No, John. It wouldn't.  


on 4th and three, some genius on the Eagles got called for a penalty that gave the Pats a first down. I couldn't hear exactly what the ref said, but the words "neutral zone infraction" were used.

Madden: The neutral zone is the length of the football. So that means that, even before someone jumped offsides, that some part of his body was lined up in that zone.

wow. John could have used any of 4 things to figure out that that's not true.

1) the refs had a long huddle before they made the call. Clearly, there was something to discuss. John correctly said that one ref saw one thing, while the other saw something else. let's combine this with...

2) the replay showed that a defensive player jumped offsides, but before the ball was snapped, his offensive counterpart also moved.

3) John Madden has an ear piece that connects him to a whole slew of people inside the NBC studios. perhaps one of them could have mentioned the rule.

4) he could have just known the rule, like I do. I remember when this rule was added. It was about a decade ago!

For the record. If a defensive player flinches/jumps and by doing so goes into the neutral zone, and THEN the offensive player commits a false start, it's ruled a defensive penalty. By going into the neutral zone, it would be unfair for the offensive player to continue to not move. He's allowed to assume the play is starting. If the defender had jumped, but stayed on his side of the ball (i.e. NOT in the neutral zone), and the offensive player flinched, it would be a false start.

I know this. I don't watch football. John Madden should know this.

Three terrible attempts at advertising (Rock Band, Starz, Sirius)  


1) A commercial for the video game "rock band" that shows neither the unique game play nor the instruments that come with it. It's just the trailer/cut scene of the band on the van driving to their next gig. If you don't already know about the game, then you would have NO idea what it's about. And if you do already know about the game, then this commercial adds nothing. Here's how the commercial should have gone: starts with the video game version of the players on stage....pull back to the game play......pull back to a couple of kids jamming on guitars...pull back to a grandmother on drums. done and done.

2) some movie on starz: the "commercial" is of two guys. One guy names a famous person, and the second guy says "he's dead". Eventually they get to Steve Martin, and they argue as to whether or not he's dead. Then one guy mentions that he's currently in a movie with Tim Allen. "Tim Allen? He's dead too". So this commercial is attempting to get me to watch a movie that stars two guys who are so hot right now that it's undetermined whether or not they are still living?

3) Sirius - Things that used to be used to listen to music fall like a chain of dominoes. Cassettes, cds, jute boxes, lp players, ipods, etc etc. Then at the very very end, they show a stiletto and say that you'll forget how you used to listen (or something like that).

Here's how a sirius commercial should go: "We have 100 stations dedicated to COMMERCIAL FREE music. From genres as broad as "top 40 hits" to as narrow as a station dedicated exclusively to Bruce Spingsteen. You'll have the ability to record stations or songs at the click of a button. We have original programs such as HOWARD STERN and Martha Stewart, we have NFL FOOTBALL GAMES for every team. And oh yeah, you know how mp3 players let you store your music for on the go? We do that too."

Devin Hester put in a cheat code in the middle of a game!  


Hester was a good returner before the game today. The Broncos knew this. But after scoring two touch downs (one by punt, and one by regular kickoff), he must have gotten "better", b/c Denver decided to stop kicking to him. It's amazing how a player could actually get better DURING a game. I mean, that's the only logical reason for why a team would change strategy like that, right? It's weird that he was just "normal good" to start, and then "so good that we can't even kick to him good" after.

Never mind the fact that he also muffed TWO kicks in the game as well.

Another very timely post (October's proof that Red Sox Fans are hyporcrites  


They still feel comfortable calling A-Rod "Slap-Rod" even though Pedroia clearly attempted the same type of play in the ALCS. You know, I can't even blame Red Sox fans, as the entire country rags on A-Rod for his play.

Is it a smart play? No. Is it honorable? Probably not. But if anyone other than Arod does it, it goes virtually unnoticed. I mean, this story just writes itself, as Arod did it AGAINST BOSTON in the same round of the playoffs!! It's a "callback"!

Is this Font Better?  


This is a test to see if the font is different when I actually go to the "Edit Blog" page. Lazily, I type most of my posts in firefox's little icon that instantly pulls up a tab to type in my blog. But I really dislike the font that comes with it, and I can't figure out how to change it. This post is done old school. Let's see if it's noticeably different.

I emailed myself in September about Michael Kay  


Today's the day that I go through all my old emails that I have left as "unread" b/c I didn't have the time to fully digest them. They're a combination of rants from other people, and reminders i've emailed myself. The oldest one is from September (!). When I read this over (mind you, there was no "note to self" aspect w/ it, just the actual pasted quote), I couldn't tell what made me so angry. Let's see if you can guess:

Dear Mr. Kay,
I have long been an admirer of your commentary and the sense of humor you bring to the telecasts.

Having also listened to your radio program in the past, I recall that your initial take on the Randy Johnson trade to Arizona was far from favorable. You seemed to believe that because Johnson won 17 games with a 5.00 ERA, there was something magic about his ability to win. You seemed to think that his veteran ability to win games despite giving up oodles of runs was a talent no other pitcher could match. It seems from what we now know that a) Johnson wasn't exactly a clubhouse leader and his "veteran" presence certainly didn't do much to mentor other Yankees; and b) a young talented arm is more helpful to achieving playoff aspirations than having a grumpy, over-the-hill veteran soaking up innings.

You have certainly in recent weeks praised the Johnson trade, but in full candor to your listeners perhaps you should not give the impression that at the time of the trade you were gung ho in favor of it. In hindsight, the Yankees would have "won" the trade even if all they received was Russ Ohlendorf.

Anyway, keep up the good work.
Roger B. Calistro — New York, N.Y.

Dear Mr. Calistro,
I did not like the trade at first because I did not like giving up a 17-game winner. I also knew that he was not a leader or a favorite in the clubhouse, but the trade is now a good one because Johnson went down with a bad back. If he had not, the Yankees could have used those 17 wins and probably would not have gotten off to such a terrible start and might be in first place today. But in hindsight, and also learning afterward that he wanted no part of playing in New York, I think Brian Cashman pulled off a really good deal when he had absolutely no leverage.

Obviously, Kay believing that a pitcher actually has an ability to win 17 games in a vacuum is stupid, but not original. Have you gotten it yet? Kay specifically says that Johnson (and a portion of his 17 wins) would have been an asset when the Yankees were struggling EARLY IN THE SEASON. When Randy Johnson was traded, it was 100% certain that he would be starting the season on the DL!!!! Randy Johnson, even the 1999 version of him, could not have helped in April or May because he was physically unable to play!

Michael Kay evaluated the offseason trade of Randy Johnson, and saw a "17 game winner" but failed to notice "will start the season on the DL". And he gets paid money!

was THAT the worst episode of the Office of all time?  


Can I really be saying that? We've had Michael Scott "carbo load" right before a race by eating a big plate of pasta and then not drinking water; we've had Michael Scott knowingly and willingly drive into a lake b/c a GPS device told him to; we've had Michael and Dwight try to commit vandalism on a sister office; we've had a pizza boy kidnapped (side rant: when he wouldn't accept the coupon, that was michael's out to not accept the pizza that he didn't want anyway!); and we've had other things that i can't even remember b/c i've blacked them out.

But in this episode, the plot actually confused me b/c it made no sense.

Jan is suing for wrongful termination which is based in part on sexual harrassment. She worked in Corporate. Her boyfriend / manager of a branch would have NO knowledge of what was going on in Corporate. Things were added to the deposition that only existed for the benefit of a joke. jan/plaintiff was arguing that her performance evaluations of Michael got better once they started going out. Uh, that would be DEFENDANT'S argument, as she was allowing personal relationships to prevent her from doing her job. Michael's personal diary gets admitted into evidence and everyone gets a print out of it? Huh?

actually, i'm not finishing my thought. This show is terrible. TERRIBLE. such lazy writing.

Hmm, I don't think is the way Resident Evil IV was meant to be played.  


Ever since my Goldeneye days, I've had a reputation for being a wimp when it comes to FPS. I'm currently on a board in RE4 where it's really dark outside and I can't see anything. So instead of actually walking around and taking my chances, I'll wait until one of the zombies sees me and then run back to my hiding place. Since zombies walk really slow, i have to wait and wait and wait until they finally catch up to me, where i'm waiting to cherry pick them off.

It's very boring, but very effective.

2:03 left in the half....  


With 2 minutes and change left in the first half, the Giants had a 2nd and 17 deep in their own territory. They ran the ball, and with 2:03 seconds left the Cowboys had two options:

1) Let the clock run down to the 2 minute warning. It would then be 3rd and 20 with 2 minutes left and all 3 of their timeouts remaining.

2) Take a time out. It would then be 3rd and 20 with 2:03 left in the half and they would have 2 timeouts remaining.

CW says you go with option #2. "You try and squeeze in another play before the two minute warning." Huh? Why?

The only way the Giants are going to get a first down in a 3rd/20 situation is if they pass. But, teams don't pass late in those situations because you don't want to stop the clock for the other team (who will probably be getting the ball back anyway).

However, with only 3 seconds left before the two minute warning, there is no "danger" in stopping the clock for the Cowboys, because the clock IS going to be stopped AUTOMATICALLY. Even if a pass play were to take less than three seconds (unlikely), the clock would then be stopped on the next play, because of a change of possession.

So the Cowboys removed any risk for the Giants in terms of whether they should pass in that situation. So OF COURSE the Giants might as well take the chance. And what if they did get lucky and get a first down? Then it would be the Giants, not the Cowboys, who would be running the two minute drill.

Essentially then, the Cowboys would have used a timeout for the Giants benefit. That's why you wait until as long as possible before you decide whether to use your timeouts. With each play in a half, you gain more knowledge. You use the timeout after 3rd down instead of after 2nd down because it removes the chance that the offense gets a first down on 3rd down.

Why don't teams see this? Why did the Cowboys risk a Giants 1st down for a measly three seconds? Oh, because that's what the book says. And if you go against the book, you run the risk of being publicly shamed by the two yahoos in the booth (who, btw, questioned why the Giants would "risk" throwing a pass on third down...ha!)

And while I'm stewing over yet another example of poor time management, another CW hits me in the face. Teams are super-duper-scared to try and move the ball at the end of the half, when in fact it's the best time to spread the offense.

With 20 something seconds left, the Giants were going to run the ball out and go into the half down by 3. Yeah, why bother trying to score when there's a chance you can turn the ball over. Mind you, after a 15 yard taunting penalty (which in itself, is a sign that mankind is far from evolved), the Giants were near midfield and one play away from getting into field goal position.

Why do teams run out the clock at the end of the first half? Again, it's out of fear of being second guessed. If, by chance, a turnover DOES occur in that situation, and the other team scores, the coach will be blasted for the decision. And the goal in life isn't to make good decisions, it's to make popular decisions.

But think about it, the biggest risk for deep passing has been removed: field position is of no concern late in the half. A QB who KNOWS not to throw an INT, and doesn't have to worry about losing field position with a sack is still a very dangerous weapon. In some ways, he's even more dangerous because he can sit back a little longer waiting for the perfect play to present itself. And in a worst case scenario, you can still throw a hail mary / jump ball even if you can't reach the endzone. If your guy catches it at the 5, you call time out and kick a field goal. If the other team catches it and falls down, then they'll take a knee to end the half. As long as you set it up properly, and as long as your players are on board in terms of not taking unnecessary risks, there's NO reason to sit on the ball at the end of the half. Can you imagine a team in the middle of third quarter running out the clock b/c they are afraid to turn the ball over? Of course not, b/c professionals should be able to achieve the goal of "not turn the ball over" if they are really trying to accomplish JUST that.

Does uniform color have an impact on sports?  


The Giants are wearing red today for two reasons (according to chris berman).

1) For the college like atmosphere (they are asking fans to wear red too).

2) For the pyschological advantage of having Romo "see the rush coming".

Is it possible that a defense that has a Jersey that blends in with the field / surroundings might be better? If I'm looking downfield, I'll avoid red jerseys, but maybe a light green jersey doesn't catch my eye.


what did people used to say before "it is what it is"  


the saying really annoys me, but when I hear someone say it, I can't think of an equally efficient alternative. what else would fit?