It's an interesting match-up for the national championship, and there's no doubt who the favorite will be.
Before the NCAA tournament began, few thought Michigan had much of a chance to advance all the way to the title game. Yet they've not only played well, but caught a few breaks along the way to boot.
During the five games they've played to date, UM has faced a #14, #6, #7, #9, and in the semi-final against Loyola/Chicago, a mere #11. So the best they've played so far has only, on paper, been a #6 seed, while being a #3 going in themselves.
On the other hand, UV has faced a #16, #8, #5, #3, and in their semi a #1 in Kansas. They were a #1 seed themselves going in.
Michigan looked rather ordinary in the first half against Sister Jean and her Loyola Ramblers. Indeed, they were down by 10 points well into the second half. But then something clicked either for Mich, or against Loyola, and the Wolverines would pound them by a whopping 22 points for the remainder of the game to win by 12. A comfortable margin, to be sure. But again, that was against an #11 seed.
Meanwhile, Villanova pounded Kansas from start to finish, winning by 15 points. And yet again, the Jayhawks were a #1 seed.
Now instead of Loyola being the "Cinderella", it shifts to Michigan. They'll be heavy underdogs in the championship game, and well they should be. They weren't supposed to get this far, while Villanova has been hailed as an elite team since the season started.
Will the mighty Wildcats come out Monday night and roll all over the upstart Wolverines like they did Kansas?
Maybe. Perhaps even probably.
Or might the "Blue" play like they did in the latter part of the game against Loyola for the WHOLE game against the "bluebloods" and pull off a semi-monumental upset?
The odds will certainly be against it. But ya never know.
Stranger things have happened.
Broadway Joe Namath and the "sissy" NY Jets were supposed to get pounded 270-0 by Johnny Unitas and the mighty Colts in Super Bowl III.
The late Jim Valvano's NC State team was supposed to get blistered by a far super Houston team in the NCAA finals back in 1985.
And no way was the rag-tag US hockey team ever going to defeat the steamroller Soviet Red Army squad in the 1980 Olympics.
But they all happened. Play those games again ten times and the other team probably wins all of them.
And much more recently, the latest Presidential election. Who saw THAT coming? All the "experts" were dead wrong.
In this case, every quantifiable aspect would seem to indicate Villanova will breeze through Michigan to claim another title.
And they just might.
But we'll see.
Hey, Geno's Bambino's at UConn were supposed to roll to another national championship as well. They were undefeated for the entire season. How did that work out?
Saturday, March 31, 2018
Michigan hoops. Champs or chumps?
The Wolverines are a strange bunch. Just a couple months ago, they looked to be no better than average, at best. But now they seem to have an aura of invincibility -- maybe.
The team that showed up in the first half of the national semi-final against Loyola/Chicago looked like they couldn't beat anybody.
Yet the team that came out in the second half, particularly after a few minutes into it, had transformed into world beaters. Down by 10 and wind up winning by 12? That's really impressive stuff.
So now the question becomes --- which team will show up on Monday night against what looks to be Villanova at the time of this writing (they're clobbering Kansas by 15 at halftime).
If Team A shows up for the Wolverines, they'll get run out of the gym by the Wildcats (or Kansas, if they pull off a huge comeback).
But if Team B comes to play, UM's got a more than a decent shot of walking out of San Antonio as national champions.
And, as mentioned above, just a couple months ago, nobody, I mean NOBODY would have thought it possible.
Only one way to find out.
Bring it on.
The team that showed up in the first half of the national semi-final against Loyola/Chicago looked like they couldn't beat anybody.
Yet the team that came out in the second half, particularly after a few minutes into it, had transformed into world beaters. Down by 10 and wind up winning by 12? That's really impressive stuff.
So now the question becomes --- which team will show up on Monday night against what looks to be Villanova at the time of this writing (they're clobbering Kansas by 15 at halftime).
If Team A shows up for the Wolverines, they'll get run out of the gym by the Wildcats (or Kansas, if they pull off a huge comeback).
But if Team B comes to play, UM's got a more than a decent shot of walking out of San Antonio as national champions.
And, as mentioned above, just a couple months ago, nobody, I mean NOBODY would have thought it possible.
Only one way to find out.
Bring it on.
Friday, March 30, 2018
More silly rants
Few would doubt that the game of baseball, particularly at the Major League level, has changed greatly over the past several years. Out have gone many of the "old ways" when things were fairly simple. In have come stats from hell, sometimes called metrics, analyzing every player in seemingly every way possible.
Basically, high-tech has taken over, and been quite successful at that. The age of the Jetsons is upon us.
So what did the Detroit Tigers do?
Went out and hired Fred Flintstone, sometimes called Ron Gardenhire as their manager.
Fittingly enough, their first game of the season was rained out. An omen of things to come? Perhaps, considering the Tigers are in full blown rebuild mode. They got rid of what talent they had.
In his first official action, Mr. G got himself tossed out of the game -- over arguing the results/decision of a replay call.
And that's just dumb. After a close play has been reviewed by the "guys in the booth" and a decision rendered, there's no way they're going to change it. It is what it is. Get over it. That's like trying to argue with a cop after he/she has given you a speeding ticket. Only a doofus would think they can talk them into taking it back. Keep flapping your gums and you might just wind up going to jail, car impounded -- all that good stuff.Was it really worth it?
Interesting article penned by one Stephanie Apstein in the latest issue of Sport Illustrated. Per today's politically correct world, dear Steph was lavish in her praise of the Los Angeles Angels' recent addition of Shohei Ohtani, a Japanese emigre trying to hit it big in the Bigs.
Per the article, you'd think this guy is the greatest pitcher/hitter combination since Babe Ruth. "He'll pitch every six days and DH two or three times between starts".
Sounds great, a can't miss prospect.
Right up until his actual performance to date is looked at.
For such a fantastic pitcher, he's given up nine runs in only two and two thirds innings. What sort of ERA is that? 35 maybe? But dammit "his delivery is clean and his slider has induced gasps", quote Ms. Apstein.
Um, yeah. Opposing hitters seem to be cleaning up on him all right. And those gasps might just be from watching him get lit up like the proverbial pinball machine.
At the plate he's "shown raw power in batting practice". Well dang, in BP who doesn't?
Yet he's got a measly two hits in twenty at bats during the games. For a batting average of .100.
This is the next Babe Ruth? Maybe she was talking about the candy bar instead of the legendary Bosox/Yankees slugger.
Regardless, maybe somebody needs to check Apstein for performance enhancing drugs. If she isn't taking them, by all means give her a healthy dose. If any scribe ever needed their performance enhanced -- it's her. Whatzamattuh you girl?
Alas, poor Frank Isola. He's a sportswriter for the New York Daily News and occasional talking head on ESPN's Around the Horn.
With no lack of conviction, FI, and those initials would seem to be appropriate, thundered Louisville would top Mississippi St. in one ladies' national semi-final, and nobody, but NOBODY was going to beat mighty UConn. Especially Notre Dame.
Then bam. DOWN went Louisville.
DOWN went UConn.
Um, Frank. Don't quit your day job. If we want predictions like that, we'll turn to Peter King, also of SI fame (or is that infamy?). He couldn't pick his nose with a power auger either.
Basically, high-tech has taken over, and been quite successful at that. The age of the Jetsons is upon us.
So what did the Detroit Tigers do?
Went out and hired Fred Flintstone, sometimes called Ron Gardenhire as their manager.
Fittingly enough, their first game of the season was rained out. An omen of things to come? Perhaps, considering the Tigers are in full blown rebuild mode. They got rid of what talent they had.
In his first official action, Mr. G got himself tossed out of the game -- over arguing the results/decision of a replay call.
And that's just dumb. After a close play has been reviewed by the "guys in the booth" and a decision rendered, there's no way they're going to change it. It is what it is. Get over it. That's like trying to argue with a cop after he/she has given you a speeding ticket. Only a doofus would think they can talk them into taking it back. Keep flapping your gums and you might just wind up going to jail, car impounded -- all that good stuff.Was it really worth it?
Interesting article penned by one Stephanie Apstein in the latest issue of Sport Illustrated. Per today's politically correct world, dear Steph was lavish in her praise of the Los Angeles Angels' recent addition of Shohei Ohtani, a Japanese emigre trying to hit it big in the Bigs.
Per the article, you'd think this guy is the greatest pitcher/hitter combination since Babe Ruth. "He'll pitch every six days and DH two or three times between starts".
Sounds great, a can't miss prospect.
Right up until his actual performance to date is looked at.
For such a fantastic pitcher, he's given up nine runs in only two and two thirds innings. What sort of ERA is that? 35 maybe? But dammit "his delivery is clean and his slider has induced gasps", quote Ms. Apstein.
Um, yeah. Opposing hitters seem to be cleaning up on him all right. And those gasps might just be from watching him get lit up like the proverbial pinball machine.
At the plate he's "shown raw power in batting practice". Well dang, in BP who doesn't?
Yet he's got a measly two hits in twenty at bats during the games. For a batting average of .100.
This is the next Babe Ruth? Maybe she was talking about the candy bar instead of the legendary Bosox/Yankees slugger.
Regardless, maybe somebody needs to check Apstein for performance enhancing drugs. If she isn't taking them, by all means give her a healthy dose. If any scribe ever needed their performance enhanced -- it's her. Whatzamattuh you girl?
Alas, poor Frank Isola. He's a sportswriter for the New York Daily News and occasional talking head on ESPN's Around the Horn.
With no lack of conviction, FI, and those initials would seem to be appropriate, thundered Louisville would top Mississippi St. in one ladies' national semi-final, and nobody, but NOBODY was going to beat mighty UConn. Especially Notre Dame.
Then bam. DOWN went Louisville.
DOWN went UConn.
Um, Frank. Don't quit your day job. If we want predictions like that, we'll turn to Peter King, also of SI fame (or is that infamy?). He couldn't pick his nose with a power auger either.
Thursday, March 29, 2018
Idle golf thoughts
After clicking over to the Golf Channel, the leaderboard of the Ana Inspiration popped up on the screen. And I was mystified. Among the first names of the contestants were an Ayako, an Albane, a Ha, Pernilla, In, Chella, Sung, Sun, Hee, Moriya, Inbee, and a Kris.
Soooooo, was this a ladie's or men's tournament?
Ah, finally a Jennifer, Paula, and Amy. Think I got it, but ya never know these days. Scary stuff.
Then back to the feature event, the Shell Open. Definitely a stag affair.
Wait a second. What's that? It's being played in a town called Humble, Texas?
Get outta here. In all my years on the planet, yours truly has yet to see or hear a single thing remotely resembling "humble" when it comes to anything Texas. That's a bit like naming a Siberian village "Toasty". It just doesn't fit.
Still, it was worth checking out for one simple reason. What's his name (El-dick?) wasn't in attendance. That meant fair coverage would be given to the players on the course instead of the never-ending blather, hero worship, and other means of zeroing in on Whozit. By the way they act, you'd think the dude has won everything in sight this year, instead of not even being in the top 100 players in the world and not winning squat in several years.
I still, and have long thought somebody needs to check behind the guy's ears for a telltale 666. I mean, the media and masses fawning all over him like he's the Second Coming just doesn't seem right somehow. That's a bit scary too.
Ah, he's probably already at Augusta getting ready for next week's Masters Tourney. And when that happens, it'll be back to full-tilt blitz coverage of him. Sigh.
Ya gotta love the irreverent wit of David Feherty, a former player himself. His interviews are a pleasure to watch, and he apparently much doesn't give a rat's behind what people think. For better or worse, I can definitely relate to the latter.
Soooooo, was this a ladie's or men's tournament?
Ah, finally a Jennifer, Paula, and Amy. Think I got it, but ya never know these days. Scary stuff.
Then back to the feature event, the Shell Open. Definitely a stag affair.
Wait a second. What's that? It's being played in a town called Humble, Texas?
Get outta here. In all my years on the planet, yours truly has yet to see or hear a single thing remotely resembling "humble" when it comes to anything Texas. That's a bit like naming a Siberian village "Toasty". It just doesn't fit.
Still, it was worth checking out for one simple reason. What's his name (El-dick?) wasn't in attendance. That meant fair coverage would be given to the players on the course instead of the never-ending blather, hero worship, and other means of zeroing in on Whozit. By the way they act, you'd think the dude has won everything in sight this year, instead of not even being in the top 100 players in the world and not winning squat in several years.
I still, and have long thought somebody needs to check behind the guy's ears for a telltale 666. I mean, the media and masses fawning all over him like he's the Second Coming just doesn't seem right somehow. That's a bit scary too.
Ah, he's probably already at Augusta getting ready for next week's Masters Tourney. And when that happens, it'll be back to full-tilt blitz coverage of him. Sigh.
Ya gotta love the irreverent wit of David Feherty, a former player himself. His interviews are a pleasure to watch, and he apparently much doesn't give a rat's behind what people think. For better or worse, I can definitely relate to the latter.
Wednesday, March 28, 2018
Solving the helmet-to-helmet contact problem
In its never-ending quest to cut down on head injuries, a good thing, the NFL owners have approved a new rule, a stupid thing.
In its current form, said rule would bar any player from initiating contact with his helmet to any part of an opponent's body. Those in violation would have committed a foul and be subject to penalty yardage and/or even ejection from the game.
And that presents a problem. Because at least nine guys will have committed an infraction on any given play. Think about it. At the snap of the ball, the offensive and defensive linemen roar out of their 3-point stances and, clack, crash helmets.
True, this could be solved by exempting the linemen for a period of one second after the snap. If not, they'd have to play standing upright instead of the above mentioned initial stance. No, we don't hear a lot about catastrophic injuries occurring between the colliding behemoths during the course of a game, but the documentation in certainly there showing the long-term effects of so many hundreds and thousands of routine hits over the course of careers.
Yet the new law is certainly aimed at not only tacklers, but ball carriers as well. We've all seen it on most plays. A running back or receiver will lower their head just before contact trying to get another yard or two before they go down. Conversely, would-be tacklers also use their heads as battering rams trying to knock the ball carrier to the turf.
The latter can be chalked up to lack of coaching proper technique. This goes back to the college, and perhaps even high school levels. Tacklers would rather attempt to blast a ball carrier down with their helmets and shoulder pads than wrap him up with their arms as they should. Sometimes it works spectacularly. Other times the tacklers just bounce off and the ball carrier continues.
But either way, it's a recipe for disaster. See concussions or worse.
Yet there's always been a better way, if the NFL would think out of the box. They don't need this rule or anything like it.
Simply cut the tops off the helmets.
Now before you start thinking I've gone even more bonkers than usual, consider the reality of it.
The only thing the top of the head is used for in today's football is as a battering ram, hence the injury problems. Which is precisely what the league and safety proponents are trying to eliminate,
Sure, leave the rest of the headgear intact, including the face mask and the remainder of the helmets. But cut them off at approximately the hairline of a non-balding leaving the crown of the head exposed.
Players would still be free to collide with each other at high speeds, hence big hits, but they'd be forced to the old, and proper way of tackling. Make contact, wrap the dude up, and bring him down. Ninety nine percent of the concussions go away.
If a player, be it a ball carrier or potential tackler, wants to lower his head as a battering ram, they do so at their own peril. But no foul much less an ejection. Let them have at it if they're dumb enough to go ramming their exposed heads into large objects. Yet methinks that would stop in a hurry as well.
Hey, the whole object of tackling is to bring the ball carrier to the ground, right? They do so in rugby on every play, and don't have ANY helmets.
True, the lack of a helmet on top of a player's head could result in a freak injury on occasion, if they somehow manage to land on top of their head during a play. But but even WITH the current full helmets it doesn't protect from a neck or spinal injury if it's sufficiently compressed due to impact.
So why not try it and see what happens?
What could possibly go wrong, go wrong, go wrong.........
In its current form, said rule would bar any player from initiating contact with his helmet to any part of an opponent's body. Those in violation would have committed a foul and be subject to penalty yardage and/or even ejection from the game.
And that presents a problem. Because at least nine guys will have committed an infraction on any given play. Think about it. At the snap of the ball, the offensive and defensive linemen roar out of their 3-point stances and, clack, crash helmets.
True, this could be solved by exempting the linemen for a period of one second after the snap. If not, they'd have to play standing upright instead of the above mentioned initial stance. No, we don't hear a lot about catastrophic injuries occurring between the colliding behemoths during the course of a game, but the documentation in certainly there showing the long-term effects of so many hundreds and thousands of routine hits over the course of careers.
Yet the new law is certainly aimed at not only tacklers, but ball carriers as well. We've all seen it on most plays. A running back or receiver will lower their head just before contact trying to get another yard or two before they go down. Conversely, would-be tacklers also use their heads as battering rams trying to knock the ball carrier to the turf.
The latter can be chalked up to lack of coaching proper technique. This goes back to the college, and perhaps even high school levels. Tacklers would rather attempt to blast a ball carrier down with their helmets and shoulder pads than wrap him up with their arms as they should. Sometimes it works spectacularly. Other times the tacklers just bounce off and the ball carrier continues.
But either way, it's a recipe for disaster. See concussions or worse.
Yet there's always been a better way, if the NFL would think out of the box. They don't need this rule or anything like it.
Simply cut the tops off the helmets.
Now before you start thinking I've gone even more bonkers than usual, consider the reality of it.
The only thing the top of the head is used for in today's football is as a battering ram, hence the injury problems. Which is precisely what the league and safety proponents are trying to eliminate,
Sure, leave the rest of the headgear intact, including the face mask and the remainder of the helmets. But cut them off at approximately the hairline of a non-balding leaving the crown of the head exposed.
Players would still be free to collide with each other at high speeds, hence big hits, but they'd be forced to the old, and proper way of tackling. Make contact, wrap the dude up, and bring him down. Ninety nine percent of the concussions go away.
If a player, be it a ball carrier or potential tackler, wants to lower his head as a battering ram, they do so at their own peril. But no foul much less an ejection. Let them have at it if they're dumb enough to go ramming their exposed heads into large objects. Yet methinks that would stop in a hurry as well.
Hey, the whole object of tackling is to bring the ball carrier to the ground, right? They do so in rugby on every play, and don't have ANY helmets.
True, the lack of a helmet on top of a player's head could result in a freak injury on occasion, if they somehow manage to land on top of their head during a play. But but even WITH the current full helmets it doesn't protect from a neck or spinal injury if it's sufficiently compressed due to impact.
So why not try it and see what happens?
What could possibly go wrong, go wrong, go wrong.........
Monday, March 26, 2018
Numbers don't lie
In less, of course, they're poll numbers for the results of presidential elections. We know how THAT worked out about a year and half ago. A "sure winner" in EVERY poll -- got trashed.
Here's one that jumped out at yours truly. Kia Nurse and Gabby Williams, both seniors on Geno Auriemma's UConn lady hoop express, have compiled a 147-2 record to date over their college careers.
But that only SECOND best in school history? Wow. Talk about high standards.
The Michigan Wolverines have, somewhat improbably, reached the Final Four. Few would have foreseen that happening. But ya never know. A team comes together, gets on a roll, and most anything's possible.
Thing is, they had a relatively easy path along the way once the tournament started. Games against a #14 seed Montana, a #6 seed Houston, a #7 seed Texas A&M, and a #9 seed Florida State wasn't exactly wading through the proverbial murderer's row.
And now they'll face a #11 seed in Loyal/Chicago in the Semi-Finals. Hey, nobody's saying it's easy, but if you can get all the way to the Finals and the highest seeded team you faced in the first five games was only a #6 seed, things have pretty well broken your way.
True, most think UM will easily dispatch L/C. But not so fast.
The Ramblers, and their beloved "godmother" Sister Jean aren't exactly pushovers. They've waded through a #6 Miami, Fl, #3 Tennessee, #7 Nevada, and a #9 Kansas St. to get there as well. A tougher road than what UM faced.
Typically, times like these are when the Maize and Blue faithful get cocky. They assume it's "in the bag". But not always so. Their mighty football team got embarrassed, at home, once upon a time by little Appalachian St. And they just knew the hoops game against North Carolina Charlotte was a gimme. Until some dude named Cedric "Cornbread" Maxwell ate their lunch on the hardwood and sent them reeling to another devastating loss. So ya never know about those "little guys".
Yet it could probably be fairly said that the Michigan/Loyola match-up is considered the "undercard" at this year's Final Four.
On the other side, blue bloods and heavyweights Kansas and Villanova will be slugging it out on the same day. Whoever emerges from that battle victorious will no doubt be heavy favorites to go on and win the title a couple days later.
But this has been a very strange tournament so far. Upsets galore. Some say Michigan is as good as anybody still left, but I would disagree with that. Hey, UM was a #3 seed going in, and Kansas and Villanova were #1's.
Even if the Wolverines get past the Ramblers, no given, only then will they run into a team seeded higher than #6 for the first time. And for the first time throughout the tourney, they'd be heavy underdogs.
Sure, lots of things can happen, and sometimes do. The rag-tag 1980 USA olympic hockey team somehow managed to defeat the mighty Soviet Red Army squad in one of the greatest, or not so great, depending on who one was rooting for, upsets of all time. Chances are, they couldn't have done that again in ten tries. But they won the one that counted. So it's theoretically possible.
So is Loyola/Chicago winning it all in this year's NCAA hoops tourney.
And if THAT were to happen, it would give a whole new meaning to March Madness indeed.
Go Ramblers and love ya, Sister Jean.
Here's one that jumped out at yours truly. Kia Nurse and Gabby Williams, both seniors on Geno Auriemma's UConn lady hoop express, have compiled a 147-2 record to date over their college careers.
But that only SECOND best in school history? Wow. Talk about high standards.
The Michigan Wolverines have, somewhat improbably, reached the Final Four. Few would have foreseen that happening. But ya never know. A team comes together, gets on a roll, and most anything's possible.
Thing is, they had a relatively easy path along the way once the tournament started. Games against a #14 seed Montana, a #6 seed Houston, a #7 seed Texas A&M, and a #9 seed Florida State wasn't exactly wading through the proverbial murderer's row.
And now they'll face a #11 seed in Loyal/Chicago in the Semi-Finals. Hey, nobody's saying it's easy, but if you can get all the way to the Finals and the highest seeded team you faced in the first five games was only a #6 seed, things have pretty well broken your way.
True, most think UM will easily dispatch L/C. But not so fast.
The Ramblers, and their beloved "godmother" Sister Jean aren't exactly pushovers. They've waded through a #6 Miami, Fl, #3 Tennessee, #7 Nevada, and a #9 Kansas St. to get there as well. A tougher road than what UM faced.
Typically, times like these are when the Maize and Blue faithful get cocky. They assume it's "in the bag". But not always so. Their mighty football team got embarrassed, at home, once upon a time by little Appalachian St. And they just knew the hoops game against North Carolina Charlotte was a gimme. Until some dude named Cedric "Cornbread" Maxwell ate their lunch on the hardwood and sent them reeling to another devastating loss. So ya never know about those "little guys".
Yet it could probably be fairly said that the Michigan/Loyola match-up is considered the "undercard" at this year's Final Four.
On the other side, blue bloods and heavyweights Kansas and Villanova will be slugging it out on the same day. Whoever emerges from that battle victorious will no doubt be heavy favorites to go on and win the title a couple days later.
But this has been a very strange tournament so far. Upsets galore. Some say Michigan is as good as anybody still left, but I would disagree with that. Hey, UM was a #3 seed going in, and Kansas and Villanova were #1's.
Even if the Wolverines get past the Ramblers, no given, only then will they run into a team seeded higher than #6 for the first time. And for the first time throughout the tourney, they'd be heavy underdogs.
Sure, lots of things can happen, and sometimes do. The rag-tag 1980 USA olympic hockey team somehow managed to defeat the mighty Soviet Red Army squad in one of the greatest, or not so great, depending on who one was rooting for, upsets of all time. Chances are, they couldn't have done that again in ten tries. But they won the one that counted. So it's theoretically possible.
So is Loyola/Chicago winning it all in this year's NCAA hoops tourney.
And if THAT were to happen, it would give a whole new meaning to March Madness indeed.
Go Ramblers and love ya, Sister Jean.
Sunday, March 25, 2018
Charles Barkley. Chucklehead
As Bugs Bunny was fond of saying of Elmer Fudd, "what a maroon".
On that note, enter one Charles Barkley. The former "round mound of rebound" has apparently morphed into the "sum of plumb dumb".
At halftime of Saturday's Florida St./Michigan game, Mr. B solemnly declared FSU was going to prevail. Down went the Noles.
In his very next breath, with even more conviction, he said Duke would knock off Kansas the following day. As we know, down went the Blue Devils.
Um, Chuck. Do you have any more pearls of wisdom to impart on the masses?
On second thought, please don't.
The commercial breaks offer up even more stupidity. See the unholy trio of Barkley, Lil Spikie, and Sammy Jack trying to sell something. What that product actually is, yours truly never noticed. He was too busy trying not to heave as the pre-kindergarten banter between those clowns went on. It's sort of like a modern day version of Larry, Moe, and Curley, without the laughs.
Idle thought. Could Barkley and his antics be whence the word "upchuck" originated?
On that note, enter one Charles Barkley. The former "round mound of rebound" has apparently morphed into the "sum of plumb dumb".
At halftime of Saturday's Florida St./Michigan game, Mr. B solemnly declared FSU was going to prevail. Down went the Noles.
In his very next breath, with even more conviction, he said Duke would knock off Kansas the following day. As we know, down went the Blue Devils.
Um, Chuck. Do you have any more pearls of wisdom to impart on the masses?
On second thought, please don't.
The commercial breaks offer up even more stupidity. See the unholy trio of Barkley, Lil Spikie, and Sammy Jack trying to sell something. What that product actually is, yours truly never noticed. He was too busy trying not to heave as the pre-kindergarten banter between those clowns went on. It's sort of like a modern day version of Larry, Moe, and Curley, without the laughs.
Idle thought. Could Barkley and his antics be whence the word "upchuck" originated?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)