December 10, 2008
On ESPN First Take this morning, Joey Porter will once again exhibit his open-handed grasp on reality. An interview will be aired in which he defends Plaxico Burress and the general propensity of NFL players to carry concealed weapons. Full article here.
“It’s a tough situation. I mean we’re always in the spotlight. So you can’t tell a person to stop living your normal life,” Porter said. “You’re gonna go out and do these things.”
First of all, grow up Joey. “Living a normal life” means frequenting clubs where you’re likely to be robbed or shot?? Growing up Joey, even for NFL players, means making wise decisions. Not going to clubs where you need to carry a gun to feel safe would be a wise decision. I’m really getting tired of the “I’m an athlete, fame is hell, pity me” routine. When you get to play a game for millions of dollars and become famous for it, some sacrifices will be necessary. So I say again: grow up.
Second, and more importantly, let’s not lose sight of the fact that Plax was carrying a gun ILLEGALLY.
He also brought up Sean Taylor’s death:
“I mean, you look at Sean Taylor, he was trying to go by the rules of not having a gun because he got in trouble earlier that year with the gun. Something as simple as that, he gets a home invasion and he gets killed over something simple.”
Sean Taylor was killed because of another person’s stupid decision. Plaxico shot himself in the leg because of a series of poor decisions on his part. Furthermore, Sean Taylor was in his home. I’ve got no problem with a person keeping a gun in their home. Plaxico brought his gun into public illegally to shoot himself in the leg.
Sorry Joey, I’m not buying it. I have no sympathy for athletes who believe their spotlight entitles them to any kind of slack when it comes to being an adult and a responsible member of society. Sorry Joey, I’m not affording you or Plaxico any leniency here because you can’t keep yourselves out of shady clubs and gang-related incidents. And it sure doesn’t sound like the NY justice system will either.
November 13, 2008
Something really bothered me about this year’s World Series. No, I’m not talking about the cold temperatures and neutral site talk. As far as I’m concerned, baseball players need to toughen up a little bit anyways. Let them play in cold. Hell, even soccer players play in cold weather without whining. What makes baseball players so vulnerable to freezing temperatures? I’m not concerned with the called game issue either. That will work itself out.
What I’m concerned with is home field advantage. The Rays, by virtue of their membership in the American League, had home field advantage. (This also isn’t about the All-Star game. One topic at a time). What doesn’t ring true to me is that the Phillies were able to win the series four games to one having played three out of the five games at home.
The World Series is played in this fashion: The team with home field advantage is at home for games 1, 2, 6, and 7. Allowing the other team games 3, 4, and 5 at home and giving them more home games through the first five does not make sense to me. I understand that a team effectively loses home field advantage when they lose a game at home, as the Rays did. I understand that if you don’t lose at home you don’t have anything to worry about. However, I believe that at no point in a series should the team with home field advantage have played fewer home games than their opponent, regardless of whether or not they lost at home.
You could also think about it this way: by keeping the series in this 2-3-2 format, you’re also giving the team without home field advantage the benefit of three straight home games, which is more typical of what they’re used to and allows them to establish more of a normal rhythm.
I think the Rays have somthing to complain about here. Or maybe they should have just taken care of business.
