Inflated Deflategate Hate

I’ve been surprised how many people I have heard say they were thinking about not watching the Super Bowl because of the cheating allegations from deflated footballs.  I can’t speak about everywhere else, but living in what would be considered the Denver Bronco market, it seems that the fans here have taken cheating personally, starting with Ray Lewis’s deer antler spray 2 years ago, Seattle’s Adderall use last year, and now their rival, and Peyton Manning’s nemesis, has moved on to the big game all because of deflated footballs.

It’s ridiculous to me that fans or teams would feel victimized by all this, especially since a lot of these claims and accusations were unfounded, and the results of the deflation investigation haven’t been released yet. 

Given the Broncos recent history of cheating, it would be extremely hypocritical for their fans to get upset about it.  In 2007, the Patriots were involved with “spygate” in which they were “caught” videotaping a Jets practice.  In 2010, the Broncos were caught doing the same thing to the 49ers.  This year, the Broncos are being looked at for the way they handled and misled injury reporting surrounding Manning.

So my next question is, if fans are wanting to boycott this Super Bowl because of “cheating”, why didn’t they do it last year, or the year before that? 

Gaining an advantage over an opponent isn’t anything new.  Last year, the Giants were faking injuries to slow down the Eagles fast paced no-huddle offense.  The Colts were pumping in artificial crowd noise a just a couple years ago.  The Redskins were penalized for salary cap violations recently.  The Giants kicked footballs that were lined up on the line of scrimmage in Super Bowl 25 to slow down the Bills no huddle offense.  The Giants also filmed the Bills practices for that Super Bowl, too.  Bill Romanowski was infamous for his steroid use.  Offensive linemen use double-sided carpet tape to hold down their jerseys to prevent defensive linemen from being able to grab them.  They also used Vaseline in the ‘80’s to accomplish the same thing.  Fred Biletnikoff and Lester Hayes were famous for their use of Stickum when they were amongst the league leaders in receptions and interceptions respectively.  Paul Hornung was suspended for the 1963 season for betting.  In 1925, the Milwaukee Badgers fielded a team of high schoolers in a colluded effort with the Chicago Cardinals to inflate their win percentage.  

And pro football probably has the shortest list of cheating per capita compared to all the other sports.

Much like the wealthy taking advantage of loopholes in the tax system, the working class milking the clock at work, and presidents of the United States issuing executive orders to circumnavigate proper procedures, NFL teams will look to gain advantages over opponents.  Of all the forms of “cheating” that I have seen over the years, deflated footballs seem like the least likely to offer a real advantage.

But if fans are really going to consider this “cheating”, where will they stop?  Stadium designs?  The Seahawks stadium is designed to amplify crowd noise.  

Russell Wilson, following the Seahawks improbable win in the NFC championship game, blamed divine intervention for the victory.  If that's not blatant cheating, I'm not convinced anything else qualifies.

Revelation Revolution

Michael Sam's openness about his sexual orientation puts him on the brink of being the first professional football player to be openly gay. He becomes a pioneer of sorts, similar to that of Jackie Robinson, the first openly black man to play in Major League Baseball in the modern era.

While Sam may one day become lauded for his bravery as a homosexual trailblazer, it worries me that football for me may never be the same. When I see Sam at the bottom of a pileup, the only thing I will see is a cup of fruit-on-the-bottom yogurt. I will forever be haunted by the whispers of "taste the rainbow" every time he comes in contact with Seattle running back and Skittles spokesperson, Marshawn Lynch.

But aside from the psychological stalemate that I may experience, I can't help it but to think about the potential evolution of the game as more players become open about their homosexuality.

I'm not sure that there is a more heterosexually compromising position than that of the center to quarterback exchange. The two-man luge in slow motion, some of the maneuvers in wrestling, even the story in Blades of Glory pale in comparison to the picture of one man standing behind a bent over man while wearing skin-tight leotard capris.

It is a position that Miley Cyrus and Robin Thicke attempted at the VMAs. It is the scene that Freddie Mercury and the Village People dream of reenacting. But as disturbing as these images are, or would be, it happens in every football game, usually about 115 times.

Does the increasing popularity of homosexuality mean that the offensive formations are going to evolve more rapidly to accommodate potentially gay centers or quarterbacks? Will we see a league in which offenses perform exclusively out of the shotgun formation? It would seem that it would have to, especially after the unveiling of the Jonathan Martin abuse in recent weeks. Teams will do everything possible to create an atmosphere conducive to making all team members comfortable.

It seems that the strides that teams will make to comply with the Jonathan Martin rule would also necessitate locker room arrangement modifications. The purpose of separate men's and women's bathrooms is to provide one with privacy from those who are attracted to the respective plumbing. I'm willing to bet that no straight man will feel comfortable whipping out his wiener at the urinal next to Michael Sam, which completely nullifies the entire purpose having the bathroom in a separate room.

Or what about the play by play commentary? Will they have to change the way they say things and the terms that are used? When Al Michaels says that the quarterback is under center, it now leaves a lot more to the imagination.

It would be a lot more beneficial to the NFL, the teams, and the fans if sexual orientation weren't even addressed. Teams excluding the New York Jets hate distractions. The NFL hates negative repercussions resonating from controversial topics. The fans want to see Michael Sam hit other players, not hit on other players. The fans want to see him put a a good lick on the running back on the football field, not wonder if he's doing the same in the locker room. They want to see him blow up a play, not a player.

I just hope that football's evolution doesn't become motivated by political correctness. I want to enjoy the game for its chess game strategies, not its sideshow tabloid material.

However, since he will inevitably join a team at some point whether through the draft or free agency, he does have the potential to do something fairly monumental in the eyes of many people. I'm sure they are hoping he doesn't blow it...or are they?

Negative Nicknames

The Washington Redskins mascot has been scrutinized for years, but it seems that the Redskins controversy has risen to a whole new level lately ever since Bob Costas verbalized his views on national television.  

I can understand the viewpoint of those in favor of a name change.  It could be insensitive to some.  It could even be offensive.  But what I don't understand is why the Redskins seem to be the only team in the crosshairs of the public's eye.  Most of the mascots in the National Football League could be deemed as offensive, if not now, certainly in the future. 

Here's a list:

New York Jets:  September 11, 2001 will always be a day that weighs heavy on the minds of Americans.  However, the country will always be reminded of the projectiles used to carry out so much devastation due to a mascot that is certain to bring nightmares to those directly affected by the tragedy.  Ironically, this event took place in the very city that the Jets represent.

New York Giants:  Mayor Bloomberg should find this one offensive.  He is outspoken about his goal to curb obesity, but fails to recognize that the Giants nickname could be offensive to the morbidly obese.

Green Bay Packers:  how has the LGBT community not attacked this one yet?  While "Packers" is derived from a completely different source, meat packing and fudge packing has a completely different connotation nowadays.

Kansas City Chiefs:  the mascot may not be offensive, but isn't the color scheme for the team a representation of what the Oneida tribe finds offensive with the Redskin mascot?

Arizona Cardinals:  with all the corruption within the Catholic Church, especially amongst its leaders with the way young boys are treated, I am really surprised that victims of child molestation haven't looked to the Arizona Cardinals as an opportunity for making a quick and easy dollar.

Carolina Panthers:  the fact that the Panther on the side of the helmet is black speaks volumes.  The Black Panthers were an extremely racially charged group.

Tampa Bay Buccaneers:  the NFL is going to extreme measures to clean up criminal activity off the field by those who represent the NFL community.  Having a mascot that represents criminal behavior seems quite counterintuitive.  

Oakland Raiders: see above.  Except, in this case, the mascot gives the city an accurate depiction.

San Diego Chargers:  how are the Christians not offended by this one?  John the Baptist's head was carried on a charger.  Therefore, a charger could be a representation of Christian persecution.

New England Patriots:  the Patriot Act has really been a sore spot in conservative circles.  Since the revelation from Eric Snowden about the NSA, the conservatives have felt betrayed by their former president,  George W.  The Patriot Act sure seems like a bad idea now, at least poorly thought out.

Buffalo Bills:  Buffalo Bill Cody got his nickname from a buffalo killing contest with William Comstock.  The winner would be able to claim the "Buffalo Bill" nickname.  Cody killed 68 buffalo to Comstock's 48.  How has PETA and anyone else concerned about the buffalo population not offended by this mindless and unnecessary slaughter of buffalo?

Baltimore Ravens:  the Ravens mascot is named from a poem written by Edgar Allen Poe.  Any association with Poe should be deemed offensive.

Dallas Cowboys:  who killed the Redskins?

My point is that no matter the team nickname or mascot, people can find something offensive about it, if not now, soon.  If this wacky society continues to fail to look past petty differences, or develop thick skins, the only real solution would be to get rid of mascots and nicknames altogether and refer to the teams simply by the city.  

Denny and Un

Sports and politics have always had a history of accompanying one another.  The gladiatorial fights were sponsored for half the year by the Roman government.  Championship teams visit the White House.  Many former athletes have pursued political careers.  But of all the unlikely combinations that the two worlds could have conjured, the dress rehearsal that took place this week may win the prize.

Dennis Rodman, not Hillary Rodham, took a trip to North Korea this past week.  That's right, Dennis Rodman, the guy who dressed up in a wedding dress.  The Dennis Rodman who has more holes, piercings, and ink than Swiss cheese at a tattoo parlor.  The guy who made a living rebounding in the NBA, grabbing enough balls to make even Richard Simmons nauseous.   

We know he made it through airport security somehow, despite wearing more rings than the Kayan people of Burma, but no one really knows what the motivation behind the trip was, but we can certainly speculate. 

Hillary Clinton was the most travelled Secretary of State, piling up as many frequent flyer miles as an albatross.  Despite all that traveling, she never made it north of the 38th parallel on the Korean Peninsula.  Rodman certainly deserves some consideration as a future ambassador.  Perhaps Hillary Clinton's intern (Bill had one) or John Kerry's assistant.  Maybe this trip was a tryout for a future in politics.

Or given Rodman's eccentricity, maybe he was looking for one of those famous North Korean unicorns.  

The most likely scenario was that both he and Kim Jong-Un shared a mutual cognitive  kinship.  Rodman spent a lot of time with the North Korean leader, enough time to consider Kim Jong-Un a lifelong friend.  Kim Jong-Un has already topped Madonna in Rodman's hierarchy of relationships.  They probably got tattooed BFF anklets together.  

But a hook up of this nature is not unprecedented.  You may recall the movie "Benny and Joon", the story of a pair of mentally disabled people becoming lifelong friends.  This story definitely has its similarities.  Two nut jobs, one living in isolation.  This storyline has the potential for the making of a new movie, "Denny and Un".

But regardless of the motivation behind the meeting, this union certainly offers a comedic break to an otherwise tense situation between North Korea and the rest of the world.  Perhaps Dave Chappelle will travel there as Clayton Bigsby.  They have too much in common.  

Oscar's Grouch

The only event that takes place during this time of year is the Oscars.  I'm sure the blank calendar had a lot to do with Hollywood's scheduling tactics.  

The best part of the Oscars is it gives a television gluttoned society the opportunity to consume more television.  We have already seen these movies, and we have already decided which movies were the best, we just have to see what others think about them, and watch them get trophies for it.  And if that wasn't good enough, we get excited and feel the need to watch those movies all over again. 

Having been the exception to society, I failed to watch any of these over celebrated movies on the big-screen.  Seeing the long list of movies nominated as picture of the year make me realize that I didn't miss out on anything.  Apparently none of them were able to stand out.

Among the nine movies nominated for best picture were "The Life of Pi", whose story apparently goes in circles; "Argo", a movie about the filming of a movie; and "Les Misérables", a movie titled miserable.  

What really gets me is how much air time is dedicated to watching the audience show up.  People get to see those same movie stars on television once again, and ogle at the dress that some gay guy pulled out of his rear.  We get to watch Jennifer Aniston blend in with the red carpet. 

It's too bad that this isn't enough to quench women's thirst for window shopping. 

We get to listen to an analysis of Nicole Kidman's hairstyle.  We get to observe Adele flaunting her over exaggerated curves.  We get to watch Bradley Cooper's ostrich escort him.  We get to observe the identical tuxedos that all the men are wearing.

And because we are all incapable of formulating our own opinions, we have to tune in to listen to Joan Rivers offer her expert opinion.

The sad part is that most of the viewers are in denial.  Of course this plays such a big role in pop culture.  Without it, how else would we know that Halle Berry is still the hottest woman in Hollywood?  Without it, how would we know that Fergie was pregnant? 

To me, it is a clear indication to the extent of the withdrawals America is experiencing just a couple weeks after football is over.   

Credit Score Myth

It seems that every activity we do everyday is tied to some sort of reminder to our credit scores.  Whether it is some ad on the radio, an e-mail, billboard, or television, we are constantly being reminded that this number is the most important number for our financial well-being, and protecting it can mean the difference between prosperity and poverty.  

The purpose of the credit score is to allow creditors to take a glimpse at someone's financial history, more specifically, how successful one has been in paying their bills in a timely manner.  

This number can be the difference between a $100,000 loan and a $1,000 loan.  It can be the difference between a 2013 Audi A8 and a 1993 Geo Metro.  It can be the difference between a 3.5% interest rate and a 6.5% interest rate.  Because of these differences, I can understand why creditors place so much weight and focus on this number. 

However, this score might be the most overrated and overused number that we have become associated with.  

Why?

Because, for many, it is a gauge that indicates how much debt, or more debt, one can acquire.  Overrated because people actually go through great lengths to ensure a favorable score, and overused because people actually use it to take out unnecessary loans.

An acquaintance of mine, I'll call him Rick, actually considered himself a millionaire because he took advantage of his credit rating.  He took out loans to buy several expensive cars, boats, houses, and a plethora of other expensive toys.  The combined value of those assets were enough to place him in his desired financial status.  

Unfortunately, too many people abuse their credit score in the same way.  Instead of being responsible, they take advantage of their available credit to satisfy a craving.  

Rick eventually lost everything.  He failed to make the payments and eventually filed for bankruptcy.  I wish I could say that this was an isolated incident, but stories like this happen all too often.  

If people were willing to be responsible for their own financial well-being, banks wouldn't have over lent, people wouldn't have defaulted on loans, banks wouldn't have gone bankrupt, and the most recent economic turmoil may have been averted.  

And yet, these are the people that complained about the economy.  These are the people that blamed Washington D.C. for their foreclosures and repossessions.  

These are the people that enthusiastically grabbed their own ankles, begging for their credit scores to rape them. 

Razorback Ricochet

In case you missed it, one of the most bizarre hunting accidents took place in France recently.  It is a story that could replace Dick Cheney at the mantle of hunting misfortunes.  It was an unlikely set of events that would make even the Big Bang theory seem probable.

The story starts when a 68 year-old avid French hunter takes aim at a boar and hits the trigger button with his booger hook.  The story then takes a vicious turn when the bullet ricochets off the boar at a right angle, travels through the air for two kilometers (1.25 miles), goes through a windshield, strikes the driver, and kills him instantly.

For the typical French investigator, the logical course of action is to give up and close the case, chalking it up as a typical hunting accident. 

However, anyone familiar with ballistics and calibers would be more than willing to look into this one a bit deeper.  Just a little bit.

The first question that comes to mind is the caliber.  It ricocheted at a 90 degree angle, travelled two kilometers, had enough juice to plow through a windshield, and still had enough power to kill a person.  It would have had to be a large caliber on steroids in order to make such an incredible journey.  But a large, powerful caliber wouldn't ricochet off a boar, it would turn the pig into ground sausage.  Interestingly enough, this event took place right before Groundhog Day.  

The next question has to do with science.  How did such a powerful projectile overcome the laws of physics?  How does a bullet that loses half of its kinetic energy from the ricochet off a soft pig, and continues to lose kinetic energy through two kilometers of fields, muster the strength to not ricochet off a hard windshield?  

Mythbusters demonstrated a bullet's difficulty to penetrate paper following a ricochet.  The French investigators are telling us that the bullet gained momentum following the ricochet, and maintained that momentum following its collision with the windshield.  

This would actually be groundbreaking evidence for some JFK assassination theorists.  The Magic Bullet theory is one that is criticized in the same way.  In essence, it theorizes that a single bullet created all seven wounds found in John F. Kennedy, ultimately killing him, and found its way into Texas governor John Connally.  

But in the realistic scenario that the bullet isn't magical and that the laws of physics are consistent, the only other explanations would be foul play or gross negligence.  

I can understand negligence if this were his first time holding a rifle and didn't know to keep his finger off the trigger.  I can understand negligence if a shotgun were used while pheasant hunting. 

A 1.25 mile shot takes more than just a magic bullet.  It takes more than just a large caliber.  It takes cooperative elements.  It takes an experienced marksman, perhaps an avid hunter.  It appears that it may take a 68 year-old French hunter.