MGoDC

July 2nd, 2010 at 11:30 AM ^

ESPN has been banned at my office ever since the WC started. Any chance you could copy/paste some of the highlights here? Assuming this isnt an insider article.

M-Wolverine

July 2nd, 2010 at 11:54 AM ^

#11

I liked Michael Davies' take on England's demise: "Americans will never completely understand how crap it is, most of the time, to be English. We might have cute accents and be good at cocktail parties. But we are mostly losers." That slayed me. England's fatalistic, self-loathing, S&M-style attitude toward its national team tops Buffalo Bills fans, Minnesota Vikings fans or even Cleveland fans.

Part of #13

Actually, it made me want to go to war with Ghana. I wanted to invade them. I'm not even kidding. That's another great thing about the World Cup: Name another sport in which you genuinely want to invade other countries when you lose.

#14

To hear Germany described in such likable, underdoggy tones. Who would have thought these young upstarts would jell this fast? It's like the announcers were talking about the 2008 Tampa Bay Rays or something … if the Tampa Bay Rays had started two world wars and nearly brought down Europe.

18 is on how Americans should feel after the US loss, basically "frustrated by appreciative". And 19-20 is on how after being told in '78, '88, '94, '02 that soccer was taking off in America, and it didn't, being told the same thing in '10...he believes it now. And why. (Not sure I agree, but it's interesting). But those answers are long, and I'm probably bordering the fair use practice as it is, so here's a taste, and take a look later.

bronxblue

July 2nd, 2010 at 11:53 AM ^

Nice article.  I will say, when he writes about sports that are not in his typical wheelhouse (basketball, AL baseball) or about Boston, it reads far more like a fan and can actually be interesting.  But when writes about some team that he has a vested interest in, I usually just have to skip.  As someone who is new to world soccer, it was fun to read.

MGoRobo

July 2nd, 2010 at 11:58 AM ^

Unless you're a fan of said teams.  In that case, he's excellent.

I think that happens with every writer, though.  The Bronx on bronxblue probably means you're from NY, thus...a Yankee fan if I'm not mistaken?  If I'm right, then that would obviously stop you from liking his Boston stuff.  If I'm not, then...it's probably the fact that you don't share his feelings for that particular topic.

bronxblue

July 2nd, 2010 at 3:59 PM ^

Actually, born and raised in Detroit area, only moved to NY a couple of years ago for the wife.  Probably will return to MI at some point.  My issue isn't that he likes Boston, but that he sometimes writes as if he is objectively discussing a team and then says something like "Rajon Rondo may be the best PG in the league, and a future hall of famer" or something along those lines and the homerism just seeps out.  He also rags on college football because it is not the NFL and thus the players are inferior, even though the reason he really dislikes CFB is because he went to Holy Cross and they didn't have a football team.  Just stuff like that.

I think he is a good writer and I loved his Book of Basketball, but his homerism makes it hard to take him seriously when he clearly has a horse in the race and won't admit it.

MAgoBLUE

July 2nd, 2010 at 4:22 PM ^

-Holy Cross has played football since 1884.  The BC rivalry was a big deal around here until the programs went in different directions about 25 years ago.  They still play as a member of the FCS Patriot League

-If Rondo keeps up his current pace he probably would make the HOF

-Simmons constantly admits his homerism

bronxblue

July 4th, 2010 at 8:43 PM ^

The best PG in the league should hit better than 60% of his FTs, shoot better than 22% from 3 pt range, hit that 17-20 ft jumper far more consistently than Rondo.  IME, Rondo is a very good athlete who plays with three legit HOFs, isn't asked to do much more than distribute the ball, play(admittedly very good) defense, and drive to the hoop and score when the defense guards him one-on-one. That's the thing with this team - most teams are so worried about Pierce and/or Allen getting hot that they single Rondo and picm that poison over anyone else on the team beating them.  I'm not saying it is a great strategy, but only LA started to sag on him when they realized Allen was out of gas, and not surprisingly Rondo's production suffered. 

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/r/rondora01.html

Off the top of my head,  I would take Chris Paul, Deron Williams, and Derrick Rose over Rondo.  I want to see Rondo take over a mediocre team and carry it for long stretches before I will crown him the best PG in the league, let alone a future HOF. 

amir_al-muminin

July 2nd, 2010 at 12:43 PM ^

We've noticed, now please stop reminding us.  There are only two reasons (I can think of) why you or the others like you feel the constant need to knock soccer in the soccer threads:

1.) You're 12, or

2.) You aren't very good at anything...and also 12.

Please tell me...what other conclusions could possibly be drawn?

amir_al-muminin

July 2nd, 2010 at 1:29 PM ^

I'm sure there are some in the MGoCommunity who do not like video games.  Why don't we see them trolling the NCAA 11 threads, ripping on games and gamers?  

Well, I think that's because if an MGoBlogger doesn't like video games, he or she is probably an adult, and probably has at least something going for him/her in life, so he or she does not feel the need to click on threads in which they have no interest and do nothing but detract from the discussion.

amir_al-muminin

July 2nd, 2010 at 1:23 PM ^

Then why isn't your immaturity on display in every other non-football-related thread?  

It must be the flopping that bothers you...yet you don't seem to be bothered by your own behavior, which is akin to that of a pre-adolescent girl. 

If you don't like it, ignore it.

chitownblue2

July 2nd, 2010 at 1:29 PM ^

It's a football blog? I could have sworn I've seen tons of basketball, hockey, baseball, and lacrosse posts here. Not to mention....WORLD CUP POSTS.

Nobody cares if you don't like it, it's your right to dislike it. But why do you feel compelled to go to every single thread and bitch about it? You don't like it, fine. Don't click the thread if it offends your sensibilities.

MGoRobo

July 2nd, 2010 at 1:47 PM ^

First of all, it's not a football blog. It's a blog on Michigan sports where there is a lot of football talk when it's football season.  Second of all, Brian decides what goes on here and what doesn't.  He seemed to be fine with World Cup talk so no one should have anything to say otherwise.  Third of all, the boards are for discussion on any topics the MGoComunity feels strongly about.  For that reason, we have threads about books and Ann Arbor weather (among many others).  Finally, most World Cup threads are clearly labeled OT so that people like you won't look at them if they only want to know about Michigan football.

Conclusion: shut up and get with the program if you're going to open threads not about football.  If you don't want to...then get out!

Seth9

July 2nd, 2010 at 12:31 PM ^

The problem with Bill Simmons is that even when he's writing decent articles, he always seems to write something dumb that shows how narcissistic he is. For instance, in this article he wrote:

 


When I argued recently that the Cup should be every three years, readers flooded me with reasons it couldn't work: It's too expensive (apparently the Cup always loses money for whichever country gets it); they'd have to do too much reconfiguring for smaller tournaments already in place (note: I don't get that argument; that's like saying you can't have the Oscars interfering with the SAG Awards or something); people like having it every four years because it's more meaningful that way (by that logic, you should have sex every four years, too); and most importantly, FIFA never wants to go head-to-head with the Summer Olympics.

My counter for the last argument: Why not? So … we'd have MORE sports on? Wow, that sounds terrible! I'd hate to have all those exciting things to watch. And by the way, the Olympics should switch to every three years as well. I never understood the "No, it has to be every four years, that's the way they've always done it" argument. That's like saying "I'm not getting an HD plasma; I'm sticking with my old-school TV, that's the way I've always watched it." It's stupid. It's a loser's mentality.

Despite knowing that the World Cup loses money for the host country (when it's not the US) and (presumably) knowing that the Olympics loses money for the host country, and the television networks who broadcast it, he states that it would be a good idea for FIFA to go up against the Summer Olympics because he would have more stuff to watch. This is laughably dumb when you consider that you have two sporting events that a) lose money and b) attempt to minimize the damage with the influx of a  huge amount of TV revenue. This influx of TV revenue would be drastically reduced if the events had to go up against each other, causing everyone involved to lose money and thus severely damaging the long term prospects of both events. Furthermore, similar arguments can be made for making the events take place once every three years. Simmons knows all of this, but he doesn't care because as far as he's concerned, his wish for more sports to watch should supersede reality.

Anonymosity

July 2nd, 2010 at 12:51 PM ^

Bill Simmons thinks the NFL regular season should expand to 24 games, and the playoffs should be best-of-3 series*.  He also thinks the PGA majors should each take place three times a year, instead of each being only annual**.  Because, hey, that's MOAR SPORTZ!

*I don't know that as a fact

**nor that

GVBlue86

July 2nd, 2010 at 1:43 PM ^

I really enjoy Simmons. His mailbags are absolutely hilarious, as well as his sprinkled in pop culture references. I do think he is a bit ridiculous on some topics and he reminds me of one of my best friends who when he decides to think a certain way, you can't change his mind. No matter how overwhelming the evidence against his point of view (i.e having the world cup every 3 yrs). Take him for what he is. He's different from every other national columnist, he's a huge homer and doesn't deny it, and tends to be very irrational. But he's very funny.

MAgoBLUE

July 2nd, 2010 at 2:33 PM ^

but he doesn't do enough of it.  The majority of his content now is podcasts of taped phone conversations with his friends.  They are never as good as his columns and I find his voice extremely irritating