12/21/24
November 08, 2009
SportsFilter: The Sunday Huddle:
A place to discuss the sports stories that aren't making news, share links that aren't quite front-page material, and diagram plays on your hand. Remember to count to five Mississippi before commenting in anger.
I propose a moratorium on the word "hater."
unless it's followed by a 187, of course
posted by tahoemoj at 12:37 PM on November 08, 2009
Some disgruntled sports fans are fighting back.
They were wise not to call themselves: 1. Athletic Supporters Australia or 2. Australia Sports Supporters.
I propose a moratorium on the word "hater."
How long? Until next baseball season?
posted by graymatters at 01:10 PM on November 08, 2009
Wow. That was a hell of a stiff-arm by Randy Moss on that touchdown run.
posted by NoMich at 03:15 PM on November 08, 2009
Larry Merchant, a former newspaper sports writer and editor who now comments on boxing on HBO, recently wrote to Tom Jolly, the sports editor of The [NY] Times, to protest the paper's relative lack of coverage of boxing.
Merchant's letter and Jolly's reply provide a fascinating glimpse into issues that transcend the immediate question of whether The Times should devote resources to a sport that even an ardent admirer like Merchant acknowledges is no longer mainstream. In many ways, Merchant and Jolly are discussing the role of a general interest newspaper in a dramatically changed world.
I thought readers would be interested in their exchange.
posted by rumple at 03:33 PM on November 08, 2009
rumple, I thought Jolly's most important point about why boxing isn't being covered by not just the Times but media in general is that it made a decision to move it's biggest fights primarily to pay-per-view. Couple that with an inability to properly market the sport to the average sports fan and the UFC's rise (and tremendous ability to both market itself and be available to many viewers without having to see it on a pay-per-view basis) is what has led to boxing's growing irrelevence.
posted by THX-1138 at 08:21 PM on November 08, 2009
Oklahoma U out of both AP and BCS standings. I would say "HA HA HA" except the sorrier they become this year, the further that UTexas drops in the computer standings. That win in Dallas is looking less and less impressive.
posted by graymatters at 09:01 PM on November 08, 2009
If Texas wins out, they're in the National Championship game, easily. It's gonna be them v. Florida/Alabama.
posted by NoMich at 09:05 PM on November 08, 2009
Brent Celek did a Captain Morgan after a touchdown in tonight's Cowboys/Eagles game. And got flagged for it.
posted by rcade at 12:44 AM on November 09, 2009
The Haye-Valuev fight was described by one of the Guardian's commenters as "an advert for MMA", with good reason, but Haye's victory probably revitalises the heavyweight division, especially if the matchup with Ruiz happens.
posted by etagloh at 01:31 AM on November 09, 2009
THX -- I thought the weakest part of the rebuttal as this: Re multi-champions in the same division: It can be aggravating and confusing, but there's a collective wisdom in boxing that knows the true champion as opposed to title-holders). The rankings of Ring Magazine and Dan Rafael (ESPN.com) reflect the consensus. More important, there have always been so-called "paper champions" and fans have always decided which fighters they wanted to see, champions or not.
I think that completely under-recognizes the effect on the public of having multiple champions - it reduces the narrative of each fight and produces dozens of "champions" - more than the average fan can keep track of or care about. The notion that "collective wisdom" knows and so this is a non-issue is fairyland stuff. Hardcore fans will know, but the average, casual fan (and I might be one myself) really needs to have a simple story to follow. Who won the Stanley Cup? Easy. Who is the third ranked WBA cruiserweight and why should I care if they challenge a champion I've never heard of? And to say "true champion" vs "title-holder" -- when the title is "champion" you better believe that's confusing, in a way that can't just be dismissed by reference to a boxing magazine.
What I am saying is, through greed and split titles boxing destroyed their own narrative; and then by taking it off TV they gave everyone a reason to not care.
I don't follow UFC or MMA at all, in fact I think it is a sick exercise pandering to video-game junkies, but they are not making the same mistakes so far as I can tell. Yet.
posted by rumple at 01:30 PM on November 09, 2009
Some disgruntled sports fans are fighting back.