All posts in Rants

Sid the Kid Says: Dirty Hits Up In Here

By | January 14, 2011 | Dain Bramage, Fight!, Hockey, NHL, Rants | 1 Comment

Sidney Crosby is out with a concussion and he wants everyone to know that it’s because of dirty, dirty hits.

In other news, Sid the Kid is spending his days off at tea parties and shopping at Forever 21.

I’m sorry. Really. I don’t normally make fun of the injured and I’ve tried to give this guy the soft pedal treatment overall. As a diehard Washington Capitals fan, I know that I’m supposed to blindly despise Crosby and think Ovi is better and not remove my toque when “O Canada” plays because Sid won them the gold medal and all other manner of hoo-de-ha.

But I don’t and I won’t. Truth is truth, facts are facts. Sidney Crosby is an excellent hockey player. He’s outplaying Ovechkin by goals and points again this season, and more or less lives up to his hype.

And I’ll say this, even though it irritates me when it comes true against my hometown hockey team or my country’s Olympic team: he is my most favorite kind of athlete (or person, really.) He can really be there in the clutch. “O Canada,” remember? That was just beautiful.

But the hits he’s bitching about now? Please. The Steckel hit was not dirty. Steckel was after the puck and ran into Crosby who sort of drifted into his way. That happened. Premeditated? Doesn’t appear to be, and I’ve watched it a lot of times.

Conditions were problematic on that ice period, and it was a scrapper, but watching this tape it just looks like an accidental collision at an awkward angle. The NHL called it incidental contact.

The hit on the boards from the Lightning’s Victor Hedman was harder and rightly drew a boarding penalty, but I watch a lot of hockey and it’s not unlike a lot of other hits on the boards I see on any given night.

A hard hit? Yes. A dirty hit? No.

Crosby’s take on things is that both Steckel and Hedman should have been penalized, of course.

“I didn’t like them. You talk about head shots and dealing with them, that’s been something that’s been a pretty big point of interest from (general managers) and players…When I look at those two hits and we talk about blind-side and an unsuspecting player … There’s no puck there on both of them. A direct hit to the head on both of them. When you go through the criteria, I think they fit all those.”

I haven’t been on ice skates in decades but I’ve watched a lot of hockey, and if I signed up for an amateur women’s team, I would expect to get the crap kicked out of me. It’s that kind of game. Want to see some dirty hits?

I don’t like to join the chorus of complaining that Sid’s a whiner (and obviously I hope he is symptom-free soon) but the shoe, in this case, fits pretty well.

Source

Sports Illustrated 3D Swimsuit Issue is Only Good For Masturbation

By | January 10, 2011 | Rants | 9 Comments

The other day I was listening to the news on the radio and the reporter began talking about the new 3D video of the annual Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue.

As a woman I’ve always found the swimsuit issue a little off-putting. I mean, I understand that it is a big seller. I get that the designers of this “swimwear” probably pay huge money to be featured. But let’s be honest, none of these bathing suits are fit to race in. Hell, I’m not even sure you can get them all wet. I like Sports Illustrated because I like sports. If wanted to see scantily clad women I would pick up a Victoria’s Secret catalog or look on the internet. But I am a big girl. Once a year I can roll my eyes when the mail comes, look through the thing, be filled with self-loathing and develop a new and improved eating disorder.

But not my point!

I got to thinking about this 3D video. Why would you need (or want) a three-dimensional video of the shooting of the swimsuit issue? So I made a list.

1) masturbation

2) (Thinking. Thinking. Wait. Still thinking.)

There is no number two.

The only possible reason to want a 3D version of the Swimsuit Issue is to get off.

I hope you are proud, Sports Illustrated.

Now, just to be clear – I have no problem with pornography. AS LONG AS YOU MAN UP AND CALL IT WHAT IT IS. Let porn be porn. I propose Sports Illustrated (who already have SI Kids, SI.com, and Sports Illustrated Almanac) launch Sports Illustrated Porn. You can have high-rent, naked models and we can stop pretending it has anything to do with sports.

Plus they could make a killing! Just have the credit card statement say Sports Illustrated and the 3D swimsuit DVD can be your subscription gift. Easy peasy.

We can stop pretending that this is about swimwear or sports.

A naked model and a tire pretending to advertise swimwear.

A naked model and a tire pretending to advertise swimwear.

Let’s call a spade a spade.

The 30 minute 3D video of the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit issue is high end soft core pornography.

And at $ 7.99 it is a pretty good deal.

* * *

Goon Squad Sarah is probably just still mad that the Buccaneers didn’t make the playoffs.

Lowering the Rim – Will that Really Help Women’s Basketball?

By | October 4, 2010 | Basketball, Crazy People, Rants, Women's Sports | 5 Comments

Cross-posted from BlogHer.com

It is no secret that men’s basketball has a larger audience. You can say “No! No! Really! Our high school girls team is the state champ! We sell out every game!” an that may be true, but deep down inside you know that this is an exception and not a rule. Men’s basketball does better at every level: little league, Jr. high, high school, college, professional and international.

I guess that is why FIBA – the International Basketball Federation, or Fédération Internationale de Basket-ball – is considering lowering the hoop in the women’s game.

FIBA wants to see if it will make the women’s game more “attractive”.

*seethes*

At the first ever women’s basketball summit they also discussed new uniforms to appeal to a wider audience.

Now, before I completely flip my lid, I should let you know that FIBA and the International Olympic Committee already have smaller balls for the women’s game.

“The game as it is is a good game, but we have a large majority of women’s basketball players that don’t have that size and there are questions whether the game is as attractive as it really could be if you were able to play over the basket rather than under the basket.”

- via Karlovy Vary

Do people really believe that I watch basketball for the dunks? If that were the case I would watch the annual slam-dunk contest and just watch hockey for the rest of basketball season. NO! That isn’t why I watch men or women’s basketball. I watch basketball because I love the game. I buy tickets because I like basketball. Playing over the basket is great, but it is not going to determine where I spend my money.

When it comes to women’s basketball Jayda Evans always says it best.

Say what? To be frank, this has to be the stupidest idea I’ve ever heard at this point in the women’s game. What needs to happen globally is attention to coaching or maybe more cooperation with the WNBA so that more international stars could play in a league with the world’s best. Then skill would improve and that would draw more appeal globally.

Lowering the rim? For what? A cheap dunk? Please. FIBA should know by now that the game of basketball is more than dunking. A wicked crossover or three-pointer can be just as exciting — especially if in a close game that seals a victory. Just ask any Sue Bird fan.

As a feminist I am insulted. FIBA is suggesting that girls can’t handle the big balls (no pun intended) and women can’t play over the net.

Oh really? Let’s ask Brittney Griner.

Baylor Basketball

I am not going to sit here and tell you that women and men are exactly the same, any five year old in a bathtub could tell you different. What I will say and what I do believe is that women’s basketball is doing just fine with the basket where it is. Lowering the hoop cheapens the ladies’s game.

I have a much better idea on a way to make the women’s game more attractive. Show it some fucking respect.

Blog Widget by LinkWithin
Newer Entries →