As I posted a blog yesterday on the semi-controversial topic of athletes' salaries and it seemed to be well-received, I would like to piggyback on that "success" and attempt to offer some serious analysis one more time, even though I said I wasn't going to (and despite the fact that this effort will explore an issue that will undoubtedly be much tougher to change people's minds on).  First off, I need to say that if you've read some of my earlier posts, you know I am now a hypocrite in some regard.  As much as I lampooned anyone writing about overexposed topics like the T.O. saga, I now find myself doing the same-but just this once.  All I can say is that I hope it's a fresh enough perspective so people can find enjoyment in reading about it, whether they agree with it or not.  With all that out of the way, I feel as though I need to be very clear about one more thing:  In this article, I am arguing only that the media does in fact treat T.O. unfairly and nothing else.

Here are some thoughts and quotes from popular columnists and commentators since the T.O. saga really picked up after the Favre debacle.  Besides one or two quips from TV, I found them all by doing a search on espn.com, presumably the place where a majority of people look for their sports news and commentary (no offense, foxsports).  I encourage everyone to check them out for themselves if they want to, or if they think that I am doing my own slanting:

Skip Bayless:  "...during his contract dispute, T.O. compared himself to Rosa Parks."

I agree Skip, that's a pretty outrageous comparison.  I don't remember that off the top of my head, though, and I watch a lot of sports news programs. Can you give me a quote?  Ok, I understand you have space limitations.  I'm not doubting he said something like that, but how about expanding on the context he said it in?  How about a link to the interview so I can check it out myself if I want to?

Joe Theisman on where T.O. will land: "First, let me say that I agree with the arbitrator's decision."

Thanks, Joe, because I was wondering how you felt on the subject.  Just curious what that has to do with where T.O. will land next year and why it was so important that it had to be the first thing people read when they saw this article.

Joe Theisman right after T.O.'s suspension:  "Let me tell you, there is a sense of relief on this team now that Owens is gone for however long."

That's kind of weird, Joe, especially considering that a few days after you wrote that piece, Andy Reid met with a couple of players to see if it would be beneficial to have T.O. return.  Ultimately, I suppose they decided against it.  But check out what Jevon Kearse and L.J. Smith had to say this past week about T.O...Kearse:  "He's a wonderful teammate."  Smith:  He's a great teammate.  They don't really sound like guys who would be relieved that Owens was gone.  What about all of the other guys who came to T.O.'s party?  It couldn't be that some guys were staying quiet because the team's management stood firmly against T.O. and they were afraid they were going to be vilified if they came out in support of him, could it? (see Ditka comment below).  I mean, it's not like the guys who did lend their support like L.J., Kearse, and Trotter are veterans or team leaders or anything.  And It's not like one of the team's stars was in the middle of negotiating a long-term contract of his own or anything.  Westbrook wasn't at that party, was he?  Just askin'.

Sean Salisbury:  "Owens isn't just a cancer, he's a terminal cancer in the locker room." 

Obviously, he wasn't McNabb's best friend.  But a terminal cancer?  Sounds a little harsh, Sean.  Especially in light of the quotes found above.

Ditka on Countdown:  I'm paraphrasing here but this is very close..."If those players want T.O. back, then they don't know what a good teammate is."

Thanks for your objectivity, Mike.  Good to know that if any of T.O.'s teammates support him, then they don't know what they're talking about.  Because you've been in the Eagles' locker room all year, right, and you know everything that went on.  On an unrelated note, thanks for your defense of Bill Parcells the next week when he tried to knock out his assistant coach.  When Bill Parcells throws a right hook at a member of the team, it's pretty funny, isn't it?  And if any player tries to say that it isn't funny, I bet it's because he doesn't know what he's talking about.

Jim Rome on T.O. complaining about unfair treatment from the media:  Again, I'm paraphrasing, but very close..."T.O. doesn't get it.  When Chad Johnson celebrates in the end zone, he doesn't call people out or dance on Dallas' star.  That's why the media doesn't get on him."

Honestly, Jim, that's a great point. I will give you that one.  But T.O.'s not the only one who doesn't get it.  You went on to pose questions about T.O.'s comments to your panel of guests, Roger Lodge and Seth Joyner.  Roger Lodge is the host of a TV dating show, not a media correspondent.  And what does Seth Joyner have to do with anything in sports that happened in the last ten years?  You guys each trashed T.O. pretty good.  I think it's kind of ironic, though, that you're mocking T.O. for his complaint that the media treats him unfairly as you pose questions to two guys who hate T.O.  Ok, maybe there aren't a whole lot of T.O. supporters available at a moment's notice.  Couldn't one of you at least have played devil's advocate and supported Owens just for the sake of the debate?

Some of T.O.'s complaints had to do with the fact that the media didn't cover his Katrina relief efforts like his trip to the Superdome.  I couldn't find anything on that, but I did see an article about Owens auctioning his championship ring so he could give the proceeds to charity.  It wasn't a column, just an associated press news brief.  At the end of the short article it reminded us that Owens had "a contentious offseason while trying to renegotiate his contract."  I'm not really sure how that had anything to do with the fact that Owens was selling his ring for charity.  I also don't think very many people would have read that article and not known who Owens was until you reminded him them he was the guy who was trying to renegotiate his contract.  I will say, that I did find one interesting paragraph from a columnist named Jason Whitlock, who talked about the possibility the team was protecting McNabb because of the money they had committed to him.  Which was good, because after I read a story on the website's front page by all of ESPN's NFL analysts where each analyst trashes T.O. in his own way, I make sure to go directly to Jason Whitlock's column on Page 2 and get another perspective.

I know, I know.  This isn't the first time T.O. stuck his foot in mouth.  He should have kept quiet.  Why couldn't he just shut up and play football?  Hey, I agree 100%. I really do.  And as an Eagles fan, I wish he could have.  But even though he never should have said anything, what did T.O. really say about McNabb and Favre?  Out of the blue, did he say "McNabb is awful and if Brett Favre was our QB, we'd be undefeated."  Or did he agree to a sentiment offered by Michael Irvin where Irivn stated that had Favre been the Eagles' quarterback, the team would probably be undefeated since McNabb was injured.  When the story first broke, it took until the third or fourth article I read until I finally found out what T.O. said, and I can't tell you how many articles from prominent news sources I read or comments I heard from announcers asking how Owens could come out and say simply that the Eagles would be undefeated if Favre was their QB.  To this day, if someone asks me about if, many of the people I've talked to are still unaware what he actually said.

Again, I'm not saying T.O. should have said anything.  He shouldn't have.  But just because he was dumb enough to say it, doesn't mean we should distort what he said.  I think I'm really going to regret this, but this is just an analogy. If John Kerry was asked whether or not he agreed with James Carville's assessment that if Bush knowingly led this country into war under false pretenses, he should be impeached," and Kerry agreed with it, would it be fair for political correspondents across the country to write the next day about how Kerry said Bush should be impeached for misleading us into war, even if Kerry probably should have just not commented?  I'm sure many of you probably think I'm a flaming liberal because of this article and that statement, but if you did, you couldn't be farther from the truth.  And while I'm not a Bush supporter in any way, no matter how much I hated him, I wouldn't want Washington Post columnists distorting the facts, quoting him out of context, or bringing up unrelated incidents from his past as a justification for doing so.  I hate to break this to some people, but the media isn't nearly as objective as we'd like to think it sometimes.  That's why if you ever watched a World Bank protest on C-Span, you might see some intelligent speakers, but if you watch the three minute clip about it on your local news, you'll probably see a couple of neo-hippies dancing around in a circle while one of them plays the bongo (Again, I'm not an ultra-liberal.  I wouldn't even call myself a liberal at all. I swear. Please keep reading.).  If you're really interested in finding where the truth is in a story, the first thing you should probably do is look to see what the biases might be of the person bringing you the story or the viewpoint.  For instance, if I were you, I'd look at the bio of the person who wrote this article.  Seeing that the writer was an Eagles fan, I would wonder if his viewpoint stemmed at all from his bitterness over the Eagles' downfall.  I might be curious if the writer had T.O. on his fantasy team.  Considering the last article the fan wrote, I might even wonder if he's just defending T.O. to be different or if he ever praised or criticized T.O. in the past, etc.  But most people aren't interested in reading more than one article or listening to one ten second sound bite before forming an opinion on something and refusing to ever reconsider, let alone doing some actual research on the matter (And I'm certainly not saying I research everything I have some kind of opinion on, especially a football player's comments about his quarterback and the like.  However, I do try to keep an open mind and not declare him the anti-christ).

So, if you read my last piece, here we are once again at the key issue behind a controversial thesis:  Why? Why would the media treat T.O. so unfairly and run to defend McNabb at the same time.  Both players are black, so race can't be an issue.  I agree.  Kind of.  It's not that T.O. is black and McNabb is white. It's that for most of us-especially those of us who are articulate enough to have a sports column or sports talk show of our own--, McNabb is like us (or at least how we like to see ourselves) and T.O. is not.  McNabb is humble, T.O. is arrogant.  McNabb says he'll do what he has to do for the team, T.O. says I want the ball.  McNabb doesn't point fingers, T.O. singles people out.  McNabb stays home with his family and makes Chunky Soup commercials, T.O. throws parties with huge hip-hop celebrities.  And most importantly, McNabb seems like a nice guy, and T.O. just comes off as a jerk.  So when T.O. does open himself up for criticism by running his mouth, everyone can't wait to take a shot at him, regardless of what he did or did not say, the context it was said in, or whether or not he has a legitimate point even if he shouldn't have said it.  And who's got T.O.'s back?  That's right, Michael Irvin (who sharpened his debating skills at the U and was just arrested for his 37^th drug possession charge) and some guy who uses his prominent social standing as a civil rights leader to take shots at an NFL quarterback for not scrambling.  Ugh.  Not really a fair fight if you ask me.

A few last points I want to be clear on as I sum up.  I do not think anyone should feel sorry for T.O.  I do not think T.O. should have opened his mouth on the Favre issue or on probably most of the things that got him in trouble over his NFL career.  I do not even think that T.O. shouldn't have been suspended.  What I do think, though, is that as a member of the media, your job is too offer the facts or an opinion based on those facts.  You should not take quotes out of context, slant stories, bring up unrelated incidents from the past, etc., because you think the guy's a jerk and if anything, he asked for it. Out of all the times in my life that I've run into some guy who asked to be punched in the face for running his mouth and saying something stupid, I always knew in the back of my mind that it wasn't the right thing to do, even if I could have whooped up on the guy and taught him a lesson because he couldn't defend himself properly. 

If you made it all the way to the end of this, I appreciate you hanging with me, especially since I think I had to go off topic a little bit to try and prove my point.  But I will leave you with one more clich

I'm putting this up early today in hopes that it will spark some good discussion.  If you've read any of my blogs, then you know that I usually take a very lighthearted look at things in a "did you notice" or "why is that the way it is" observational comedy type of way.  Today I would like to write on another topic that baffles me but do so in a more serious manner.  The issue that I'd like to explore is the notion that athletes are grossly overcompensated for what they do, a notion that I find inexplicable and a viewpoint I regard as devoid of any type of logic and stemming more from jealousy than anything else.

You hear it all time when you're watching the games with friends or having a conversation with a random stranger:  "These guys are overpaid," "How can he ask for more money?", "It's ridiculous these guys get paid the type of money do for catching a football" are all examples of common phrases I've heard even the most intelligent, passionate sports fan throw around.  I would argue quite the opposite, or rather that if anyone in our society deserves to make such a great amount of money, professional athletes have got to be near the top of the list.

I was an English major in college, but it all seems like a simple matter of economics and "supply and demand."  No one can deny the billions and billions of dollars in revenue that the sports entertainment industry generates every year:  Tickets, merchandise, apparel, even beer sales on Sunday can all be traced back to sports in some regard.  I think what people tend to forget sometimes when they complain about players' salaries is that a football or baseball game isn't just about rooting for your favorite team.  Whether you like it or not, it's a business.  That's where supply and demand comes in to play.  The sports industry-and society in general--demands to see the best players.  Check out the ticket sales and television ratings this year for the Colts and Texans.  Colts have better athletes.  Colts have a better team.  Colts win.  People pay to go see the Colts.  People who can't go see the Colts in person watch the Colts on television and look at the commercials that companies pay big money for to advertise their products.  Companies sell more of their product and make more money.  If the Colts had Tom the plumber throwing to Jim the business exec instead of Manning to Harrison, people probably wouldn't watch the Colts anymore. No more money for owners. No more money for television stations.  No more money for the guy who charges for parking across the street from the stadium, etc.  You see my point.  An unbelievable number of people benefit financially off these athletes-too many I'm sure for me to even fathom.  So why do so many fans criticize athletes' salaries as they shuffle out of the stadium in their hats and jerseys, listen to sports radio on the way home for the game recap, watch the game's highlights on Sportscenter before they go to bed, and read about the game the next day in the sports page? 

If you knew that as a result of whatever skill you performed, people were making ungodly amounts of money off of you, would you not want a very hefty salary to perform whatever it is you do?  Have you ever watched a television show and found out that a music group was paid $300,000 when their album made the record company 10 million?  You probably thought they got the royal shaft or at the very least, blamed the performers for being duped.  So why do people feel so differently about athletes than they do other entertainers when athletes ask for more money?  I've never gone to a movie and heard anyone say "Tom Hanks got paid 20 million dollars for this film.  That's outrageous."  Tom Hanks' salary goes up or down in direct proportion to the number of ticket sales he is expected to create by appearing in a film.  The more money Tom Hanks brings in for the studio, the more money Tom Hanks' agent asks for just like the more people who come to watch a sporting event because of a professional athlete's presence, the more his agent asks for. But not nearly as many people label Tom Hanks as greedy like they label some pro athletes and say things like "what ever happened to making films for their artistic merit?" (I would address the topic of not honoring contracts here as I'm sure someone will make that point, but I'm not knowledgeable enough on the subject.  I will say that I know the system's fairness has been questioned many times).  The most ironic part about all of the people who complain about athlete's salaries is that they all hold the key to drastically reducing those salaries.  If starting this Sunday, everyone turned off their TVs and read a book, Randy Moss would soon become Randy the bus driver or whatever occupation he could find work in.  Of course, that's not going to happen.  But the truth of the matter is that if you say an athlete is paid too much money, what you're really saying is that our society places too much emphasis on sports as entertainment.  Which, if people were forced to examine their options (i.e. less watching sports and more reading books or whatever), I think they might quickly reconsider their stance.

This leads to me to ultimate question, then, of why people seemingly target athletes as opposed to any other performers.  And the answer I would offer up is simple:  jealously.  Pure, unabashed, poorly veiled jealousy in my eyes.  It doesn't seem just.  Some of these athletes would have trouble carrying the one in a simple math problem or constructing a remotely coherent thought on paper.  So why should they make so much money and not you or I?  We work hard.  We went to college and studied hard to get that accounting job or busted our butts at the factory to move up the ladder there.  We don't get to play a game for a living.  All very true, but all nothing more than terribly unfortunate for us.  We got the short end of the stick in this one.  Because the truth is that as good as a writer as I think I am, there's thousands and thousands of people in this country alone who are either as good or better than me at what I do.  How many people could throw a ball like Manning or shoot a basketball like Jordan could?  Pardon my brief social commentary, but I would go so far as to say if you really want to see who the most overpaid people are in this country, a good place to start would be the CEOs of major companies who happen to have a really smart Daddy or Granddaddy, or Great-Grandaddy, or whomever.  What makes them worth so much money?  What about the guy who sits behind a desk at the factory because his buddy runs the company as opposed to the guys who make seven bucks an hour doing whatever physically grueling job they do?  It's a lot easier for some of us to pick on the big, dumb, obnoxious athlete on TV dancing in the end zone than it is to look in the mirror, isn't it?  The worst part about it is there isn't a thing I can do about not being a professional athlete.  I think that's why it upsets so many people.  If I need to be smarter to do something, I can study.  If I want to be a musician, I can keep practicing the guitar, etc.  I'm 5'11, 180 and probably run a 7.4 40-yard dash.  It doesn't matter if I go to a gym and shoot hoops every night or run receiving routes in the street 8 hours a day for the next three years, I'm not even getting an invite to an NBA camp or an NFL combine, let alone a lucrative contract offer.  Just not fair, especially since I would love to play sports for a living.  But how many times have you heard someone tell you "life's not fair."  Probably a lot.  So next time you're going to complain about how much money an athlete makes, I would ask you to reconsider. I think it kind of makes you sound like a whiner, especially considering that if you really want to change things, you should probably start by canceling your Sunday Ticket subscription and hanging out with your significant other during the game.  Yikes.

All right, that's it until next time where I resume talking about guys no one remembers like old Eagles running back Anthony Toney and ask questions like how can you name your son Tony Toney?  I just wanted to show my range a little bit.

Here are some of the gimmicks and/or ploys that the sports industry seems to be using.  Let me say I pretty much bite on all of these hook, line, and sinker every time, so I'm not criticizing anyone who finds enjoyment in them.

Lists and Countdowns:  The list certainly isn't just a sports phenomenon.  VHI and E! seem to be stuck in some kind of list competition themselves, offering up such viewer grabbing programs as "100 Most Memorable Golden Girls Episodes" and "TV's 100 Greatest TV Lists"  seemingly every night.  Sports shows might be the worst, though.  True story:  I flipped passed VH1 counting down the 100 Sexiest Celebrities only to land on Summer Sanders counting down the 10 Sexiest Athletes.  If there was a show where they were having a roundtable discussion on who the sexiest athlete was, I guarantee I would have changed the channel.  But for some reason I had to know who they thought the NUMBER ONE sexiest athlete was.  A few comments here:

1)      I was glad to see that A-Rod was ranked number five on the sexiest athlete list.  I mean, the guy only has a 250 million dollar baseball contract so it's good to know that if A-Rod and I were in the same bar sometime, A Rod's sexiness would give him a chance to pick up some chicks.  That should level out the playing field a little bit between us.

2)      Pardon my increasingly diminishing self-esteem, but what's with all these sexiest people lists anyway?  Entertainment is one thing but what does an athlete's sexiness have to do with anything?  I'll be sure to tune in tomorrow to see where A-Rod ranks on the "Top Ten Athletes Who Are Better Than You" list.

3)      Despite providing a great opportunity with this contest, I think FoxSports needs to rethink some of their programming (i.e Best Damn Sports Show Period).  That show should be called Best Damn Sports Show Question Mark.  It's not that I think it's a bad show, but I'd hate to see something happen like it did with Paul Hamm and the gold medal if I found something I thought was better.  Best Damn Sports Show Opening Parentheses 'The Use Of This Title Is Under Arbitration' Closing Parentheses doesn't really roll of the tongue right.

Ok, sorry. I'm rambling.  Back to the countdown thing. I think it's amazing how ESPN comes up with all of those top ten lists.  They've got to be running out of ideas.  The other day I saw "Top Ten Pat Riley Moments."  Number one had something to do with basketball and all I could think about was how hurt Pat Riley's wife and kids must be after seeing his wedding and children's births didn't make the countdown.  By the way, speaking of Riley, how can you trademark a phrase like "Three-Peat."  That seems unfair.  I'm going to trademark the phrase "Back-To-Back" and then when a team puts it on a t-shirt, I'm going to sue the sh** out of them so they can't pay their players and the team goes defunct.  Then I'll donate the money to programs that help inner-city kids learn how to play tennis and Pat Riley won't get any money for being a money-grubbing jerk.  Ok, now I'm really rambling.  My bad.  I'm sure you people have things to do and this isn't open-mic night at your local comedy club.

Online Polls:  ESPN's website has these all the time and they ask questions like "After week 14, who do you think is going to win the Super Bowl?"  Then you have to wait until Sportscenter to see the results.  And then that's it.  Done.  They give you a new question to vote on.  I checked the NFL rulebook and popular public opinion after week 14 does not play a role in who wins the Super Bowl, not even as a tie breaker.  Shame on you, ESPN.  I expect better from the worldwide leader of sports.

Sports Reality Shows:  Again, ESPN, shame on you.  I guess you saw MTV stop playing music videos and you had to try and be cool like them.  If MTV told you to jump off a bridge, would you do it? (I know, that doesn't really make sense but it just seemed like the right thing to say).  Shows like Dream Job and Stump the Schwab are novel ideas at first, but quickly lose their appeal when you turn on ESPN and want to watch...drumroll please...sports.  And that Schwab guy was a little over the top.  If you've read any of my blogs, you know I reference ridiculous names, but that guy really needs to get out more.  If I were on Stump the Schwab and the Schwab starting talking trash, I'd ask the Schwab what it felt like to be intimate with a woman.  I bet that would definitely stump him and probably shut him up for a little bit too.

Sports Movies:  I'm not going to talk about movies in the theater (those can be good), but rather I'm going to award ESPN the Triple Crown of shame. If there's one thing I'm 100% sure out of all the things I've written on here in the past two weeks, it's that Roger Bannister's life wasn't ANYWHERE near as exciting as they made it out to be in the trailer for that "Four Minutes" movie.  Gene Siskel actually stood up out of his grave to give that movie a thumbs down.

Sports Talk Radio:  This is one gimmick that I don't take part in.  I don't see the point when they take callers, especially on issues like the Michael Irvin thing.  It's like saying "Hey, I know you weren't there or involved in the situation in any way and that any knowledge you might have on the subject is a result of hearing something somebody told you third-hand at best.  Considering Michael Irvin has issued his statement and you can't possibly know whether or not he is telling the truth, please call in and give us your take as to whether or not you believe him.  And make sure whatever you believe, you label everybody who doesn't agree with you a derogatory name.  That will lend credibility to your viewpoint and let people see you as a rationale person who can draw his own unbiased conclusions."  From what I've heard, I think if you make it on the air during a sports talk program, you are usually either in complete agreement with the show's host or you're the biggest idiot calling in at the time who takes a stance opposite of the show's host.

I can think of a bunch more gimmicks but again, I don't want to go to on endlessly and risk frustrating the reader.  I prefer to make things short enough so I believe anyone who does read this will finish the post.

These are the guys.  I guess an email address could work too.

Brandon Stokley:  I'm not going to yell at him.  I just want to make sure he's ok and that Dungy isn't picking on him.  How can you go from putting up the numbers he did last year and be non-existent the next when you don't have an injury and you keep the same offensive players.  I understand they use a lot different sets, but the guy hardly even sees the field.  I'm not a big researcher of stats but the difference between this year and last must be absurd.  There should be a name for the phenomenon where any type of celebrity or athlete acts one way and then all of the sudden completely changes, seemingly out of the blue (i.e. Dennis Miller flaunting far right political views, Bob Dylan's allegiance to Christianity, and Tom Cruise one day just waking up and deciding he's a nutjob).  Was there a memo I missed?

Dikembe Mutombo:  I bet he would sound hilarious.  And maybe if he had a video phone, he has it set up where if you call and he's sleeping, a picture of him comes up with him doing that little finger wave thing he did after he blocked somebody.  That would be great.

Jon Ritchie:  I went to high school with Jon Ritchie.  He was a senior when I was a freshman.  His Mom was my English teacher in 6^th grade. I'd like to call him up and say "Hey, I know you probably don't remember me because I was a freshman when you were a senior and you never said a word to me. Well, except that time I ran into you in the hallway.  Actually, you didn't say anything.  I don't think you had any idea I hit you because I doubt you felt a thing.  Anyway, do you remember my brother?  He graduated a year behind you and was into theater.  No?  Ok, cool.  I figured as much.  Take care."

Christian Okoye:  I'm just kind of curious what he's been up to.

Wayne Fontes:  I think I have a great idea for a TV show and I need the addresses of some Lions.  Anyone ever seen that show on VH1 where they go around and try to reunite bands that were never very popular to begin with?  It'd be like that except with slightly memorable sports teams.  The host would track down guys like Scott Mitchell and ask him if he was interested in reuniting for a flag football game against another team.  Mitchell would be like "You tracked down Moore and Perriman?  What have those guys been up to?  I don't think I'm feeling up to it."  Then the host would be like "Yeah, Herman and Brett are in.  We don't want to try and make you do something you don't want to do, but Jeff Blake and Darnay Scott are talking major smack and Carl Pickens said we should expect this because you were a pu**y.  Still not interested?"

Chris Berman:  I'd like to hear what his answering machine says. I would almost guarantee he has a funny greeting.

Daniel Snyder:  I'd just keep calling him and hanging up.  Or I'd tell telemarketers  I was interested in buying something when they called me and that they should call me back on my cell.  Then I'd give them Snyder's number.   I hate that guy.

Rob Bironas:  I want to call him up and let him know I'm benching his sorry a** next week in fantasy and that Al Del Greco is surely rolling in his grave.  Is Al Del Greco dead yet?  Well, he's got to be close.  I can probably just look up Bironas in the phone book, though, so I don't need anyone's help on that one.  He must have a listed number.

U.S. Soccer Announcers:  I just want them to know that I've got their back.  You know ever since Italy in 1990, these guys have been getting hammered by analysts from other countries.  I bet they were like "The U.S. will be good someday and then we'll see who's laughing."  The US is finally pretty decent and most sports fans are like "You know what?  Still not interested.  Sorry."  I equate the announcer's plight to that of the guy or girl who was a big sports fan and chose to go to a school that wasn't D1 but still tried become a Super Fan of that school anyway.  Often, these people would take on positions at the school's paper like sports editor and start their columns with lines like "Even though I grew up as a big Syracuse fan as a kid, you've got to love what the ladies field hockey team has been doing this year."  

Well, I do apologize.  I could go on forever but I realize these posts are starting to get a little bit long.  I also know that they're often filled with NFL references, but that's only because although I think I can talk intelligently on most sports, my knowledge of them pales in comparison to the NFL.  I used to be a big fan of all the Philly teams like the Phils, the Sixers, and the Flyers, but I don't think anyone wants to hear about guys like Dickie Thon (whose only claim to fame is that he is a professional athlete who let people call him and answered to the name "Dickie"), Andrew Toney (who Mo Cheeks probably has call blocked), and Brian Prop and Peter Zezel (I don't have a Brian Propp and Peter Zezel joke because if you know who they are, I'm assuming you're laughing already.  Brian Propp and Peter Zezzel might not remember each other).  I guess that's it for today.  Does anyone know anyone in DC who might have some work available?  This is getting out of hand.

Ok, my "Is NASCAR a Sport" faux title seems to have failed miserably at attracting readers.  This is my last attempt at creating a title unrelated to my blog to try and get people to read it.  I would have gone with "Sex, Sex, Sex" or something like that but I couldn't see how that would have anything to do with sports unless I was blogging on the Vikings.

Anyway, before diving into today's topic, I would like to give a "shout-out" to StaceyMargarita.  This blogger is notable for two reasons:  1) She's the only person so far that I don't know who has left me a comment and 2) In a roundabout way, she's a woman who kind of initiated a conversation with me.  Both ground-breaking feats in their own way.  In response to an earlier blog, StaceyMargarita makes the point that women can be angry, miserable sports fans too.  Stacy, you are absolutely right.  And since I'm all for womens rights, you go ahead and show the world how much you can't stand your existence either.

Which brings us to today's topic:  What is it about sports that makes everyone feel like they are an expert on the subject and qualified to comment?  Case in point.  My Dad never played basketball, I really never played basketball, and as far I know, he didn't even watch basketball until a year or two ago.  Yet after watching a few games, he now feels qualified to jump up and go ape-s*** when the Sixers are losing, saying ridiculous things like "How can you not go to a zone?"  I'm not making this up to try and be funny.  I think there's an 80% chance my Dad couldn't identify what a zone defense is in basketball.   But you see this kind of thing all the time, wherever you go.  It doesn't matter how much of a complete novice somebody is as a fan to the game, he will sit in front of a TV on Sunday and chastise a defense for not bringing the blitz or putting 8 men in the box.  The less qualified the person to comment, the more simple-minded the solution is for his team to find success, be it "they need to run more" or "they need to throw it deep."  Simply inexplicable. 

Fans don't do this in other types of entertainment.  No joe schmo goes to see "Rent" and says "That choreography is atrocious.  I can't believe what they're doing up there."   And I know what you're thinking:  "The majority of sports fans are not only straight men but there's also a good number who are homophobes.  Why would any of them ever go to see a musical, let alone one that deals a subject matter such as AIDS?  Your analogy is falling on deaf ears."  Well, imaginary guy I have a debate with in my head as I write these things, you make a good point. I'll have to keep reminding myself not to make any mention of the arts.  Let me try again.  Did anyone watch that show "Playmakers" on TV a couple of years back and say how they could have improved the acting?  Probably not, although in that situation, anything you said most likely would have helped.

By the way, I would like to mention that my name is Andy.  "Detpack" is my fantasy team's nickname, as well as a nickname a few friends call me.  I referred to myself as "detpack" in an earlier post and it just felt wrong.  I don't think anybody should ever refer to themselves in the third person if at all possible, let alone by a nickname that other people call them.  The only exception to this rule that I can think of is if a player is doing a promo spot for a radio station or something.  For instance, "This is 'Big Game Torry Holt' and you and Mike Martz are listening to the Rams radio network. "

Before I go, I would like to share one more thought that I find funny, sad, and absurd at the same time .  As much as I seriously cannot fathom that Chris Rose or anyone from FoxSports is reading any of this and as much as I've beaten that fact into the ground in my earlier posts, I can't help but imagine that they are in the same way a child daydreams about hitting a buzzer beater at the end of regulation.  Like the the judges are all sitting around their computer saying "Oh man, that detpack guy just posted again!  That guy has so many allusions and references, it's unreal.  He's like a magician.  How did he possibly work NASCAR, Mike Martz, and the musical "Rent" into the same post?  This guy is amazing!"

A guy can dream, can't he?