in this action-packed film." - You had a hard time coming up with believable characters in a movie about self-aware robots from outer space? I think you missed the point.

Movie critics... ... another worthless product of the media.