- 10:31 PM
- 12/23/24
I think that's a very interesting topic actually. Petty is near impossilbe to pass up for many reasons. The scoring system was different back in the day. Petty was one of the very first sponsored cars and could then have better equipment, and was one of the first teams to actually have more than one car. They would score wins to his record for other races besides just the Nascar races...so he could essentially have a race on a Saturday in North Carolina with one car, and then fly back to Michigan for a race in his other car...which was a luxury not shared by most drivers. It would be the equivalent of the cup guys racing in the (for now) Busch series, and having those wins count towards their cup record. So it's a tough call to say who is the best ever. It's one of those timeless debates that goes with any sport...are the old-time Celtics and Lakers better than the 90s Bulls, is the 85 Bears team the best defensive team ever, would Tiger beat a young Jack. I think too many advances in the sporting and technology make that a difficult question to answer. ...which after posting this i see the comments above me refer to the same thing!
posted by Griff23Jordan at 12:03 AM on October 17, 2007
Oh what's funny is on the Yahoo NASCAR qualifying section, it shows Waltrip's name in the 43rd spot...at least saying it's the 74 car. Down the list for the people that didn't qualify..there's Cope's name. Hey with all this talk about Barry Bonds having a * next to his name...shouldn't Mikey have one next to his name on that list???
posted by Griff23Jordan at 02:43 PM on May 27, 2006
Ahhhh this is just horrible! I guess the only "good" part of this is that he still has to drive Cope's car...which makes me wonder why Mikey would even wanna buy in in the first place. Not sure I agree with him being allowed to duplicate the paint/number of his own car...but then again I don't even agree that he should be allowed to buy his way in anyway. Just poor sportsmanship all together. Personally I don't agree with the whole qualifying rule anyway...of being automatically locked in if you are in the top 35. I think you should have to qualify for the race no matter what...but I guess it would give some bad ratings/piss off some fans who sat through hours of traffic, stood in long ass lines, and paid a shitload for tickets if their boy Jeff Gordon wrecked his car in qualifying and didn't make the race because of some misfortune. It's like the little rich kid in school that wasn't good at any sports, but always made the team because his parents had money and contributed. Only good things about Mikey were his commercials with Junior!!! Hmmmm....ya know now that I get to the end of this...I just thought...Cope, Waltrip...who cares? Doesn't matter whose car it is or who is driving...that car is gonna either DNF or end up toward the very end of the field anyway! Pff....Mikey....sad, sad Mikey!
posted by Griff23Jordan at 10:10 AM on May 27, 2006
Ahhh yes....the innocent until "proven" guilty. It's been mentioned a few times...I think fenriq said it best that it doesn't count for anything in the court of public opinion. Hmmmm....didn't the courts find even OJ innocent? I'm sure Bonds will dedicate the rest of his life to find the real steroid abuser!
posted by Griff23Jordan at 11:11 AM on May 25, 2006
Congrats to Barry. Now I'm not a Bonds fan just because he's been hitting homers...I grew up in the Pittsburgh area and used to go to games as a kid watching Bonds, Bonilla, Van Slyke..etc. etc. Used to have the Bonds "slim" version starting lineup figures. Now IF Bonds used steroids...I'm not saying it's right. But I'm not saying it's wrong either. There is no way in hell I can believe that among all the great players in history (of any sport) that he is the ONLY one that would have tried to gain an edge. Just one of the only ones to get caught. My question is...are the balls the same, and are the bats pretty much the same as they were back in the day? The question itself probably doesn't make sense as related to just baseball itself. But I ask that for all sports-related "cheating" issues. In golf...should Tiger have an * next to his name for his monsterous drives when compared to an old-timer? Quite possibly? Golf balls and clubs are far more superior today than they were years ago. The balls themselves are designed to travel further, have better control, etc. etc. So yes they can drive the ball further now...but would Tiger have the same distance if he was using the same exact equipment as they did? I know that not many are going to agree with anything I've said...but when it comes down to it...regardless of whether steroids are used or not...he still has to be coordinated enough to hit the ball in the first place. Steroids won't help give you the coordination to hit the ball...just help hit it harder.
posted by Griff23Jordan at 10:54 PM on May 20, 2006
I think too much attention gets put on the whole "race" issue. And the media of course does not help. Why can't they be referred to as "he's one of the best quarterbacks" or "one of the great coaches"? Instead they are referred to as "best black quarterbacks" or "great black coaches". Why must they be singled out based on their race? I've not heard anyone say "Bill Parcells has been one of the league's elite white coaches", or "Joe Montana was a premier white quarterback". I mean if you're good, you're good, regardless of race. I watched a Chris Rock special on HBO tonight, and he said it best. He wouldn't want to be given a job (not like he needs it anyway!) or be accepted into a university if he's less qualified just because he's black. Of course these are just my opinions and what I believe. If the teams are sitting there saying "well, he's black, I don't want him"...well then yes that's wrong. I honestly don't think that's the case. Pro sports is all about winning, revenue, fan base, championships, etc. It's all business. The more you win, the more fans you get, the more people come to games, the more merchandise gets sold nationwide, which obviously results in more money for your business. Teams are going to hire the person they think is going to get them there, regardless of color (at least I believe that, they should be anyway). I just find it near impossible to believe that in these days, and as big a business as the NFL is, that anyone would say "well...he's definitely got the most potential to improve this franchise, he's definitely the most qualified...buuut, he's black, so, we're gonna pass on him". And the flip side to that, I don't think it would be right to say "he's not as qualified, I'm not so sure he's got enough experience to get this team moving in the right direction...but he's black so we should hire him to keep the media off of our backs". Like I said...you should get the job if you are the best candidate...black, white, asian, mexican, etc. etc. I think that African-American coaches would have an advantage because they get an edge with African-American players who respect that he is a head coach and who want to play for him I don't agree with this either. Players play to win, regardless of who the coach is. It's just too much really...I mean if it's an issue about black coaches/management, and all about fairness, are we to say "well, teams should be half white and half black players". NOOOO!!! Or, you must have one asian person, or one latino person? NOOO!!! Ok I'll end it, sorry this was so long...but it's my first ever post and I got carried away a bit here!!!
posted by Griff23Jordan at 04:06 AM on February 05, 2006
Adrian Peterson Calls NFL 'Modern-Day Slavery'
I dislike this "slavery" comparison just as much as I dislike when the whole "race card" gets tossed around so freely.
But aside from that, it's difficult to choose a side on the whole ordeal, though I think I do lean a tad towards the owners. As billinnagoya stated, why exactly would owners need to prove to the employees, aka the players, how much they make? Of course I'll openly admit up front that I know nothing about the structure and function of a union. But obviously I wouldn't be able to go to my CEO and say "hey, you make x amount more than me, you can afford to pay me more or I'm not doing any work." So on that area, I side with owners.
Then the side of the players would be without us, you do not make that money. The fans come to see us play, they buy our merchandise, and our talent level is what gets us the wins and attracts fans to the stadium (lol...ok we'll exclude the Panthers from this one, I'm in Charlotte so I can say that!). And what makes sporting entertainment so much different than the normal day to day job is that you can't exactly, as management, just say to every star player "ok, we'll just get rid of you and find someone to work for cheaper." Well I mean you could, but in such an intense and competitive game, that's quite a risk to take, as not all backup players are going to end up having Tom Brady-like results. (ouch that just hurt to say!)
But either way...especially in this economy...it's extremely difficult to side with anyone when we're discussing people making millions of dollars and greed all over. Think about the fans for once, cut back on the incredible amount of money you're already making and take a slightly less profit (yet still a considerable profit), and maybe make it more affordable for the average fan to enjoy going to a game?