Some final thoughts about Sunday's game:
1.) I had New England winning it all. I thought that Bill Belichick and Tom Brady wouldn't let Eli Manning do them in like they did in '08 when the Pats are one win away from 19-0. I thought despite a busted up Gronkowski and an atrocious defense, that Brady would carry them to their 4th title and march into the history books as the the 49ers of their time, and Brady being mentioned under the same breath as Joe Montana. I was wrong. Eli proved his championship run in SB XLII was no fluke, as he rallied his team late into the 4th quarter again vs. New England. A great game; not as legendary as XLII, but this one held its own. Congrats to the New York football Giants.
2.) Madonna? Meh. It wasn't the clusterfuck that last year's halftime performance was when the Black Eyed Peas stunk up the joint, but Madonna was lip-synching half of the time and she's really shown her age as she was limited in her dancing abilities, but that's not what you wanted to hear me talk about, so let me express the real story of that halftime show...
Who fucking cares!?!?!
The British rapper M.I.A. didn't whip out a tit, or drop an F-bomb. Yes, it was a publicity stunt to get her name out there, but let's not make this bigger than what it it is.
3.) The Super Bowl ads this year weren't that great. Go Daddy needs to stop with the 'sex sells' crap, as it's merely become one big tease that doesn't equal the payoff. The talking baby for E-Trade was adorable and funny to a point, but now its become tiresome and repetitive. And Audi? Really? Vampires? I mean, unless you were going to kill off the douchebags from Twilight with the new car you're promotion, then this was just a poor commercial overall. There were good ones, though, including Acura's ad with Jerry Seinfeld, the Doritos one with the slingshot baby, and the 30 second teaser spot for Marvel's The Avengers was all sorts of badass. Leave it to Clint Eastwood to deliver the best ad of the night with the "Halftime in America" commercial for Chrysler.
Also: a few words on Battleship, the latest Hasbro game to get the Hollywood treatment:
This looks like utter crap!
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
Colorado, Minnesota, and Missouri Tonight
 |
| Will any of these three fine gentlemen be gone from the race after tonight? |
Rating The Super Bowls XXX-XXXIX
I have already commented on how I feel the Super Bowl is on a roll with 7 competitive games is a row and 6 of those being good to great games. A quick glance at Super Bowls 30-39 shows that the trend has been happening for sometime.
Superbowl XXX Dallas 27 Pittsburgh 17. Good to very good Superbowl. Difference in game 2 bad Neil O'Donnell interceptions. Pittsburgh considerably out yards Dallas and both teams have huge plays.
Superbowl XXXI Green Bay 35 New England 21. Brett Favre's only Superbowl win was a solid Superbowl that again featured many big plays. Game started out as rout but became very competitive. Game was put away with Desmond Howard kickoff return.
Superbowl XXXII Denver 31 Green Bay 24. One of the greatest Superbowls ever and exhibit a in the case that Brett Favre was massively overrated. John Elway's defining game.
Superbowl XXXIII Denver 34 Atlanta 19. Crap Superbowl. If Atlanta had a chance, and I believe they didn't, it was taken away the week of the game when on the same night he was given an award for his high moral character Eugine Robinson (the DB not the journalist) gave an undercover cop $40 for a blowjob.
Superbowl XXXIV St. Louis 23 Tennessee 16. This Superbowl gets a great rating simply because the difference between the winning team and the losing team was 1 yard. However for 3 quarters St. Louis dominated and held a 16-0 lead. But oh that 4th quarter was maybe the most exciting quarter in Superbowl history and then there was the finish.
Superbowl XXXV Baltimore 34 New England 7. Unless you liked watching one half of one of Fox News favorite couples Jason Sehorn get sodomized this was one of the real stinkers of Superbowl history. Only a quick 3 play 3TD spurt in the third quarter (an INT and a kickoff return for Baltimore, a Kickoff return for NY Giants) brought any excitement. Kerry Collins has one of the worst games in Superbowl history.
Superbowl XXXVI New England 20 St. Louis 17. The game that made Tom Brady. St. Louis was a 14 point favorite but fell behind 14-3 at half. Game was tied 17-17 when New England got the ball and John Madden said play for overtime. Brady took team down and got into position for 48 yard Field Goal to win game which Adam Nougatieri split down the uprights. Great Superbowl.
Superbowl XXXVII Tampa Bay 48 Oakland 21 Shit Superbowl. The brilliant Bill Callahan didn't change up his play calls so the Bucs new what Tampa was running. Plus he wouldn't run the football and Callahan would put poor Rich Gannon in a spot to throw 5 interceptions 3 of which were returned for scores. Callahan would be fired the next year and end up at Nebraska where he would destroy the program.
Superbowl XXXVIII New England 32 Carolina 29. Maybe the strangest Superbowl ever. Very low scoring until a 24 point explosion in last 2 minutes made score 14-10 New England at half. Then of course you had the tit and the streaker. There would again be no points in the third quarter but the 4th was wild. after Carolina tied the game at 29-29 his kickoff went out of bounds which gave New England the ball at the 40 yard line. Adam Nougatieri kicked a 41 yard field goal to win the game. Great Superbowl sadly remembered more for Janet's tit than a great game.
Superbowl XXXIX New England 24 Philadelphia 21. unlike New England's other 3 point wins this one was somewhat decisive.Down 24-14 Philadelphia went on a 4 minute drive that made the score 24-21 but left them little time remaining. When New England recovered the onside kick the game was all but over.
So there you go. The phenomenon of the exciting Superbowl has been going on for awhile. 7 of the 10 games played between Superbowl XXX and XXXIX were good to great games. Which means since Superbowl XXX there have been 17 Superbowls and 13 of them have been at least good games and many of the games have been great. That is a pretty good %.
Superbowl XXX Dallas 27 Pittsburgh 17. Good to very good Superbowl. Difference in game 2 bad Neil O'Donnell interceptions. Pittsburgh considerably out yards Dallas and both teams have huge plays.
Superbowl XXXI Green Bay 35 New England 21. Brett Favre's only Superbowl win was a solid Superbowl that again featured many big plays. Game started out as rout but became very competitive. Game was put away with Desmond Howard kickoff return.
Superbowl XXXII Denver 31 Green Bay 24. One of the greatest Superbowls ever and exhibit a in the case that Brett Favre was massively overrated. John Elway's defining game.
Superbowl XXXIII Denver 34 Atlanta 19. Crap Superbowl. If Atlanta had a chance, and I believe they didn't, it was taken away the week of the game when on the same night he was given an award for his high moral character Eugine Robinson (the DB not the journalist) gave an undercover cop $40 for a blowjob.
Superbowl XXXIV St. Louis 23 Tennessee 16. This Superbowl gets a great rating simply because the difference between the winning team and the losing team was 1 yard. However for 3 quarters St. Louis dominated and held a 16-0 lead. But oh that 4th quarter was maybe the most exciting quarter in Superbowl history and then there was the finish.
Superbowl XXXV Baltimore 34 New England 7. Unless you liked watching one half of one of Fox News favorite couples Jason Sehorn get sodomized this was one of the real stinkers of Superbowl history. Only a quick 3 play 3TD spurt in the third quarter (an INT and a kickoff return for Baltimore, a Kickoff return for NY Giants) brought any excitement. Kerry Collins has one of the worst games in Superbowl history.
Superbowl XXXVI New England 20 St. Louis 17. The game that made Tom Brady. St. Louis was a 14 point favorite but fell behind 14-3 at half. Game was tied 17-17 when New England got the ball and John Madden said play for overtime. Brady took team down and got into position for 48 yard Field Goal to win game which Adam Nougatieri split down the uprights. Great Superbowl.
Superbowl XXXVII Tampa Bay 48 Oakland 21 Shit Superbowl. The brilliant Bill Callahan didn't change up his play calls so the Bucs new what Tampa was running. Plus he wouldn't run the football and Callahan would put poor Rich Gannon in a spot to throw 5 interceptions 3 of which were returned for scores. Callahan would be fired the next year and end up at Nebraska where he would destroy the program.
Superbowl XXXVIII New England 32 Carolina 29. Maybe the strangest Superbowl ever. Very low scoring until a 24 point explosion in last 2 minutes made score 14-10 New England at half. Then of course you had the tit and the streaker. There would again be no points in the third quarter but the 4th was wild. after Carolina tied the game at 29-29 his kickoff went out of bounds which gave New England the ball at the 40 yard line. Adam Nougatieri kicked a 41 yard field goal to win the game. Great Superbowl sadly remembered more for Janet's tit than a great game.
Superbowl XXXIX New England 24 Philadelphia 21. unlike New England's other 3 point wins this one was somewhat decisive.Down 24-14 Philadelphia went on a 4 minute drive that made the score 24-21 but left them little time remaining. When New England recovered the onside kick the game was all but over.
So there you go. The phenomenon of the exciting Superbowl has been going on for awhile. 7 of the 10 games played between Superbowl XXX and XXXIX were good to great games. Which means since Superbowl XXX there have been 17 Superbowls and 13 of them have been at least good games and many of the games have been great. That is a pretty good %.
Monday, February 6, 2012
Happy Birthday, Ronald Reagan!
Today is the ol' Gipper's birthday, and to celebrate the historic occasion, i'm going to ignore the AIDS epidemic.
Sunday, February 5, 2012
Super Bowl XLVI Sunday
21-17
Any thoughts on the game, the entertainment, the commercials, hell the puppy bowl go here. And GO GIANTS!
Another Classic!
 |
| Welcome To The Hall Of Fame Eli! |
 |
| Classy Rush! |
Take a look at the Superbowl Since XL
XL Pittsburgh 21 Seattle 10. Competitive but shitty game. bad football, bad officiating, bad Superbowl.
XLI Indianapolis 29 Chicago 17. Minus Rex Grossman this was a fun, entertaining game. I would rate this a good Superbowl.
XLII New York 17 New England 14. Still to me the greatest Superbowl ever.
XLIII Pittsburgh 27 Arizona 23. Great Superbowl with last minute finish. Much of the middle part of the game dominated by Pittsburgh.
XLIV New Orleans 31 Indianapolis 17. Another very good to great Superbowl. Score misleading. Game very competitive. Great QB play.
XLV. Green Bay 31 Pittsburgh. 25. Big early lead by Green Bay but Pittsburgh rallies. Very Good to great Superbowl.
XLVI New York 21 New England 17. Great sequel not decided until last play. maybe not quiet as good as first game played by 2 teams but still great game.
The Superbowl is on a helluva a roll right bow. 6 Good to great games in a row.
Saturday, February 4, 2012
Public Relations: SGK, Ur Doin It Wrong
A great deal has been said about the Susan G. Komen Foundation's massive PR debacle in de-funding and then nominally re-funding their support of breast exams performed through Planned Parenthood outlets. I won't try to replace a good Google search for the latest developments, but I'll say a few things from the perspective of someone who has worked in marketing her whole adult life, including intersections of various sorts, paid and not, with several non-profit organizations.
Observation #1: Whether you are a commercial or a non-profit concern, the moment you conclude as management thereof that you and/or your board of directors are involved with the organization for the same reasons that your customers or donors support you, you are deeply in denial and on the road to disaster.
If you're a nonprofit, your management probably has a certain level of passion for the mission, whatever it is, but also wants to make a living and perpetuate some personal job security. Your board - more often than not - wants something spiffy to add to their resumes while doing as little tangible work as possible. With the rarest of exceptions, non-profit boards are there to see-and-be-seen.
That's not why your members and supporters donate their money or time or involvement. They do it because it makes them feel good about themselves.
Same thing for commercial companies. If you successfully sell a widget or a windmill, that sale will have happened because the customer feels better about buying from you than buying from someone else. They won't have a passionate conviction that your product and yours alone fulfills their needs because of your fabulous technology, legendary customer support or attention to detail. They just somehow like you better.
That's the core mistake the Komen Foundation made to begin with: they assumed that just because the makeup of their board and management structure had changed to include a different political attitude, those changes could be successfully reflected in their external mission, without any fallout. They failed utterly to understand their audience/support base or to take that base's concerns into account.
Observation #2: Don't just make shit up in a vain attempt to have your cake and also eat it when you change - or change again - a policy or a product or the story you're trying to convey about either. It never, ever works. You have to be straightforward and provide factual information and a plausible reason, not smoke and mirrors. No, we're not supporting this position any more because x-y-z. Yes, we're phasing out this product's support for format a-b-c because we believe j-k-l is the path of the future. Will you lose friends, supporters, customers? Undoubtedly. That's why you need to understand your base (Item #1) and choose carefully which segments of it are most important to your success.
Komen blew it here because they wanted both to hang onto the broad, bipartisan, largely apolitical base they had cultivated for a decade, and at the same time to appease the anti-choice fringe crowd whose whispers seem to be having an impact on the organization's current CEO and new Senior VP. As a result of their waffling walk-back of the PP de-funding decision (with, as others have ably noted, completely toothless language that does nothing to confirm that any actual funds will be forthcoming), Komen has now lost substantial chunks of both groups. A double blunder from which I see no way back that doesn't involve executive-level resignations, a massive restructuring effort, and, above all, time.
Observation #3: It's a brave new world out there. You'd better understand the Internet sandbox well before you go there to play with your pail and shovel.
Not that there isn't still a place for traditional media. It's nice to be able to send the CEO a clip file of warm, fuzzy ads; cover stories; glossy feature article reprints. But, let's admit it - most of the real work of forging public opinion, especially for an organization as prominent as Komen (or, for that matter, Planned Parenthood), is going to happen online. That's not a place where you can bury a story on Page 12 of Section C and have it reliably fade out with the weekly recycling. Just the reverse: it's a place where your offhand comment or major misstep can be in front of hundreds of thousands of people within a matter of seconds. Very often, in places where you can do nothing to mitigate it. Scrub your Tweet or a blog post? Doesn't matter. Astute netizens will have already grabbed, archived and shared copies. Huge, amorphous networks of connection spread the word and translate into action very, very quickly. Just ask Planned Parenthood, who received roughly 1 million dollars in donations within the first 24 hours of this circus act. Ask anyone who has ever gleefully joined in one of Stephen Colbert's pranks.
You need to be regularly present, you need to be engaged, and you need to draw a sharp, clear distinction between an individual's private expression and one made on behalf of the organization. Komen did the first two, but in the same kind of unconvincing, inauthentic language I mentioned above. Their online voice doesn't read as genuine, and it must. And, clearly, the third thing did not happen.
What I would have done, had I been the marketer presented with the task of conveying something like this to the public? (Well, had I not resigned in disgust. Always a possibility - it wouldn't be the first time...) I would have moved heaven and earth to persuade the brass that more research was needed, both of our affiliate organizations and our supporters. What did they see as being most effective? Where did they feel our most important support was being delivered? In this case, the results of that kind of investigation might well have turned up data so persuasive as to trump ideology and avoid the whole debacle.
Yes, that's a long shot. But at the bare minimum, much more should have been done to anticipate the likely fallout. Newbie-level mistakes were made here.
Observation #4: When apologies are called for, they need to be real ones. Hardly any company ever gets this one right. Just say you're sorry. Not sorry if, not sorry that, not sorry for any (your epithet of condolence here). Just sorry.
This, again, is part of the genuine voice remarked on in Item #3. Just as you can always tell when somebody is issuing an insincere, non-apology apology, so can your base. That's true whether or not you're apologizing directly to them or to a third party. Words matter. Use few, choose them judiciously, and be factually and emotionally honest. If you don't, and the insincerity bleeds through - as it is doing, with Komen's reversal - whatever goodwill you hoped to regain will just become more elusive.
So, there you have them: my four basic rules. Know your audience, tell the truth, understand/respect the power of the Net, and be sincere. Doesn't sound that hard, does it?
I have absolutely no idea whether Komen will survive this PR fiasco they built for themselves...or, indeed, whether or not the organization should. But I do know one thing for sure. If they're hoping that Super Bowl hoopla will bury the story, they're really fooling themselves. The Count noted that the group has some male supporters on Facebook. They'll likely be watching the big game on Sunday. But the millions of women who have invested donations, volunteer time and their own personal stories/lives, and those of their friends or families, in what Komen has historically been about? Not too many of them will be gathering with the guys for beer and buffalo wings. They're the core constituency Komen needs to be concerned about here. And, come Monday, they'll remember.
Observation #1: Whether you are a commercial or a non-profit concern, the moment you conclude as management thereof that you and/or your board of directors are involved with the organization for the same reasons that your customers or donors support you, you are deeply in denial and on the road to disaster.
If you're a nonprofit, your management probably has a certain level of passion for the mission, whatever it is, but also wants to make a living and perpetuate some personal job security. Your board - more often than not - wants something spiffy to add to their resumes while doing as little tangible work as possible. With the rarest of exceptions, non-profit boards are there to see-and-be-seen.
That's not why your members and supporters donate their money or time or involvement. They do it because it makes them feel good about themselves.
Same thing for commercial companies. If you successfully sell a widget or a windmill, that sale will have happened because the customer feels better about buying from you than buying from someone else. They won't have a passionate conviction that your product and yours alone fulfills their needs because of your fabulous technology, legendary customer support or attention to detail. They just somehow like you better.
That's the core mistake the Komen Foundation made to begin with: they assumed that just because the makeup of their board and management structure had changed to include a different political attitude, those changes could be successfully reflected in their external mission, without any fallout. They failed utterly to understand their audience/support base or to take that base's concerns into account.
Observation #2: Don't just make shit up in a vain attempt to have your cake and also eat it when you change - or change again - a policy or a product or the story you're trying to convey about either. It never, ever works. You have to be straightforward and provide factual information and a plausible reason, not smoke and mirrors. No, we're not supporting this position any more because x-y-z. Yes, we're phasing out this product's support for format a-b-c because we believe j-k-l is the path of the future. Will you lose friends, supporters, customers? Undoubtedly. That's why you need to understand your base (Item #1) and choose carefully which segments of it are most important to your success.
Komen blew it here because they wanted both to hang onto the broad, bipartisan, largely apolitical base they had cultivated for a decade, and at the same time to appease the anti-choice fringe crowd whose whispers seem to be having an impact on the organization's current CEO and new Senior VP. As a result of their waffling walk-back of the PP de-funding decision (with, as others have ably noted, completely toothless language that does nothing to confirm that any actual funds will be forthcoming), Komen has now lost substantial chunks of both groups. A double blunder from which I see no way back that doesn't involve executive-level resignations, a massive restructuring effort, and, above all, time.
Observation #3: It's a brave new world out there. You'd better understand the Internet sandbox well before you go there to play with your pail and shovel.
Not that there isn't still a place for traditional media. It's nice to be able to send the CEO a clip file of warm, fuzzy ads; cover stories; glossy feature article reprints. But, let's admit it - most of the real work of forging public opinion, especially for an organization as prominent as Komen (or, for that matter, Planned Parenthood), is going to happen online. That's not a place where you can bury a story on Page 12 of Section C and have it reliably fade out with the weekly recycling. Just the reverse: it's a place where your offhand comment or major misstep can be in front of hundreds of thousands of people within a matter of seconds. Very often, in places where you can do nothing to mitigate it. Scrub your Tweet or a blog post? Doesn't matter. Astute netizens will have already grabbed, archived and shared copies. Huge, amorphous networks of connection spread the word and translate into action very, very quickly. Just ask Planned Parenthood, who received roughly 1 million dollars in donations within the first 24 hours of this circus act. Ask anyone who has ever gleefully joined in one of Stephen Colbert's pranks.
You need to be regularly present, you need to be engaged, and you need to draw a sharp, clear distinction between an individual's private expression and one made on behalf of the organization. Komen did the first two, but in the same kind of unconvincing, inauthentic language I mentioned above. Their online voice doesn't read as genuine, and it must. And, clearly, the third thing did not happen.
What I would have done, had I been the marketer presented with the task of conveying something like this to the public? (Well, had I not resigned in disgust. Always a possibility - it wouldn't be the first time...) I would have moved heaven and earth to persuade the brass that more research was needed, both of our affiliate organizations and our supporters. What did they see as being most effective? Where did they feel our most important support was being delivered? In this case, the results of that kind of investigation might well have turned up data so persuasive as to trump ideology and avoid the whole debacle.
Yes, that's a long shot. But at the bare minimum, much more should have been done to anticipate the likely fallout. Newbie-level mistakes were made here.
Observation #4: When apologies are called for, they need to be real ones. Hardly any company ever gets this one right. Just say you're sorry. Not sorry if, not sorry that, not sorry for any (your epithet of condolence here). Just sorry.
This, again, is part of the genuine voice remarked on in Item #3. Just as you can always tell when somebody is issuing an insincere, non-apology apology, so can your base. That's true whether or not you're apologizing directly to them or to a third party. Words matter. Use few, choose them judiciously, and be factually and emotionally honest. If you don't, and the insincerity bleeds through - as it is doing, with Komen's reversal - whatever goodwill you hoped to regain will just become more elusive.
So, there you have them: my four basic rules. Know your audience, tell the truth, understand/respect the power of the Net, and be sincere. Doesn't sound that hard, does it?
I have absolutely no idea whether Komen will survive this PR fiasco they built for themselves...or, indeed, whether or not the organization should. But I do know one thing for sure. If they're hoping that Super Bowl hoopla will bury the story, they're really fooling themselves. The Count noted that the group has some male supporters on Facebook. They'll likely be watching the big game on Sunday. But the millions of women who have invested donations, volunteer time and their own personal stories/lives, and those of their friends or families, in what Komen has historically been about? Not too many of them will be gathering with the guys for beer and buffalo wings. They're the core constituency Komen needs to be concerned about here. And, come Monday, they'll remember.
The View From My Ass
Man it's been awhile has it not? How's tricks? I have stayed out of the Susan G. Koman fiasco for the most part for one simple reason. in a battle between 2 organizations whose primary purpose is women's health I just don't particularly feel as if it is my battle to fight. Although I will say this. A look at the Koman Facebook page shows that supporters of the organization, which right now are are far fewer than detractors, have names like Michael, Charles, James and William. Now I do not doubt that many of these men who suddenly stand behind Susan G. Koman 100% have an interest in women's breast but somehow I doubt that many of them care about cancer.
My only real "take" on the Koman fiasco was this. You are an organization whose primary goal is women's health. Why in the world would you alienate another organization that has the same primary concern not to mention millions of women? And to pacify a fanatical religious fringe group that is made up overwhelmingly of men. To me the decision seems maddeningly ignorant and so completely ill thought out. Did they put any thought into the decision at all? Did they think women wouldn't care? Honestly there are people at Komen who haven't a clue of how to run an organization if they thought this was a wise idea. And if that organization wants to at least try and get it's name back they should take a good long hard look at themselves and then do some house cleaning. (No don't go PC on me you know what I mean)
A word of advice to Aria. Aria you are a dear friend and I was wondering how to tell you this: Don't take a fight started on the internet off of the internet. To battle with morons like Sewell, and Peters on the net is one thing and one thing that is probably not worth a lot of effort. But don't get into with them on a personal level with emails to friends and that shit. I say this for 2 reasons. 1. I like you a lot. 2. These clowns might be dangerous. They are certainly unstable. I've had to deal with internet stalkers myself. I know how dangerous they can be. To start tracking down their friends and exchanging emails and whatever else is a losing battle. At the end of the day Sewell got what he wanted. Some publicity for his 93 blogs. I'm sure I'll write about him and others of his ilk here and other places many more times in the future. But I haven't got time for exchanging Emails and getting into personal wars with crazed jerkoffs and their sycophants. And I think you should also save yourself the hassle by not taking these battles off the net.
I know that Bias is in the eye of the beholder but tonight for the nationally televised Boston Celtics-NY Knicks game on ESPN the announcers were Mike Breen and Jeff Van Gundy. Now this is suppose to be an unbiased sports broadcast on ESPN. Breen is a Knicks play by play man Van Gundy a former Knicks coach. In other words the broadcast was as unbiased as your typical ESPN Duke Basketball broadcast with Dick (Duke) Vitale and Mike Patrick calling the game.
Sunday is the big day Man's official holiday The Super Bowl. The biggest football game of the year that amazingly is packaged and sold to people whom for the most part hate football. There will be the usual 30 hour pregame show. Randall Terry wanted to run an ad with dead fetuses. I say let him if you let Planned Parenthood also run adds. CBS for the record said no to dead fetus adds. I guess we'll have to struggle through with the other dumbass ads we'll be bombarded with. For the record the Count mutes the ads anyway. He's also rooting for the NY Giants. Although he picks the Patriots. The law of averages would suggest we're in for a dud of a game. We've had 5 pretty good games in a row and the last 4 have all been great. Really even before this latest stretch many of the games have been competitive and enjoyable. Certainly the old myth about the Super Bowl being a lot of hype and a lousy game is no longer true. I will say this maybe if I were in Romney's real or Ranger Bob's imaginary income bracket I would feel differently. But I could not justify paying $1000 a piece face value for a football ticket. I had a hard enough time justifying $175 a piece for Nebraska-Wyoming $137 a piece for Nebraska-Minnesota.
Another prediction for the game. Kelly Clarkson will deliver a serviceable if unmemorable national anthem. I don't think it will be great for sure but I doubt it will be Steven Tyler, Christina Agulara bad either. it will be just another of a million rendition of a song that in all honesty is really a pretty bad piece of material. That will get me in trouble. The Plan Sunday is to get up watch the Nebraska-Minnesota basketball game settle in Watch some football, eat some Pizza , should the snow stop in time and the pizza man can either get here or we can get there, And watch some more football. Oh and find something else to do that 20 minutes while Madonna is on. Madonna the safe uncontroversial choice. What has the world come to?
KTF
Count Istvan
Friday, February 3, 2012
The State Of Georgia Rules In Favor Of Obama Against The Sam Sewell's Of the World
Barack Obama will be on the ballot in Georgia. Now somebody is going to have to read the ballot to Blackflon so he doesn't vote for Obama by mistake. Reading the ruling here
Credit our good friend Domenica Iacovone* for bringing this to our attention.
*Our "friend" Sam Sewell said he wouldn't trust anyone who called themselves "Domenica Iacovone" As Domenicapointed out she calls herself that because that is her name.
Credit our good friend Domenica Iacovone* for bringing this to our attention.
*Our "friend" Sam Sewell said he wouldn't trust anyone who called themselves "Domenica Iacovone" As Domenicapointed out she calls herself that because that is her name.
Thursday, February 2, 2012
Nebraska Vs Northwestern Real Time Thoughts.
Grrr my computer is acting like a real Sewell tonight. Finally here.
Northwestern's arena does look like a large High School gym.
9-8 Northwestern 15 Minutes in. Northwestern has hit 3 3pt baskets
All Northwestern does is shoot 3's. We have to not get into a 3 contest with them.
There you go get and run. 13-12 Nebraska.
Come on guys you're wearing red jerseys. Throw the ball to the guys in the red jerseys.
14-13 Northwestern.
21-19 Nebraska and they had the ball on a break but Spencer double dribbled.
Crap Northwestern is like the greatest 3 pt team of all time.
and a turnover Northwestern up 3.
There you go Jorge! let's get that ball in deep.
Oh for fuck sake guys guard the perimeter.27-23 Northwestern.
30-23 Northwestern. You wouldn't think Northwestern would be that tough to defend all they do is shoot 3's.
All they fucking do is shoot 3's. how tough is that to defend? Apparently real tough judging by Nebraska's defense. 36-25 Northwestern.
UH OH! Last Thursday Yoga Frog caps posted a Ilia Calderon cap set where she was wearing red and Nebraska won. Tonight he posts one of her wearing purple and we are playing Northwestern who wears purple and we are down 38-26. I won't blame him though if this thing don't change. He's not the one leaving guys wide open to shoot 3's.
Sweet! Nebraska fouls a man with 2 tenths of a second left shooting a 3! That's winning basketball. 41-26 Northwestern at halftime.
The only good news is if Nebraska can figure out all Northwestern does is shoot 3's and actually start to defend the perimeter maybe Northwestern can shoot Nebraska back into this game.
Nebraska Vs Minnesota in Lincoln Sunday. $5 Tickets for upper seats. $5 for chair backs for season ticket owners. Special prices on concessions. I wonder what is going on on Sunday that makes them so worried about getting a crowd. Between Super Bowl XLVI (though the game will end early enough for people even in Omaha to be home in time) and the forecasted blizzard this weekend there should be oh 30 people at that game.
Spud keeps staring at me ha he knows I am less than pleased.
Sometimes Bo Spenser is really good sometimes he not. So far tonight...he is not.
That was pretty ticky tac. Not gonna complain about officials. Nope not gonna do it.
Northwestern finally starting to miss 3's?
Nebraska down 42-33 and Bo Spencer has 2 free throws. He got them both 7 point run by Nebraska 42-35 Northwestern.
Uh remember what I said about Bo Spencer a minute a go? Bo hit's a 3 and the lead is down to 4.
Like I said earlier this is good Spencer tonight.
God Damn turnovers.
How can a guy not miss a 3 and not make a free throw?
Turnovers killing us.
Richardson hit's a 3. 52-49 Northwestern 11:19 left. At first they wouldn't call anything now they are calling everything.
Northwestern getting nervous? Never-mind they just hit a 3.
Grrr Northwestern gets the basket and the foul. 60-53 Northwestern.
Back up to 10 that fast. Just a second a go Northwestern looked like they were folding.
Not looking good . 73-61 Northwestern less than 5 minutes left.
There we go Bo Spencer a basket and the foul 73-66 Northwestern 3:03 left.
And a bad foul on Nebraska.
Dylan Talley hits a 3. then Nebraska get's a turnover and Bo Spencer hit's a 3. 75-72 Northwestern 1:34 left.
And McCray misses a huge 1 and 1 77-72 Northwestern
Why did we just foul there?
84-74 Northwestern final. played well in the second half but you can't wait until halftime to start playing. game was pretty close in the second half. Late Nebraska fouls made the score more lopsided than it was for much of the second half.
Northwestern's arena does look like a large High School gym.
9-8 Northwestern 15 Minutes in. Northwestern has hit 3 3pt baskets
All Northwestern does is shoot 3's. We have to not get into a 3 contest with them.
There you go get and run. 13-12 Nebraska.
Come on guys you're wearing red jerseys. Throw the ball to the guys in the red jerseys.
14-13 Northwestern.
21-19 Nebraska and they had the ball on a break but Spencer double dribbled.
Crap Northwestern is like the greatest 3 pt team of all time.
and a turnover Northwestern up 3.
There you go Jorge! let's get that ball in deep.
Oh for fuck sake guys guard the perimeter.27-23 Northwestern.
30-23 Northwestern. You wouldn't think Northwestern would be that tough to defend all they do is shoot 3's.
All they fucking do is shoot 3's. how tough is that to defend? Apparently real tough judging by Nebraska's defense. 36-25 Northwestern.
UH OH! Last Thursday Yoga Frog caps posted a Ilia Calderon cap set where she was wearing red and Nebraska won. Tonight he posts one of her wearing purple and we are playing Northwestern who wears purple and we are down 38-26. I won't blame him though if this thing don't change. He's not the one leaving guys wide open to shoot 3's.
Sweet! Nebraska fouls a man with 2 tenths of a second left shooting a 3! That's winning basketball. 41-26 Northwestern at halftime.
The only good news is if Nebraska can figure out all Northwestern does is shoot 3's and actually start to defend the perimeter maybe Northwestern can shoot Nebraska back into this game.
Nebraska Vs Minnesota in Lincoln Sunday. $5 Tickets for upper seats. $5 for chair backs for season ticket owners. Special prices on concessions. I wonder what is going on on Sunday that makes them so worried about getting a crowd. Between Super Bowl XLVI (though the game will end early enough for people even in Omaha to be home in time) and the forecasted blizzard this weekend there should be oh 30 people at that game.
Spud keeps staring at me ha he knows I am less than pleased.
Sometimes Bo Spenser is really good sometimes he not. So far tonight...he is not.
That was pretty ticky tac. Not gonna complain about officials. Nope not gonna do it.
Northwestern finally starting to miss 3's?
Nebraska down 42-33 and Bo Spencer has 2 free throws. He got them both 7 point run by Nebraska 42-35 Northwestern.
Uh remember what I said about Bo Spencer a minute a go? Bo hit's a 3 and the lead is down to 4.
Like I said earlier this is good Spencer tonight.
God Damn turnovers.
How can a guy not miss a 3 and not make a free throw?
Turnovers killing us.
Richardson hit's a 3. 52-49 Northwestern 11:19 left. At first they wouldn't call anything now they are calling everything.
Northwestern getting nervous? Never-mind they just hit a 3.
Grrr Northwestern gets the basket and the foul. 60-53 Northwestern.
Back up to 10 that fast. Just a second a go Northwestern looked like they were folding.
Not looking good . 73-61 Northwestern less than 5 minutes left.
There we go Bo Spencer a basket and the foul 73-66 Northwestern 3:03 left.
And a bad foul on Nebraska.
Dylan Talley hits a 3. then Nebraska get's a turnover and Bo Spencer hit's a 3. 75-72 Northwestern 1:34 left.
And McCray misses a huge 1 and 1 77-72 Northwestern
Why did we just foul there?
84-74 Northwestern final. played well in the second half but you can't wait until halftime to start playing. game was pretty close in the second half. Late Nebraska fouls made the score more lopsided than it was for much of the second half.
Question for the Count
Exactly, what the hell is this fight all about on Newshounds and who the hell is Sewell?
Count's Answer: On a Newshounds birther thread a birther named Sam Sewell showed up and began his introduction to the group by patting himself on the ass bragging about being a member of Mensa, a navy officer, a reverand, a worker with gifted children. What rubbed many of us the wrong way was not so much that he was a another crack pot birther but that he insisted on telling us with every post how smart he was while of course misspelling words like big and tried and talking down to other members of Newshounds.
You can find some of his early work here on BAD below as I copied it. He's been posting for at least 48 hours straight so to copy all of his posts would take up 6 pages. A quick search of credentials on the net found most of his claims to be dubious at best. Bottom line he's a bogus reverend at a church where they sit around drink coffee, and sing Kumbaya and he get's to claim the tax deduction. He is also a peddler of a snake oil which he claims if you follow his plan you'll never have to see a Doctor again.
His trolling style is eerily similar to one Bob Peters even down to the fake threats, embellishments of his life accomplishments, his threats of law suits, and the fact he is originally from Iowa. However a search of Sam Sewell shows he is a totally separate moron from that moron Bob Peters.
Count's Answer: On a Newshounds birther thread a birther named Sam Sewell showed up and began his introduction to the group by patting himself on the ass bragging about being a member of Mensa, a navy officer, a reverand, a worker with gifted children. What rubbed many of us the wrong way was not so much that he was a another crack pot birther but that he insisted on telling us with every post how smart he was while of course misspelling words like big and tried and talking down to other members of Newshounds.
You can find some of his early work here on BAD below as I copied it. He's been posting for at least 48 hours straight so to copy all of his posts would take up 6 pages. A quick search of credentials on the net found most of his claims to be dubious at best. Bottom line he's a bogus reverend at a church where they sit around drink coffee, and sing Kumbaya and he get's to claim the tax deduction. He is also a peddler of a snake oil which he claims if you follow his plan you'll never have to see a Doctor again.
His trolling style is eerily similar to one Bob Peters even down to the fake threats, embellishments of his life accomplishments, his threats of law suits, and the fact he is originally from Iowa. However a search of Sam Sewell shows he is a totally separate moron from that moron Bob Peters.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
