Friday, October 08, 2004
I want to address some things I've been reading today, but first off I want to say that if my Angels can't beat a white guy with blonde cornrows, I don't want to go to the ALCS.
From an espn.com article about the Dodgers' Milton Bradley resolving his feud with LA Times reporter Jason Reid after the two had a heated altercation in the visitor's clubhouse in St. Louis:
"A Fox Sports Net Midwest television crew recorded the confrontation but erased it at the insistence of Dodgers spokesman John Olguin, FSN reporter Brent Stover said."
I wasn't aware that the Dodgers presided over Fox Sports Net Midwest. It must be some sort of jurisdictional loophole that states "broadcast content shall be controlled by the visiting team's representatives." If all the Dodgers have to do is "insist" that their embarrassing moments not be televised, why didn't they edit out the water toss that started this whole mess? I wish the Angels had such power because there have been a few mishaps this week I'd like stricken from the record. Seriously though, I tip my hat to the people at FSNMW for heeding the Dodgers request (or was it an order?). In this Age of Information we're living in, it's refreshing to see a media entity show some integrity and choose to not broadcast something.
From another espn.com article about the $87,400 fine imposed on Sammy Sosa for arriving late to the Cubs' final game and leaving early while the game was still being played:
"Sosa's agent, Adam Katz, called the fine too steep."
Too steep? He missed one game of work and was fined one game's worth of pay! Any argument about something being too steep should be focused on the fact that a .253 hitter is making more than 87K for a single game. The fine is so cut-and-dry appropriate, how can this agent argue it and keep a straight face? Does he represent actors as well who might have helped him pull off such a feat? Does he think Sammy's fine should be pro-rated for the 85 minutes he did spend in the clubhouse? I work in accounting so let me run the numbers on this...If Sammy was present for 85 minutes of an estimated 300 required minutes (2 hours pre-game, 3 hours game), that works out to just over 28%. By that estimation, he missed 72% of his expected service which comes out to $62,928. Ya know what Sammy and Agent Katz, screw it, we're tacking on the rest in punitive damages for a team that needed its superstar to stand up next to it in the face of unachieved expectations. You took the easy way out and you should have to pay for it.
From Cal Berkley's "Daily Californian" newspaper, matching the Bears up with this week's opponent of USC:
(On Coaches)
"After their two meetings, Tedford appears to have Carroll's number, first nearly upsetting the Trojans in 2002, then pulling out the win in 2003."
Let me get this straight, in two meetings the record is 1-1 and that means Tedford has Pete Carroll's number? Sure the 2002 game was close, but everybody knows the only two arenas in which "close" counts. Last time I checked, the NCAA didn't recognize a game as a victory unless your team had more points on the board when the final whistle blew. To say that Tedford has his number by almost beating Carroll in 2002, you're essentially admitting that SC's coach is better and that Tedford deserves credit for coming close. I use the same reasoning when I play my buddy Adam in basketball and only lose by 6 points. Edge: USC, you friggin' idiot.
|
From an espn.com article about the Dodgers' Milton Bradley resolving his feud with LA Times reporter Jason Reid after the two had a heated altercation in the visitor's clubhouse in St. Louis:
"A Fox Sports Net Midwest television crew recorded the confrontation but erased it at the insistence of Dodgers spokesman John Olguin, FSN reporter Brent Stover said."
I wasn't aware that the Dodgers presided over Fox Sports Net Midwest. It must be some sort of jurisdictional loophole that states "broadcast content shall be controlled by the visiting team's representatives." If all the Dodgers have to do is "insist" that their embarrassing moments not be televised, why didn't they edit out the water toss that started this whole mess? I wish the Angels had such power because there have been a few mishaps this week I'd like stricken from the record. Seriously though, I tip my hat to the people at FSNMW for heeding the Dodgers request (or was it an order?). In this Age of Information we're living in, it's refreshing to see a media entity show some integrity and choose to not broadcast something.
From another espn.com article about the $87,400 fine imposed on Sammy Sosa for arriving late to the Cubs' final game and leaving early while the game was still being played:
"Sosa's agent, Adam Katz, called the fine too steep."
Too steep? He missed one game of work and was fined one game's worth of pay! Any argument about something being too steep should be focused on the fact that a .253 hitter is making more than 87K for a single game. The fine is so cut-and-dry appropriate, how can this agent argue it and keep a straight face? Does he represent actors as well who might have helped him pull off such a feat? Does he think Sammy's fine should be pro-rated for the 85 minutes he did spend in the clubhouse? I work in accounting so let me run the numbers on this...If Sammy was present for 85 minutes of an estimated 300 required minutes (2 hours pre-game, 3 hours game), that works out to just over 28%. By that estimation, he missed 72% of his expected service which comes out to $62,928. Ya know what Sammy and Agent Katz, screw it, we're tacking on the rest in punitive damages for a team that needed its superstar to stand up next to it in the face of unachieved expectations. You took the easy way out and you should have to pay for it.
From Cal Berkley's "Daily Californian" newspaper, matching the Bears up with this week's opponent of USC:
(On Coaches)
"After their two meetings, Tedford appears to have Carroll's number, first nearly upsetting the Trojans in 2002, then pulling out the win in 2003."
Let me get this straight, in two meetings the record is 1-1 and that means Tedford has Pete Carroll's number? Sure the 2002 game was close, but everybody knows the only two arenas in which "close" counts. Last time I checked, the NCAA didn't recognize a game as a victory unless your team had more points on the board when the final whistle blew. To say that Tedford has his number by almost beating Carroll in 2002, you're essentially admitting that SC's coach is better and that Tedford deserves credit for coming close. I use the same reasoning when I play my buddy Adam in basketball and only lose by 6 points. Edge: USC, you friggin' idiot.
# posted by j.h.k. @ 12:30 PM 
