- 11:12 AM
- 11/21/24
I lived and worked in New Orleans this summer. I had an absolutely great time. Unfortunately I never went there before Katrina, but I did visit it two summers ago. And in the year between my visit and the time I lived there, the condition of the city improved dramatically. Yes, there is a lot to be done. ESPECIALLY in New Orleans East, where, even this summer, two years after Katrina, it was literally impossible to find a fast food place to eat. (Ironically, though, my friend and I golfed at a golf course there, which only had the front 9 open. However, the opening of the golf course was a huge step toward returning to normalcy.) The other thing that struck me is that New Orleans has more people living there who are natives than any other place that I have lived by such a large margin that it's not even comparable. And I have lived in 7 different states. Their dedication to the city is so incredible that it is almost impossible to not be inspired by it. From meeting these locals, the biggest obstacle to New Orleans' future sustainability is that many of the larger corporations have decided to move out of New Orleans (either across Ponchartrain or to cities like Houston). I was so impressed by my experience in (even post-Katrina) New Orleans that I tell everyone I know that people under the age of 30 should be required to spend 3 to 6 months (at least) in New Orleans. I had an amazing time and I really hope that New Orleans can return to its previous state, if it was so much better than it is now. Otherwise, I will still love New Orleans as it is now, and if no one else can see its greatness, then I will get to enjoy it with fewer people.
posted by edub1321 at 01:22 AM on February 27, 2008
I'm not sure. Oregon has the easiest schedule, so they are likely to not lose. I think LSU is the best team of the three, but they have the hardest schedule. I still don't know what to make of Ohio State 10 games into the season, but all they have to do is win at Michigan, which is looking tougher and tougher as we go along here. If forced, I think I would take LSU because I like going with the team that I think is best.
posted by edub1321 at 02:23 PM on November 07, 2007
I was never intending to say that Oklahoma wasn't very good, I was just merely saying that I think that Kansas and (especially) Mizzou have a great chance to beat them. And I won't say that I know much about how well OU has shut down the spread offense, but the Mizzou game last week was so awful that I left a Colorado game early for the first time in 7 years. Their offense moved the ball at will, and the defense sans Brown shut the Buffs down. Even when we were down by 17 to OU I still thought that we had a chance to come back, but towards the end of the second quarter on Saturday, I was ready to leave. So, a new question. If the Big XII champion doesn't lose again (whoever that may be), and they make the National Championship game, who do you all think they would face?
posted by edub1321 at 10:42 AM on November 07, 2007
Having seen both of these teams win in Boulder this year, I was impressed by both, but I think (and have thought for a while) that Mizzou is the class of the Big XII. I really think if they run the regular season table they will wind up beating Oklahoma in the Big XII Championship. Furthermore, if Oregon slips up, although I don't think they have any really tough games left, and if Ohio State loses to Michigan, I think that I would like to see an LSU-Mizzou National Championship. Actually, I just mainly don't want to see OSU (even though they were pretty impressive against Wisconsin on Saturday), but I have never liked the Big Ten.
posted by edub1321 at 01:43 AM on November 06, 2007
(If he can pull this off a couple more times that is...)
posted by edub1321 at 09:57 AM on May 31, 2007
Another thing I thought about. How often is there an "infield single" (like Posada's) where a runner scores from second? And shouldn't we be lauding ARod's skill to go from first to third on such a short ball? I think that is one of the most underrated skills in the game. I always hear that Jeff Bagwell was the best at it in his prime. Maybe ARod will take over that title?
posted by edub1321 at 09:56 AM on May 31, 2007
Come on. I thought the play itself was pretty funny. Can we all admit that at least? Also, I thought his comments made him sound like a complete fool. Just own up to what you did. Finally, having watched the video, I love the section from like 2:30-3:00 where ARod has this little smirk on his face, as though he's thinking about how everyone in the clubhouse will give him mad props after the game. (Does anyone still use "mad props?")
posted by edub1321 at 09:41 AM on May 31, 2007
Whew. I don't know that I could have standed (stood?) 4 Pats titles in 6 years.
posted by edub1321 at 11:32 PM on January 21, 2007
As I've said before here, I am against a playoff system not because it wouldn't better determine a national champion, but because logistically it isn't viable. I would like to hear from people how they think it could work for an 8 team or more playoff system. (Yes, 4 teams might not be too tough, but even then Boise State would have been left out, so that doesn't solve the problem that some people have with the final rankings.)
posted by edub1321 at 08:50 PM on January 09, 2007
Well, I could be wrong, but isn't it the NFLPA that makes these fantasy league deals, and since Brady is a member of the NFLPA, if they want to make a deal with Yahoo! and use his image, he really doesn't have a say? (Obviously I'm mistaken, because he is actually suing, but this is what I thought the rules were...)
posted by edub1321 at 01:41 AM on December 08, 2006
AMEN! I do not think a wiser and more complete post has ever been seen on SpoFi. Thank you PublicUrinal.
posted by edub1321 at 04:08 PM on December 06, 2006
Yeah, it was a cop out, no doubt. But it was the smart move (just like Meyer's campaigning), IMHO. Yeah, they look like the better team, but, when the little things matter so much (as in football), there just isn't any reason to give Florida any extra motivation.
posted by edub1321 at 01:17 AM on December 06, 2006
As for Tressel, it was the only move he could make. Whoever he puts at #3 makes for great bulletin board fodder if tOSU has to play them.
posted by edub1321 at 12:19 AM on December 06, 2006
The school is actually called The Ohio State University.
posted by edub1321 at 12:16 AM on December 06, 2006
Best non-BCS game on the slate? I say the Capital One. Arkansas vs. Wisconsin will be a nice litmus test for the BCS Championship. I think Arkansas should win pretty handily, but then I am also one of the few who think that Florida is going to beat Ohio State.
posted by edub1321 at 11:58 PM on December 05, 2006
I actually love the BCS. I don't really see how college football could do anything better than what they are doing if they want to keep the bowl games around. Bowl games are just one of the things that make the college game the best brand of football around (marching bands and fight songs being some others). I have heard some talk about turning the current BCS bowls into part of the playoff system, but that just wouldn't work unless there were only 4 teams in the playoff, and then there would still be as much bitching and moaning about being left out if you were the #5 or 6 team. The reason it wouldn't work with more than 4 is that it would use too many "bowl" games on too few schools. An 8 team playoff would require 7 games, a number that could currently accomodate 14 teams. This means that either a) you use some lower tiered bowl games in the first round, or b) quality teams who should be playing in some of the better bowls (i.e. Cotton, CapitalOne) will be relegated to a worse bowl. Now, the best way to make it work, would be to have (in an 8 team playoff) the top 4 seeds host the first round game. Then the winners would square off in two of the current BCS games and the losers would play in the other two. Then the top 2 teams would play in the current National Championship game. This idea is still flawed in multiple ways. First, it would require that some teams (those with conference championships) could play 16 games, which is way too many. The alternatives would be to decrease the season to 10 or 11 games, but this doesn't work for a multitude of reasons (not the least of which is money). Second, it wreaks havoc on the players. While many are skeptical about the "student" in student-athlete, it is true that a large majority of athletes do take their studies very seriously. Requiring them to play 15 or 16 games seems a little ridiculous when NFL players only play 19 or 20. In every other college sport that has a major professional counterpart (so, baseball, hockey and basketball), college teams play roughly 1/3 the number of games. Why should college football players have to play the same number of games as 2/3 of the NFL? Third, it wreaks havoc on the fans. The additional home game would be easy enough, but imagine Ohio State fans having to travel to, say, Miami for the National Semifinal formerly known as the Orange Bowl one week, and then to Tempe (whoops, Glendale) for the National Championship. For many fans diehard enough to make the trip to A bowl game, making a second trip a week later for the National Championship is financially impossible. So, the BCS makes the best of what the current system offers. Yes, it might not be the absolute best for determining a national champion, but the bowl system is one of the things that makes college football so different and endearing to so many fans. A playoff to determine the national champion is not worth sacrificing the whole idea of the bowl system.
posted by edub1321 at 06:06 PM on December 04, 2006
Personally I'd see it as a 3 way split. So, it's a 3 way split between Florida, Ohio State and Michigan if Florida beats Ohio State, who beat Michigan? Also, has it ever happened that one school held both the football and basketball titles at the same time, as Florida has the chance of doing?
posted by edub1321 at 11:18 AM on December 04, 2006
The NFC won something like 15 of 16 straight Super Bowls in the 80s and 90s, and it got to the point that commentators and fans alike started calling the NFC Championship the "real" Super Bowl. And in a way, it was. However, even though that game was pitting the top 2 teams in the NFL, they didn't have a rematch in the Super Bowl just because they were the two best teams. Yes, I also realize that I am comparing a playoff with the BCS, but Michigan lost their playoff game a couple of Saturdays ago. I don't care how good your conference is (and for the record, I think the SEC is head and shoulders above everyone else), if you can't win it, you don't deserve to be playing for the national championship. Furthermore, it would be totally unfair to Ohio State to make them beat Michigan twice. Because if they lost, how could you say that Michigan was better than Ohio State, when they lost to them earlier. (Granted, I think that Ohio State would beat Michigan pretty soundly. No one seems to remember this, but Ohio State dominated that Michigan game and a couple of stupid turnovers and questionable play calling made that game much, much closer than it should have been.) As for the game that we have, I actually think that Florida will win, 24 - 21, by blocking a game tying field goal attempt with less than a minute left in the 4th quarter (a la South Carolina). (My feelings on the winning your conference in order to play for the national title game come from 2001. I am a huge Colorado fan, and when nebraska (I can't even capitalize that word) got to play in the Rose Bowl over us, or what proved to be a much better Oregon team, I was outraged. Also the same thing happened in 2003 when Oklahoma lost to Kansas State in the Big XII Championship, but they still got to play in the Suger Bowl, and got promptly trounced by LSU. Split national title stink and this game on Jan. 8 will prevent one.)
posted by edub1321 at 12:47 AM on December 04, 2006
It's truly a shame that cricket never made it in America. But people here can barely stand the "boredom" of baseball as it is. A multiple day test would be inconceivable. Hmmm, although golf tournaments are multiple days long...
posted by edub1321 at 02:23 PM on November 29, 2006
I agree that Leyland should stick with his guns and pitch Verlander tonight and Rogers tomorrow, if necessary. What makes me laugh in all of this is that Rogers, the alleged veteran leader of the staff, is too mentally weak to pitch outside of Detroit. Leyland was basically saying that he doesn't think Rogers has a chance to pitch well away from Comerica. How can this starter be your best, if he has to pitch at home? I mean sure, pitchers normally perform better at home, due to a multitude of factors (sleeping in their own bed, more consistent routine, mound/ballpark familiarity), but how can the Tigers consider Rogers their "Ace" if they don't think he can get the job done in St. Louis?
posted by edub1321 at 01:32 PM on October 27, 2006
Is it bad that that scouting report made me laugh out loud?
posted by edub1321 at 11:01 AM on August 11, 2006
For as long as I can remember, my favorite sports were baseball and golf, with football close behind. Recently I figured out why this was: These sports require more strategy and planning than other more continuous sports (soccer and hockey). (Basketball falls into the middle because while it is continuous, there is a shot clock which makes for some discreetness.) With the discrete sports, there is an exact idea of what needs to be done, then when the play is over, it is possible to analyze it and see how successful the play was. For example, throwing an 1-2 curveball in the dirt to try to get a hitter to chase, playing to the middle of a green with a tucked pin, or executing a particular blocking scheme to get a first down. The nice thing about my "discrete" sports is that you know when to watch, then you can think about it in between plays. With the "continuous" sports, there is much more improv, which I will admit leads to neater goals (Germany's double header in the World Cup), but maybe the most complex "plays" are on the order of a give-and-go. Additionally, since anything can happen at any given moment, it is difficult to continually pay attention and see what is going on... Just a thought.
posted by edub1321 at 04:32 PM on August 10, 2006
A very interesting read. I wonder if he might have been the biggest casualty in the 2004 ALCS. Although he did win the MVP last year, it still seems like he is suffering some sort of hangover. No matter what people say, I would still take him. I was secretly hoping (with no expectations) that somehow the Cardinals could pick him up. Pujols, Rolen and ARod on the same infield sounds pretty deadly to me...Ahhh, wishful thinking
posted by edub1321 at 11:53 AM on August 09, 2006
VM, I will agree that Martinez from 1998-2002 is in the discussion for greatest prime too, but what I meant is that both Clemens and Maddux have sustained their greatness (Clemens a little better recently than Maddux), but I think in their primes I would have liked to face Maddux less. When I look for a great pitcher, I think of both longevity and how great they were in their primes. Martinez had a great prime, so to speak, but I would like to see how his body holds up over the next 4+ years before putting him in the class of Maddux and Rocket.
posted by edub1321 at 04:05 PM on August 01, 2006
I am in the Maddux camp. 17 straight seasons of 15+ wins, only 2 short of that last year, and a real shot to get there again this year? A career 3.07 ERA and over 3000 Ks. Or maybe it's just that as a Cards fan I've seen more of him, but in his prime there wasn't a pitcher that you wanted to face less. Clemens has aged better, but in their primes I think Maddux was in the class of Koufax and Gibby at their primes.
posted by edub1321 at 03:38 PM on August 01, 2006
ksb, obviously you haven't seen Casablanca, otherwise you would know that Bonkers isn't shocked. great line Bonkers. i couldn't have put it better myself.
posted by edub1321 at 12:41 PM on July 14, 2006
New York City Makes Cricket a Varsity Sport.
I believe the guy's name is Stanford. This year's matches were shown in Fort Collins this past February. I remember going to the bars and I think I was the only one who knew what was going on, but people seemed pretty interested.