Brittney Griner and the women of the Baylor's basketball team have won the National Championship and had the first ever perfect season. I say there should be an asterisk.
Now they say she will go down as one of the greatest female athletes ever. I think otherwise.
That is the voice of a man.....
I believe girl's can dunk, but grunting like that while dunking, no. I think not. Having a voice deeper then mine, no, I don't think so.
Maybe if you don't want to believe that, then believe ESPN's sports science, when they compare her to NBA professionals.
Now it is possible that she is a freak of nature as a woman, but even if she was a man she would be a freak of nature.
Regardless, I believe the Baylor record should have an asterisk next to it. For having a male/high HGH user on the team.
I don't feel like writing too much about this because I don't want to come off as someone that is just being mean for no reason, I am just saying it's something that is worth noticing. It's joked about a lot, but seriously.....
Brittney Griner and the National Champion Baylor Bears finish 40-0*
All the latest talk is about how Calipari finally got the National Championship he deserved, please, he doesn't deserve anything.
Deadspin had a good article about it all, though a few people on the editor's board are Calipari/Kentucky fans, so that skews things a bit.
Anyway, John Calipari is a pimp. He is a brutally honest pimp that uses the possibility of athletes making tons of money if they go to his school for the one-and-done program.
A few years back the NCAA changed the rules so you had to go to college for one year before the pros. They said because the best talents were skipping over college and were hurting the game. Is it really though?
I don't care to watch superstar athletes, I want to see good competition and teamwork. That doesn't happen with teams that have a superstar and a bunch of nobodies whose only job is to sit there. Save that for the NBA that no one watches.
Even though Calipari always had good teams, he never won the championship. It was something that basketball purists could hang their hat on. You can't win it all with inexperience. You need seniors and juniors to win the big one.
In 2008 Calipari's Memphis team proved it.
A team that couldn't convert. Now the 2012 Kentucky team almost did it once again, unfortunately Anthony "I am shit" (or was the un-classy comment he yelled, I am the shit, which ever) Davis helps lead a team to prove Calipari's system can work.
Though he couldn't shoot from the field what so ever, but he was able to rebound. Good thing that's important in a professional league that doesn't play defense.... just sayin.
So it is sad to see that a team of one-and-dones can win a championship, even if it takes Calipari well over a decade to win it. Like they say, even a broken clock is right twice a day.
Also, any coach that says having six kids getting drafted was the greatest day in UK history, greater than the days where they won its titles, just doesn't seem right in my mind.
Side note, I don't like coach Bob Knight, though I like him a bit more now.
Knight wont mention the name Kentucky. Also, he never has anything good to say about Calipari. When asked which one of the No.1 seeds will exit the tournament early, his response, "the one from the SEC."
He will continuously mock its "student-athletes", referring that they never go to class because an education means nothing to them.
If you get the chance Google it and find an article like this.
Lastly, I would like to leave you with a quote that my friend, who is a Kansas fan, said.
" I'm reading Machiavelli for a second time right now and he points out that kingdoms won by internal power are greater than those won by mercenaries."
The Final Four is rapidly approaching and usually I would be thrilled. Though it seems the four teams that are left are all in the Top-10 of schools I don't like. So let's break down the pros and cons of each of the teams winning it all.
1. Kentucky - the overall favorite of the tournament and who most people expect to win.
Pro if they win: John Calipari is about to get caught for another NCAA violation/scandal that will cause Kentucky to vacate all of its wins for this season.
Con if they win: I will have to hear about Anthony Davis all year and look at this for the year ....
*Shivers*
2. Louisville - a team that is coached by someone who looks like My Cousin Vinny.
Pro if they win: They don't get a lot of over hyped attention during the season so I wouldn't be extremely disgusted if they win and I had to hear about them for a few months, things could be worse.
Con if they win: They are apart of the Big East and then once again the Big East can argue they have the best conference. When you have 40 teams in a 68 team tournament, odds are you are going to have a team from your conference win it.....
3. Kansas - They beat Purdue.....
Pro if they win: Purdue can say they almost beat (and probably should of) the winners of the NCAA tournament. It's not the best thing to say but it's better than losing to VCU.
Con if they win: We are going to hear more BS stories like this that no one cares about. Stupid Kansas. That kid should go outside....
4. aOSU - Smh
Pro if they win: The B1G wins the NCAA Tournament.
Con if they win: I could write a book about this. First, they are a terrible school. Also, when they are in first place in the nation they can't sell out their own basketball arena. Jared Sullinger is terrible. He complains every time someone blocks his shot.....
Also, Thad Matta has been considered a good coach in the B1G and now if he wins the NCAA Tounament he will be considered a much better coach and frankly, he shouldn't be.
So the result, who should win?
Winner: Kentucky!
Why?
Simple, Calipari will cheat or something once again. The win wont count and the official winner of the 2012 NCAA Tournament will be no one, and that way, we all win .... except Thad...
According to ESPN sources Peyton Manning will leave and end up at some other team and may do well, so on and so forth.
What I find more annoying is that loyalty to a player/team doesn't exist in sports anymore. Just the way a person would have loyalty to a company they work for.
It's crazy how our society is. Back when our grandparents were younger, they worked for a company, they retired with the same company. Now-a-days you move around several companies and who knows where you end up.
Sports is kind of the same now. When I was younger, a player was on a team and they stayed on that team. Cal Ripken Jr. with the Orioles. Jim Kelly with the Bills, Dan Marino with the Dolphins. I could go on forever, but there is no need. Now, it seems like teams don't want to hold onto their icons. Peyton Manning made Indianapolis. They sucked without him before they had him and when ever he is hurt. I know you have a chance to draft a quarterback that will probably be all that with Andrew Luck. But talk about putting all your eggs in one basket.
I think Luck will be one of the best of all time. But what if he gets hurt on the field the first game. It happens all the time.
At the same token, people like Albert Pujos leave a team where a entire city loves them. I guess you get more money but when you get 100 million a year or what ever it is, do you really need more. Why would you leave?
I don't really like Kentucky or coach Calipari but they are a decent team and led by POY candidate Anthony Davis. Most people see a great athlete, I truly can't get past one thing about him....
The Uni-brow.
Now I understand some men don't like to clean themselves up or what ever. But seriously? You are one of the most noticeable people in college basketball and you are not going to clean yourself up.
I mean if you were a scrub and never really played that's another story but, you are one of the best. Do you do it to just to be different or so people recognize you?
Aren't you afraid people will confuse you with this guy:
I feel like that would be a major concern. But that's just me.
So now I hope my team, Purdue, if they face the all mighty uni-brow they can defeat it in an epic battle.
Anyway, the whole rant is the fact that every time I see him on ESPN I just want to shave it off. He would even look better with no eyebrows but for what ever reason he is going to keep that look.
I guess I am the one in the wrong and should just hop on the bandwagon. Well, sign me up with a shirt....
I know most people don't like NASCAR, except for the millions that follow it, but I like it and I want to write about it.
This is one of the many videos that is out there of Indy car driver Juan Montoya, I don't know why Indy car drivers want to race so bad in NASCAR but they shouldn't. Anyway this is one of the biggest events in Nascar, and probably one of the stupidest in a long time. The commentary by fellow drivers about Montoya was hilarious. Long story short, basically everyone called him a, "F*cking Idiot."
Anyway, the original story was that Danica Patrick confirmed the stereotype of women can't drive, as she crashed in lap two. But just as every women says, it apparently wasn't her fault. Yeah, OK. Did the car on the one lane circular track come out of nowhere?
Also, another interesting story that I think will get more recognition, is the twitter use of Brad Keselowski.
During the red flag caution lap he took a picture of the fire from his point of view, from the race car. It made him very famous. About 55k followers on twitter in less than an hour.
Most sports don't allow their athletes, and yes I use that term loosely for a NASCAR driver, to tweet during an event. Though, I thought it was a awesome way to interact with a Nascar driver. He will probably be fined and so on and so forth but to be fair, now I know the name Brad Keselowski which I didn't before. So in the end, I think he will take any fine.
Could this be the use of social media to help NASCAR gain popularity? Will it be the only sport that allows social media, in a safe way, no tweeting while driving, out of all the major sports?
Anyway, I don't want to make this longer than the race has been but just some interesting things that I noticed from the Daytona 500.
I will leave you with my favorite tweet about Brad Keselowski from tonight.
Haha @firefly911: I wonder if @keselowski 's Siri sits there all race saying "Left. Left. Left. Left. Left. Pass. Left. Left."
This is a bit old but for those that don't know, a ESPN editor was fired for using the headline, "Chink in the armor" which is a term that shouldn't have been used in general since it didn't make sense to the story, but it was and it's kinda funny.
The editor who used it apparently didn't know that it is a derogatory saying to use toward the Asian population, I don't know how you don't know, but maybe that's why I don't work at ESPN.
Since the incident, we had to have a talk at our paper about headlines. I love it, we don't make a mistake and they treat us like little children who don't know how to write headlines. I guess since ESPN is suppose to be "the best of the best" it is a mistake we would make too.
Since that incident, Danica Patrick won the poll at the Nationwide series in Nascar, yes I watch Nascar and screw you too.
The term that would be used for someone who won the poll would be, "Danica Patrick sits on the poll."
Now, obviously we can't use that anymore. I think it's rather funny and I think editors should be able to use it but now that we live in this over the top political correctness society, we can't say something that may or may not be construed the wrong way. Honestly, I am sick of it all. People need to stop being so sensitive and take some humor in life.
I don't think you should be racist or sexist, but the term, "Chink in the armor" or "Danica Patrick sits on the poll" should be allowed to be used regardless of race and sex.
Oh and speaking of stereotypes, Danica crashes in the race and they say it wasn't her fault. Sounds like every women I have ever heard after they get in an accident, "It wasn't my fault." Sure it wasn't.
